Rethinking about Feudal Theocracy

[moscal]

Feudal Theocracy. Form of monarchy in EU4. In theory - monarchy in post-medieval shia Persia style. But in praxis... Monarchy with core modifiers from theoracy + 3 buttons. Not only Persia in EU4 had FT, but also minor, fanatic political organisms (like a heretical Mushasha) and greater Sokoto. Button ofc - still connected with few historical, persian actions. And fact, that many of FT in CoC was connected with non-mainstream fanatical branches/sects of muslim, so ideological base is correct to bonuses.

But later this type of monarchy is gived for muslim nation after unification of Islam. This decision also change name of nation to Caliphate...

Eee...

Okey Pdx. Caliphate was form "de facto" of sacral monarchy. BUT effects of modifier "A United Islam" repeat with core modifiers of FT, so game-logic of this is lost.

And current zoroastrian nations also can have this. So current FT isn't only for high-religious monarchy of islam world, but also for zoroastrian powers. In zoroastrian world rulers was as gods or very close to gods. Soooo... in theory this still is rational, but... if zoroastrian, why not inti? Or confucianist? Or others nations with religions, where deification of monarch was a normal situation?

What I want? Rational rethinking about FT. Also in modifiers, also "what this is in general" and maybe also in buttons. Rework and upgrade.

Separate problem with FT is fact, that this gov. haven't own events, decisions, others reforms etc. But many other unique 1. tier reforms havent own flavour, so lesser problem.

 

[moscal]

Ok. Nobody want join, so I give few next thinks.

Feudal Theocracy mean two thing.
1. Monarchy, where ruler is religious and secular head; complete lack division parts of gov. into secular and ecclesiastical
2. Internal organsation is similar to feudalism

But FT current haven't anything basing on feudalism. Even stupid +X for nobles.
Because FT was main based on persian empire, part 2 can be readed as form strong local gov. like a satrapies. Ergo should be higher support for owning big vassals. Maybe even as individual non-1 tier reform.

 

[Kauê II]

I don't see the need to change anything. As I understand it, feudal theocracy is the ideal regime of Islam, so it has nothing to do with other religions that do not follow sharia. The most I see that could be changed is the name of the government to one that can better represent reality. But at this point, I don't have enough knowledge of islamic theology to suggest a better name.

 

[moscal]

As I understand it, feudal theocracy is the ideal regime of Islam, so it has nothing to do with other religions that do not follow sharia.

So your understanding is wrong.

Current zoroastrians also can have Feudal Theocracy. And, FYI, zoroastrians arent muslim denomination.

BTW. We havent any notes in game that FT is connected with sharia. Neither in description, neither in bonuses, neither in mechanism. So again - you are wrog.

For "how we read sharia law" we have mechanism of piety and this is for any gov. type.

 

[Kauê II]

So your understanding is wrong.

Current zoroastrians also can have Feudal Theocracy. And, FYI, zoroastrians arent muslim denomination.

BTW. We havent any notes in game that FT is connected with sharia. Neither in description, neither in bonuses, neither in mechanism. So again - you are wrog.

For "how we read sharia law" we have mechanism of piety and this is for any gov. type.

There is also the defense of a monarchist form grounded in traditional Islamic theology that I think this government is the correspondent. The religious mechanics of Islam is another matter. As for access to Zoroastrianism, it's new to me. Here it informs that it is only for Islamic nations:

Monarchy - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[moscal]

As for access to Zoroastrianism, it's new for me

EU4: 1.31.5 Majapahit BETA - Now Available for opt-in

Greetings everyone! Europa Universalis IV 1.31.5 Majapahit is now available as an opt-in beta. Important information: - Please report any issues you find in our Bug Report Forum - Before posting check to see if there is already a report of the...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Ergo - concept that FT is strong connected with sharia isn't to defence.
Second ergo - should be rethinked.

Separate thing is mechanic. Normal bonuses and buttons dont show "this is sharia monarchy". This is only monarchy with missionaries bonuses. ADM-button give lesser cost of build (in lore - change proportions landowners in clergy). DIP-button give dev and lesser dev-cost (in lore - come here miniorites). MIL-button give many claims if others havent your faith (in lore - clergies give law to holy war). Connection with sharia law can be only in MIL-button.

General FT is too general (in descriptions and mechanics) for vision "this is monarchy where sharia is very important". Therefore I wrote about rethinking.

 

[Kauê II]

EU4: 1.31.5 Majapahit BETA - Now Available for opt-in

Greetings everyone! Europa Universalis IV 1.31.5 Majapahit is now available as an opt-in beta. Important information: - Please report any issues you find in our Bug Report Forum - Before posting check to see if there is already a report of the...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Ergo - concept that FT is strong connected with sharia isn't to defence.
Second ergo - should be rethinked.

Separate thing is mechanic. Normal bonuses and buttons dont show "this is sharia monarchy". This is only monarchy with missionaries bonuses. ADM-button give lesser cost of build (in lore - change proportions landowners in clergy). DIP-button give dev and lesser dev-cost (in lore - come here miniorites). MIL-button give many claims if others havent your faith (in lore - clergies give law to holy war). Connection with sharia law can be only in MIL-button.

General FT is too general (in descriptions and mechanics) for vision "this is monarchy where sharia is very important". Therefore I wrote about rethinking.

I'm reading, I didn't see the justification for the change. Which makes it more difficult to determine what this particular government would be. I'll reflect and see if I can be of help on the topic later as I'm sleepy now.
Grateful for the information.

 

[moscal]

You know - I wanted start discussion. I created mod, where FT was based on persian history and policy in shia period (in EU4 scenarios only Persia and Sokoto are great nations with FT), with many events, non-1-tier reforms But this in situation, where non-muslims can have FT (now only zoroastrians) any muslim-centric interpretation of FT is wrong.

If now FT isn't only-muslim, any places where had place "sacral monarchy", should have option transformation to FT. Because this is "feudal theocracy", not a "theocratic despotism" or something similar, this mean that in internal policy head of state haven't great (in theory) unlimited power. Power is strong limited main by (relative) powerful feudals, sacral and/or secular.

 

[Kauê II]

Certainly this is something to be debated. It seems to me that "feudal theocracy" was not created to become more of a generic government, which requires further elaboration on the issue. The extension of government to another religion (which the game itself classifies into another quite separate group) has consequences on the power structure, affecting the political theory that would legitimize such government. While seeking community feedback on this, I found a comment that I find interesting and opportune to post here[1]:

"

atwix said:
I am curious, was the old zoroastrian Persia even like a "feudal theocracy"?

Or more freethinking, or even dictatorial?

On topic, is zoroastrian even considered a "theocracy" religion?

No.

Zoroastrianism had a stratified priesthood to the best of modern scholars knowledge albeit not quite akin to Catholicism but it was certainly a class in society like the Brahmins of India or Clergy of Europe. It never domineered the Empire.

The Shahanshahs were dictatorial when they had the authoritative presence and accumulated power to do so. However I can't think of any mentions of the Clerical class doing anything like dominating state policy, The Shahanshahs used religion as a way of keeping social order, mostly in the vein of crushing "foreign" religions Christians and Manicheans as well as their own heretical sects like the Mazdakis.

Persia under the Sassanids used Zoroastrianism as a state religion unlike the Achaemenids or Parthians(and there's a whole lot to be said on if the Parthians even were proper Zorostrian or not or even what proper Zoroastrianism was during their tenure) They liked to propagate only so much as to counter the influence of Christianity as it was seen as the "Roman" religion. They imposed it in Armenia and other Caucasus states so as to impose their political power over the region.

Other than these facts that were recorded in Roman histories though there is SO much unknown about how Zoroastrianism functioned in the state hierarchy.

And of course it has to be mentioned Zoroastrianism underwent massive changes in the 800 years it went from State Religion to a minority faith, at some point Zoroastrians stopped any form of Proselytizing, it's unknown if proselytizing was ever bigger than trying to extend state power in the 4th-6th centuries as we have no records other then Romans saying they(the Sassanids) propped up Zoroastrian monarchs in opposition to Christian Rome.

I don't think Feudal Theocracy makes sense from a strict "Would Zoroastrians really stratify their society like this in a 15th/16th century revival"

but I think that entire idea is ludicrous enough to say "Well they never would've come back so why not just give Zoroastrians some fun flavor government as a reward for their tenacity"

After all a revitalized Zoroastrian state could have looked like almost anything if we don't have any records of their evolution for 800 years, it's not insane to think that a new Zoroastrian state maybe would use a brand new clerical class to lead the vanguard and retake Persia for their Shaoshyant destiny which is described in their religious texts ".

[1]https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...cy-government-for-zoroastrian-persia.1393945/

 

[Hospodar]

So your understanding is wrong.

Current zoroastrians also can have Feudal Theocracy. And, FYI, zoroastrians arent muslim denomination.

It should be available to Christians as well (or the Orthodox in particular at the very least). The Cetinje Metropolitanate was a thing after all.

 

[Kauê II]

It should be available to Christians as well (or the Orthodox in particular at the very least). The Cetinje Metropolitanate was a thing after all.

I agree. If we follow the generic concept, I see no justification for limiting the possibility of formation independent of religion. On the other hand, if we treat the government more strictly, it's worth taking a closer look at my previous post.

 

[moscal]

Primary problem with FT is fact, that main word is "theocracy". In fact, among countries with FT in game period, close to theocracy was only Ardabil, Mushasha and Sokoto. Leader of country was also leader of religious movement. But Oman, Mzab, Persia or wasn't theocracy but a normal dynastic monarchy in muslim style. Persian shia monarchies had main philars of power similar to other muslim dynasties.

Therefore this gov. need extremal rethinking. Do this is more monarchy, where clergies are strong philar of power, or this is dynastic theocracy? How high is level of sacralization of power? And what mean part "feudal" in concept "feudal theocracy"? Do moarchs can make something similar to apotheosis or not?

Solution of this core point will determine way of changes in this reform and possible upgrade (events, decisions, non-1-lvl-reforms etc.).

 

[Kauê II]

Primary problem with FT is fact, that main word is "theocracy". In fact, among countries with FT in game period, close to theocracy was only Ardabil, Mushasha and Sokoto. Leader of country was also leader of religious movement. But Oman, Mzab, Persia or wasn't theocracy but a normal dynastic monarchy in muslim style. Persian shia monarchies had main philars of power similar to other muslim dynasties.

Therefore this gov. need extremal rethinking. Do this is more monarchy, where clergies are strong philar of power, or this is dynastic theocracy? How high is level of sacralization of power? And what mean part "feudal" in concept "feudal theocracy"? Do moarchs can make something similar to apotheosis or not?

Solution of this core point will determine way of changes in this reform and possible upgrade (events, decisions, non-1-lvl-reforms etc.).

At the moment, I only think of two paths:

1º- Follow a generic definition and enable formation for all religions;

2º- Go back to being limited to Islam and one could think about creating a new type of government for Persia that follows Zoroastrianism or at least create interactions of the "feudal theocracy" different if it follows this religion. In this sense, to stimulate our reflection, do you think that replacing "Sanction Holy War" by "promoting the fire festival" which is a ritual (annual?) of religion would be a good idea?

The term "theocracy" doesn't see a problem. The game itself classifies "feudal theocracy" as monarchy. The use of the term can be understood by the etymology of the word meaning "divine government". In the Islamic case, it can be understood simply as submission to sharia. In the case of Zoroastrianism, we can understand that it is "theocratic" because the Persian king is the representative of Ahura-Masda. On the other hand, I share your questioning about the term "feudal", because I think that in both versions (Islamic and Zoroastrian) they are closer to an absolute monarchy or autocracy than to feudalism.

 

[moscal]

The term "theocracy" doesn't see a problem. The game itself classifies "feudal theocracy" as monarchy.

This determines that the head of state is more of a priest than monarch.

We have 2 clear examples:
1) Roman Emperors had title "Pontifex Maximus" and law to intervention in religious sphere but eg. Dominate period Roman Empire wasn't theocratic.
2) Foundator of Musha'sha'iyyah (Mushasha in game) was heresiarch, religious teacher but next leaders of country were hereditary. But this was more theocracy.

Also we have situation of pharaohs or far oriental monarchs - monarch is also living god and priests of main religion have very important position in secular power.

I think, that those separation should have place in non-first reforms.

On the other hand, I share your questioning about the term "feudal", because I think that in both versions (Islamic and Zoroastrian) they are closer to an absolute monarchy or autocracy than to feudalism.

Feudalism in muslim version work as Iqta system.
In zoroastrian period -

 

[Kauê II]

Reviewing the comment of the "Moscow", I came to the conclusion that I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. Here, when we are talking about theocracy, we are not dealing with a univocal term. In a sense, it is merely a new classification that was added in Europa Universalis IV and turned some monarchies into a new classification of government where the mechanics of devotion would be used instead of legitimacy. In this sense, I claim that the game itself classifies “feudal theocracy” as monarchy in the traditional style of the game, rather than theocratic form.

Another sense is the classical term, whose earliest known use was by Josephus to classify the government of the Hebrews[1]. There is no doubt that this concept applies as I stated[2]:
- In the Islamic case, it can be understood simply as submission to sharia.
The case of Zoroastrianism I also find problematic. I just launched the argument of the Persian king being the representative of such a deity as a gesture of good faith with the Paradox team, imagining that there would be some logic in such a concession where I did not find a justification for such an act that I consider radical.

Interesting to note that many governments that use the later game mechanics called “theocracy” are not theocracies. It is also opportune to remember that the government of priests is called hierocracy. So if we are strict about the use of the term, it should also be remembered that not all monks are priests and even the papacy is a monarchy where the pope is not recognized as a deity. The real problem, in my opinion, is the idea of solving to extend such a government to Zoroastrianism as it was done.



[1]Personally, I agree with this definition. However, I believe that it was no longer a theocracy in the period when the monarchy appeared in Israel, without denying the presence of Divine Providence.

[2] Assuming that we accept the Muslim deity as valid. In the case of the game there is no problem. For it is understood as true religion whatever the state religion is.

 

[moscal]

I think, that alone concept "sharia supremacy" should be non-1-tier government reform, accessible to muslim monarchies and theocracies. Often this concept was changed in country, without deep reforms or revolution to interpret this as "changes in foundations of government". Interpretation of sharia is named as "fiqh" (probably, I'm not expert in muslim noosphere). In game this is (partially) represented by mechanism "Muslim schools of law". This is BTW.

But now I more like concept, that FT should be divided to muslim and non-muslim version. After few rethinkings...

How I look on history also I think, that some form of evolution gov. should also have place in this part of world. Ardabil have transform to Persia. Ardabil was closer to "mix tribalistic, dynastic monastic order". Safavid Persia was more normal muslim, pre-national country with strong position clergy (to level "clerical aristocracy"). Here I will se transformation in 1-tier gov. reform. But periods, when in Persia sharia was more or less "hardcore", were many but in core still Safavid Persia was this same.

But main modifiers of muslim FT should be changed.

About non-muslim theocratic monarchies. In last tier of reform should be able "deification of dynasty". But what more...

 

[Kauê II]

...

About non-muslim theocratic monarchies. In last tier of reform should be able "deification of dynasty". But what more...

I agree that theocratic monarchies should be separated according to religion. But I don't know if I understood your last sentence, as I must be ignorant on this point. Is it something like the 2006 movie "300" which portrays Xerxes calling himself of the god? If so, does it really have any real historical foundation? It's just that I've never read anything about this in serious research on the subject, only in the film that doesn't claim to reflect the realism of the persian government. I believe his father Darius is a reference that comes closest to the ideal, but I am not aware of this or any other persian king taking such an attitude either.

 

[JKiller96]

Feudal theocracy as is (and prior to the very recent change in adding Zoroastrianism) represents, very specifically, Islamic states. I am assuming that the feudal theocracy, by the name, represents a theocratic government where a monarch is a primary religious figure, such as an imam (such as in Oman), a leader of a religious movement (as in the Musha'sha and the Safaviyya), or a caliphate (excluding the Ottomans). In such a government form, I am assuming, governors are also religious and theocratic figures, such as clerics, amirs (the religious kind, not necessarily secular; this system was used by Sokoto), and sultans (in the case of the caliphate). In this way, it is a theocracy because the system is built primarily on religious law and authority and it is feudal as this system is implemented from the top of society to the bottom in a heirarchy.

This does not really make sense for Zoroastrians. Satraps under the Persian empires were often of native religions; while it could be considered a theocracy in some instances, such as when rulers were almost deified, this system did not extend down to the governance of the provinces.

The same goes for Christian countries, perhaps aside from certain sparse examples. The king could be a divine figure (such as in the doctrine of divine right) but the king was not a priest-king, leader of a religious movement, or a sort of religious authority dictating which doctrines of Christianity they would follow. That was left up to the Catholic Church. While some regimes, such as that of King Henry VIII fit many of these qualifications, these regimes do not meet the top-down requirement of the theocratic feudal structure. Maybe a feudal structure, but not a theocratic feudal structure.

In this interpretation, I disagree that this government form should be used outside of Islamic countries. There should be another theocratic monarchy government form specialized for Christians and Zoroastrians and others. We already sort of have this with the Emperor of China government form, so we don't much need that there, even though it was suggested here somewhere. The issue is, I am not quite sure if there are many examples of a true "feudal theocracy", as I have laid out, in Europe.

There are many other reasons for why this form of theocracy is special to Islam, such as in the power of the Qadis (Islamic judges), Na'ibs and Amirs (who could be secular or strictly theocratic religious leaders), and the implementation of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) into both the personal, legal, and political lives of nearly every inhabitant.

 

[moscal]

If so, does it really have any real historical foundation?

Precolubian monarchiest (eg. Incan, Aztec) often were de iure god.
Many far-east monarchs and rebel leaders also was de iure god. Eg. kings in Nepal were de iure incarnations of Vishnu.
English king James I/VI named himself as god.

So similar situations had places.

@JKiller96

I agree with this. Therefore still I think, that FT should be rethinked and reworked. Not only by "changes in modifiers" but also actions, next reforms, way of evolution etc.

The easier way would be separate theocratic, non-muslim monarchy.

 

[Kauê II]

Precolubian monarchiest (eg. Incan, Aztec) often were de iure god.
Many far-east monarchs and rebel leaders also was de iure god. Eg. kings in Nepal were de iure incarnations of Vishnu.
English king James I/VI named himself as god.

So similar situations had places.

I agree in part. I see no foundation, nor can I agree with the creation of such a reform that you suggest deifying a dynasty to Zoroastrianism, much less in case they decide to expand the government to Christians. In the case of Christianity, it is obvious that this is absurd since we are talking about a monotheistic religion. If I seek to base such a policy on the absolutism of the time in Christian nations, I also disagree that it is feasible. Assuming that you want to base such addition, avoiding a mere unrealistic stereotype encouraged by the enemies of this type of government, I will assume here that you will find greater strength in Hobbes, who is a great theorist of english absolutism. If so, it should be noted that his political theory is not religiously motivated, with the "church of England" and Stuart supporters remaining indifferent to Hobbes efforts which they found more compromising than helpful to his cause. There is nothing, as far as I know, of dynasty deification as you seem to suggest in James I's defense of the “divine right of kings” which is quite another thing. The point of divine right I consider too relevant to be stereotyped in the game and is something that could be better worked on in the future in a DLC focused on counter-revolutionary groups (classical conservatism) and the Holy Alliance.