Religious changes to the Middle East(and some religious changes)

[Chamboozer]

Just out of curiosity, what about the region between the Bosphorus and Nicomedia/Izmit? That area was never meaningfully occupied by the Turks until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1333 - 1338 (The Seljuks only occupied the region for 20 years or so). Did the Turkification of that region happen fully within the first century?

These areas were being depopulated long before they were ever actually conquered, as they were subject to frequent raids from every conceivable military force in the region. Basically, Turkification and Islamization were rarely state policy, just a side effect of the decades of economic disruption and warfare that any given place suffered from. Once the Ottomans took over a province the process was usually frozen in place - no more danger, no more Greeks fleeing their homes, but those who had already fled could have their places taken by Muslim immigrants. Thus the transformation was twofold - first population flight, then after security was re-established conversion became the second significant facilitator of demographic change. But conversion was much more slow, and it was really the first phenomenon which was more significant.

 

[Atlantians]

I would fully agree, but i think that the province in general should get the negative modifier of have being occupied. Yes they shouldn't be able to take forts instantly, but the province itself should suffer.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Clausewitz_]

No, I use historians that actually study Medieval Iran. You're citing two websites, one copied from the other, that ultimately links back to a book on Modern Iran. Why would historians of Modern Iran need to understand the religious situation of pre-Safavid Iran, or to explain it in a nuanced way in the introduction (the cited pages were 19-20) of their book, which has as its topic the Iranian Revolution? Modernists are, naturally, much less well-read in the relevant Medievalist literature and more likely to stick to older and less factual ideas about Ismail's legendary formation of the Iranian nation through the conversion of the country.

I had recently edited this into my last post, maybe you missed it:





It's far from clear what Iran should be, but it is better to represent Iran's heterodox tendencies - de facto Shi'ite religious beliefs - as such rather than pretend Iran was the same as Egypt in religious makeup.



Not Iraq, for Iraq was largely Sunni outside of the shrine cities. I can't speak for every single province of Iran since I'm not an expert on it - I study the Ottoman Empire. But given what I know and what I have read, the current situation is fine as it is.

I get your points ans i respect the historians you quote, but i cannot agree that Shia fits Iran best. As Wiz seems to value game-play over historic accuracy, i try to have both in my suggestions. Yes, there were Shi'ite sympathies. Yes, Sufi's muddled with strict Sunni ideals in Iran. But does having all of Iran be Shia model the religious violence that characterized early Safavid history? No. Does it represent that Ismail and later Abbas the great had to implement harsh oppression of Sunni's to solidify their rule? No. Iran starting Sunni, and then being easy to convert when a Shia power comes along is the best solution i can come up with that fits those realities and works with the game criteria. and people seem to mostly agree with me.

 

[Chamboozer]

That's the thing, we can very easily paint it both ways.

Yes, there were Shi'ite sympathies. Yes, Sufi's muddled with strict Sunni ideals in Iran. But does having all of Iran be Shia model the religious violence that characterized early Safavid history?

Does having all of Iran be Sunni model the degree to which Iran, even without the push provided by the Safavids, had already drifted away from Sunni orthodoxy and toward Shi'ite beliefs?

Does it represent that Ismail and later Abbas the great had to implement harsh oppression of Sunni's to solidify their rule?

Does it represent how Ismail was accepted by many of his subjects and was able to draw support from ideologically similar groups to aid in the establishment of his state?

Again, the problem is the one-religion-per-province system, and the inability to represent popular heterodoxy. This is a historical situation which can't be properly represented either one way or the other. Given the limitations of the system, I think the current setup works just fine to depict the religious transformation that had already overtaken much of Iran by the middle of the fifteenth century.

Iran starting Sunni, and then being easy to convert when a Shia power comes along is the best solution i can come up with that fits those realities and works with the game criteria. and people seem to mostly agree with me.

But do the people whose opinions impact the design of the game agree with you?

 

[Demetrios]

These areas were being depopulated long before they were ever actually conquered, as they were subject to frequent raids from every conceivable military force in the region. Basically, Turkification and Islamization were rarely state policy, just a side effect of the decades of economic disruption and warfare that any given place suffered from. Once the Ottomans took over a province the process was usually frozen in place - no more danger, no more Greeks fleeing their homes, but those who had already fled could have their places taken by Muslim immigrants. Thus the transformation was twofold - first population flight, then after security was re-established conversion became the second significant facilitator of demographic change. But conversion was much more slow, and it was really the first phenomenon which was more significant.

But how much raiding would have gone on in that area before the Battle of Pelekanon in 1329? I can see how there may have been some after the Battle of Bapheus in 1302, but the situation for the area between Nicomedia and Cosntantinople wouldn't have become acute until after 1329 (and the almost immediately followed by outright conquest only a few years later during the 1330s, at which time, as you state, the situation would have become "frozen").

Don't get me wrong, I do feel that the case for Greek majorities in a lot of Anatolia during the Ottoman period does tend to get overstated. But In the case of this region, which had been near the centers of Byzantine/Nicaean power for centuries and thus fairly well protected compared to most of the rest of Anatolia, it seems the culture flip you're suggesting is a bit on the rapid side...

 

[Chamboozer]

But how much raiding would have gone on in that area before the Battle of Pelekanon in 1329? I can see how there may have been some after the Battle of Bapheus in 1302, but the situation for the area between Nicomedia and Cosntantinople wouldn't have become acute until after 1329 (and the almost immediately followed by outright conquest only a few years later during the 1330s, at which time, as you state, the situation would have become "frozen").

Don't get me wrong, I do feel that the case for Greek majorities in a lot of Anatolia during the Ottoman period does tend to get overstated. But In the case of this region, which had been near the centers of Byzantine/Nicaean power for centuries and thus fairly well protected compared to most of the rest of Anatolia, it seems the culture flip you're suggesting is a bit on the rapid side...

Perhaps. Nobody knows for sure - the early 14th century is a bit of a dark age for sources of all types, let alone ones which give definitive insight into demography. By no means am I saying that it certainly was one way or another. When I get the chance I'll take a closer look at what sources I do have and see I can give you a more in-depth answer.

 

[Clausewitz_]

That's the thing, we can very easily paint it both ways.



Does having all of Iran be Sunni model the degree to which Iran, even without the push provided by the Safavids, had already drifted away from Sunni orthodoxy and toward Shi'ite beliefs

Much better than having it be Shia. While not strictly Sunni, they were much more Sunni than Shi'ite.

Does it represent how Ismail was accepted by many of his subjects and was able to draw support from ideologically similar groups to aid in the establishment of his state?

Again, the problem is the one-religion-per-province system, and the inability to represent popular heterodoxy. This is a historical situation which can't be properly represented either one way or the other. Given the limitations of the system, I think the current setup works just fine to depict the religious transformation that had already overtaken much of Iran by the middle of the fifteenth century.

That's exactly my point in giving them missionary strength permanently, and giving them missionary strength, legitimacy, and morale for a good chunk of time. Thank you for supporting me.

But do the people whose opinions impact the design of the game agree with you?

No idea, they haven't commented.

 

[AndrejK]

How about getting some provinces Sunni and some Shia

 

[Clausewitz_]

How about getting some provinces Sunni and some Shia

Maybe, but honestly I think the increased missionary strength shows how many Iranians had Shi'ite leanings and were willing to fully convert to Shia Islam better.

 

[gall]

Very interesting discussion. OT: i don't think it make sense to give them permanent conversion power. It would lead to absurd situation were Safavids are conquering Arabia (Najd, Hejdaz etc) and converting everything to Shia easily without crazy unrest. Their (historical) methods outside of Persia and Iraq wouldn't work (i guess they would cause quite dangerous revolt and seceding territory back de facto). Much better would be giving whole region some Sufi heresy with effect "easier to convert to Shia". If not possible (or it kills AI), it is more convenient to keep this provinces Shia, but add some negative event or -tax eff or +unrest modifier for 50 years or so. The latter part would hurt gameplay and too some level even "history simulation" - Safavid Empire wasn't really on the verge of bankruptcy/breaking during their first decades.

 

[CrabHelmet]

The modifier "Sufi Presence" with a -2% local missionary chance could do the job.

 

[Trace284]

Another idea here: Get rid I the -1 tolerance of heretics for Catholicism and -1 tolerance of heathens for Shinto. These religions were not inherently less tolerant than other religions. Replace Catholicism's negative with -5% tech cost(see buff Catholicism) and replace Shinto's with fort defense. These religions became intolerant through actions of rulers and religions figures. The counter-reformation and the various inquisitions should hike up intolerance in catholic countries, and the decision to close Japan should do the same for Shinto. This is #2 on racial/religious paradox fuck-ups for me, #1 being African unit spirits.

I could at least agree with the part about African units. Even though Europe is the focus, having ONE set of sprites for all the non-arabic african countries is insane. It'd be like having maybe two different unit sprites for all of europe.

 

[Chamboozer]

But how much raiding would have gone on in that area before the Battle of Pelekanon in 1329? I can see how there may have been some after the Battle of Bapheus in 1302, but the situation for the area between Nicomedia and Cosntantinople wouldn't have become acute until after 1329 (and the almost immediately followed by outright conquest only a few years later during the 1330s, at which time, as you state, the situation would have become "frozen").

Don't get me wrong, I do feel that the case for Greek majorities in a lot of Anatolia during the Ottoman period does tend to get overstated. But In the case of this region, which had been near the centers of Byzantine/Nicaean power for centuries and thus fairly well protected compared to most of the rest of Anatolia, it seems the culture flip you're suggesting is a bit on the rapid side...

From Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism:

...Nicomedia [was] accessible only by sea. The Sangarius [Sakarya] valley was left desolate. In 1301 Osman devastated the Bithynian regions of Nicomedia, Prusa, Nicaea, and these cities were soon isolated from the countryside so that for the next two or three decades they lived in a state of siege... Very often rural populations abandoned their unprotected villages for the temporary security of the walled towns and fortresses. But as safety was not assured even there, the Greeks frequently abandoned the towns for the islands off the western coast or for Constantinople and other European regions of the empire... The Sangarius valley experienced a considerable depopulation.

The problem in answering your question is that most instances I can find of this discussion refer to Bithynia as a whole rather than to the area covered by the game's Kocaeli province in particular, so I've looked for references to Nicomedia and Chalcedon. Citing the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, Vryonis states that by the time of the Ottoman conquest the towns surrounding Nicomedia were empty (Page 301, note 92). Chalcedon itself appears to have been hit particularly hard:

In the church of Chalcedon decline is apparent from the early fourteenth century, and it seems to have been largely destroyed through the raids of the Turks... In 1387 the metropolitan of Cyzicus received the metropolitanate of Chalcedon, the document mentioning that, "The city of Chalcedon was destroyed many years ago and has very few inhabitants so that they have no need of a bishop."

Earlier he notes that the proximity of the region to Constantinople actually encouraged flight:

The Greek inhabitants, who had only to cross the Bosphorus to reach safety, soon evacuated the regions of Chalcedon and Chrysopolis.

This last statement referred specifically to the first Turkish conquest, but the logic of it applies just as well to the fourteenth century.

So the answer is that it's inconclusive. So little can be said in certain terms about the realities of the early fourteenth century, but based on Vryonis (who was, it must be said, interested in presenting the Turkish conquests in these terms) it seems as though this region of Anatolia also experienced significant depopulation in the time before the final Ottoman conquest. The Byzantines were able to hold onto the cities until several decades into the fourteenth century, but how effectively could they defend the countryside? Probably not very well.