Shiite-Sunni relations

[Garbon]

While researching into the Jalayirids and Kara Koyunlu, I keep coming across materials that state while the two dynasties certainly displayed shiite sympathies, this was a period of time where the "monarchs" religion didn't necessarily dictate the religion of his subjects. This got me thinking about our current shiite vs sunni dichtomy. Should it really be as strict as we show it? The Il-Khanate was Sunni under one ruler, switched to Shiite under another and then switched back under a third. Additionally, the Jalayirids are noted for having made marriages with non-Shiite states. I'm wondering if the shiite-sunni split as portrayed in EU2 is a sign of sunni-shiite relations in the Safavid era and I wonder if the turn in relations/restrictions should take place in the early 16th century. Does anyone have any knowledge about this?

 

[Nosferatu]

Even the Safavids were not all shiites. The second shah after the great Ismail and his son Tahmasp I tried to switch his state religion to sunni, but at last he changed his mind and abondoned the crazy idea. As far as I know some shahs after the Abbas I were sunni. Interesting idea in other words.

 

[Aat Jago]

AFAIK, there's no theological problem between Sunni and Shi'ite. So my guess is, the dichotomy between Sunni and Shiite in EU are probably there to simulate the rivalry between Ottoman and Safavid. Because as far as history is concerned, the relation between Sunni and Shiite is always harmonius. Because there is no theological differences between those two groups. The only difference is, while the Sunni recognize the authority of the Caliph in Baghdad (and Ottoman sultans later on), the Shiite look up to their own Imam (whom they consider as the successors of Ali), not the Caliph. So it's suffice to say that the difference between them is political not theological.

 

[Kiesenberg]

If this is a case can we not try other methods of bringing Persia and Turkey into conflict that doesn't punish Persia with a complete lack of religious allies?

 

[Aat Jago]

If this is a case can we not try other methods of bringing Persia and Turkey into conflict that doesn't punish Persia with a complete lack of religious allies?

maybe by making them each have an overlapping cores? Because AFAIK, those two countries always fight out there war in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq). So maybe we could make their cores overlapping each other in Iraq. So Persia could still have a Sunni allies while fighting the Ottomans because of a natural cassus belli.

 

[Trin Tragula]

AFAIK, there's no theological problem between Sunni and Shi'ite. So my guess is, the dichotomy between Sunni and Shiite in EU are probably there to simulate the rivalry between Ottoman and Safavid. Because as far as history is concerned, the relation between Sunni and Shiite is always harmonius. Because there is no theological differences between those two groups. The only difference is, while the Sunni recognize the authority of the Caliph in Baghdad (and Ottoman sultans later on), the Shiite look up to their own Imam (whom they consider as the successors of Ali), not the Caliph. So it's suffice to say that the difference between them is political not theological.

The way I understand it up untill the safavids there was no contradiction between honouring the imams and still being considered a sunni muslim in this area. The safavids did gather all shiites to their banner and reformed the religion into a much more unified and anti-everyone else kind of creed (practically making their rulers demi-gods in the process atleast initially).

Persias lack of religious allies is warranted. Before them an argument could be made for not using the religion at all however (as I stated above honouring the imams didn't necesarilly mean you even considered yourself an outright Shiite in those days).
As for reasons for the Persians and ottomans to fight: Well with the Persian capital initially at Tabriz in Azerbaijan the Persians are going to be plenty threatened by the turks just from the danger of occupation?
Also initially the Ottomans where not happy with Quizilbach in their own country moving to Persia and becoming part of the religion-driven turkmen military force as a result of the freedom lost to Ottoman centralisation reforms (supposedly they even moved a large division of Quizilbash tribesmen to Greece forcibly to avoid this).

Been reading up a lot on the period lately as I'm making an asian mod for eu3 (though I've mostly been doing India up untill recently and I still haven't gotten a lot of books on Persia).

 

[Garbon]

One thing we could do (as I think the game is right to look at the way in which Shiism was politicized by the Safavids) is change up the religious flags. Sunni and Shiites start out fine with one another and only gain negative associations if Persia exists.

 

[Aat Jago]

One thing we could do (as I think the game is right to look at the way in which Shiism was politicized by the Safavids) is change up the religious flags. Sunni and Shiites start out fine with one another and only gain negative associations if Persia exists.

I'm in agreement with you. Any idea how to do that?

 

[Garbon]

Oh yeah, it'd be something fairly simple. I'll try and get it approved for the patch.

 

[Aat Jago]

Oh yeah, it'd be something fairly simple. I'll try and get it approved for the patch.

Cool...
I bow down to your superior intellect... It will be so good if we could simulate the Ottoman-Safavid rivalry that way. Is it possible to do the same thing to EU3?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Is it possible to do the same thing to EU3?

Not by us

 

[cool-toxic]

I think we should be careful of saying only Persia under Safavids were a Shia(or another 'heretic' Muslim group) Muslim nation. It is important to point out Turkish and Arabic Shiites that have been in conflict with the Sunnis ever since before Hussain's death.

 

[unmerged(174613)]

Interesting idea, Garbon.

Just add a new section to religions_special.txt so you can choose which Islamic states should have inherently negative relations... (in fact, why limit it to Islam? Would be interesting for modders...)

That aside, Sunni-Shi'a relations can be fairly normal amongst the other states.

 

[Aat Jago]

Not by us

Too bad

I think we should be careful of saying only Persia under Safavids were a Shia(or another 'heretic' Muslim group) Muslim nation. It is important to point out Turkish and Arabic Shiites that have been in conflict with the Sunnis ever since before Hussain's death.

But AFAIK, the conflict between Sunni and Shiite back then are more along the tribal line (Shiite Turkish vs Shiite Arabs or Arab tribe A vs Arab tribe B), territorial conquest (much like the Muslim Mongol leader, Timur conquest in Anatolia which is also held by Muslim Turks), and also politics (succession disputes between the Rashidins and Ali, or maybe Hussain and Muawiyyah) rather than religious clash. So like Garbon and Trin Tragula said earlier, the religious clash between Shiite and Sunni only started when the Safavid are politicizing the Shiite teaching and war started between them and the Ottomans.
tl;dr, Before the rise of Safavid the clash between Sunni and Shiite is more political than religious. Here's hoping the FtG able to simulate them

 

[Nosferatu]

Because as far as history is concerned, the relation between Sunni and Shiite is always harmonius.

Unfortunately, I don't think so. What about modern Iraq with it's defiance between these two religious branches? It is not very difficult to say, that differences between catholics and orthodoxian are only political not religious, but it will not be true at all. Even in the united arabic state conflict between sunni and shiites existed, just recall some of the political movements in Middle Asia in this period. (Baabek movement for instance)

 

[Garbon]

Interesting idea, Garbon.

Just add a new section to religions_special.txt so you can choose which Islamic states should have inherently negative relations... (in fact, why limit it to Islam? Would be interesting for modders...)

That aside, Sunni-Shi'a relations can be fairly normal amongst the other states.

Actually, I was just thinking of pushing Sunni-Shiite relations to be cordial until the 16th century when they sour (the more involved version of this has it dependent on the formation of the Safavids). While I hear cool-toxic's concerns, the Shiites that we represent in game didn't have those issues, broadly speaking, in the period between Mongol conquest and rise of the Safavids. We needn't worry about the Druze or Ismaili as those communities are not represented.

 

[cool-toxic]

To save you the trouble of editing the religions flags I would suggest fixing the Shiite. The majority were Sunni in Persia until Safavid, who tried to convert them.

 

[Garbon]

And abandon the Kara Koyunlu?

 

[unmerged(174613)]

Which provinces should be Shi'a at game-start then? Did Persia get mass-converted in the 16th century or something?

 

[Garbon]

Look at the AGCEEP, 1419 setup. Much of Persia as actually force converted at the direction of Ismail I.