Portuguese occupation of Oman is wrong

[Druplesnubb]

The Portuguese occupation of Oman in the 16th century as shown in the history files is historically incorrect. From what I could gather on the subject they only ever held the capital, Muscat. It also ends way too early. The history files show Portugal as having been completely expelled from Oman by 1624 even though they held on to muscat until 1650.

 

[Junuxx]

What's your source?

 

[MadDjinn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscat,_Oman#History

The Portuguese took it in 1508 and kept it until local rebels kicked them out in 1650. Give or take some time during wars when it was sieged.

 

[A Swell Guy]

The Omani events also misspell the Imam as Iman.

On the topic of Oman during this time period, it has a fairly interesting history of competing powers between elected Imams, and dynastic Sultans, some of whom held both titles simultaneously. This power struggle began over a thousand years ago, and continued up until the 1950's with the unification of Muscat and Oman. This dynamic situation being represented by a single lackluster event is fairly underwhelming.

The driving of the Portuguese out of Oman, and even out of parts of East Africa, and the control of East African trade are really interesting as it's one of the few cases in which a colonial power was not only expelled by the local population, but was also pursued out of their other foreign holdings resulting in their maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean being supplanted. Unfortunately, there are no links between the Zanzibar and Hormuz trade nodes, making this Omani trade empire fairly unworthwhile.

 

[rbl0010]

. Unfortunately, there are no links between the Zanzibar and Hormuz trade nodes, making this Omani trade empire fairly unworthwhile.

I do like to play Oman but that is one of my problems indeed. By the nature of the in game trade flows, it seems impossible to have trade flow up that way, otherwise it would not allow it to go around Africa. The only thing to do for those who own WoN is to change the trade port to Zanzibar and collect there instead, but it seems illogical.

There could be ideas or policies that would lower the malus for collecting in non home node?

Otherwise, I do agree that the representation of Portgual as owning the whole place is quite over the top. But already the representation of Oman as a "country" is somewhat dubious..its limitations inherent to the game's modelling.

 

[Utretch]

I do like to play Oman but that is one of my problems indeed. By the nature of the in game trade flows, it seems impossible to have trade flow up that way, otherwise it would not allow it to go around Africa. The only thing to do for those who own WoN is to change the trade port to Zanzibar and collect there instead, but it seems illogical.

There could be ideas or policies that would lower the malus for collecting in non home node?

Otherwise, I do agree that the representation of Portgual as owning the whole place is quite over the top. But already the representation of Oman as a "country" is somewhat dubious..its limitations inherent to the game's modelling.

Actually, somebody better informed than I correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Sultans of Oman move their capital to Zanzibar for sometime?

 

[Silver Viper]

"...it's one of the few cases in which a colonial power was not only expelled by the local population, but was also pursued out of their other foreign holdings resulting in their maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean being supplanted.".

not just in oman, if i remember correctly abbas I of persian safavid dynasty kicked them out of southern persia and some islands in persian gulf too, and they never had a foothold in persian gulf again. they rly took some hits in the mid-east! lol

 

[Agoria]

Persia didn't mattered for them AFAIK, they kept what mattered for a very long time and they even kicked Ottoman's ass for that (indian and african bases for indian ocean trade).

Unfortunately, there are no links between the Zanzibar and Hormuz trade nodes, making this Omani trade empire fairly unworthwhile.

This reminds me the biggest problem when playing a colonial power.
There is almost no point to settle in India. It should provide a powerful modifier (way more than the static modifier already coded). The cheap trade buffs of portuguese ideas are here to emulate their extreme wealthyness when they took control of the Indian trade roads, but it should be instead some powerful modifiers triggered by any western power accomplishing that. And it's obvious that the portuguese need/deserve at least one naval idea and maybe even one land idea, in place of that lazy trade buffs

 

[Eilif]

not just in oman, if i remember correctly abbas I of persian safavid dynasty kicked them out of southern persia and some islands in persian gulf too, and they never had a foothold in persian gulf again. they rly took some hits in the mid-east! lol

The Hormuz island, not represented in game as its own province, was an independent emirate that became a vassal of the Portuguese Empire in the early XV century before beeing conquered by the Safavid Persia.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

The Portuguese occupation of Oman in the 16th century as shown in the history files is historically incorrect. From what I could gather on the subject they only ever held the capital, Muscat. It also ends way too early. The history files show Portugal as having been completely expelled from Oman by 1624 even though they held on to muscat until 1650.

This hasn't been pointed out before?

 

[Druplesnubb]

This hasn't been pointed out before?

Not as far as I know. If you know someonewho's pointed it out before you're free to link it.

Actually, somebody better informed than I correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Sultans of Oman move their capital to Zanzibar for sometime?

Both the wikipedia articles on Oman and Zanzibar seems to agree with you. Sadly I could only find the source material in a preview format that doesn't include the relevant pages.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Not as far as I know. If you know someonewho's pointed it out before you're free to link it.

I've got no idea, just think it would be a bit surprising if nobody had previously noticed, considering this mistake was in previous games, as well.

Then again, later start-dates are rarely played, considering railroading leads to similar outcomes each time, thus making choosing later dates less interesting (compared to Crusader Kings II, for example, and even that suffers a problem with most games using the earliest possible start.)