Should Muslims have Imperial Administration on start ?

[IsadorBG]

To be honest this have been bugging me since the devs announced that the Byzantine Empire will get the Imperial Administration law because as we know the Empire wasn't really feudal. But the fact is neither were Muslims states.

Now I am by no means an expert on Islamic government but for what I know the closest Muslims had for a feudal system was the Iqta' which in brief was a system were the land was the propriety of the State in which the Sultan will "lend" some land to some of his subject in exchange of military services (like in Europe) or taxes (some form of "rent"). However if this form of land tenure was usually for life it was by no mean hereditary and the liege was free to retake his due at anytime if he so desire.
Which seems oddly familiar with a system introduced with Charlemagne: Vice-royalties... .

Already when SoI was released the devs acknowledge the non-feudalism of the Islamic states by giving them free duchy revocation (shared by the byzantine under imperial administration), and the ability to change realm law with a piety cost instead of a vassal vote like for Christians. (To mimic the strength of the top liege in relation with his vassal that is different from the feudal contract).

Now I realize that in these days of whining over Muslim OP'dness any gameplay "buff" to them will probably be deeply unpopular and contested despite the historical accuracy wish that I and some other shares.

Which is why I actually suggest a new law open only for Muslims let's call it Iqta', that gives off the Imperial Administration advantages without the vassal limit buff.
And obtainable only with medium or high crown authority to simulate the fact that when the administration was weak the Iqta' turned to a mostly feudal system were vassal were deeply autonomous and could go independent when the ruling dynasty collapses (as very badly represented by decadence).

So if you are on Iqta' law and go under medium/high authority you lose the ability to appoint viceroys. Additionally the muslim system of changing law for piety costs should be removed for the more classical vassal vote to balance a bit all of this so gameplay over history players should be satisfied too.

Also an old thread that I find interesting talking about the Iqta': http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...t-Iqta-quot-is-and-what-quot-Iqta-quot-is-not!

If persons more knowledgeable than me on Muslim state administration want to share their knowledge or if people want to give other gameplay suggestion feel free to do so.

 

[Sorenzo]

So you want the Muslims to have the same advantages except for the vassal limit? I don't know that this warrants a change. Nor do I think the term "Imperial administration" implies a non-feudal state just because the Byzantines are one of the states that can have it.

That said, I wouldn't mind a change. Maybe the Caliphate historically could have exactly 15 fewer vassals than the Byzantine empire. But I think a more thorough revision of Muslim governments is in order, at least to give it a distinct characteristic. It would give Paradox an interesting way to talk about how Islamic governance evolved in this period, since the game now starts very soon after the Islamic conquests. However, I do think having "imperial administration" be a catch-all term that anyone can upgrade to makes some deal of sense, even if the Byzantine stand out as being particularly distinct inside of the category of historical and ahistorical empires in the game.

 

[Damarrocarion]

One thing which might also be worth considering in current system, is that Muslims could not revoke titles from non-muslims (naturally from their own branch) until medium CA without incurring tyranny penalty. This might weaken the Caliphate in a bit in CM start. Another thing we could argue that Seljuks in 1066/81 with medium CA (when vassals were essentially autonomous) is somewhat weird or the fact they do not have a titular empire like the Horde Seljuk gets. From what I have seen, Seljuks can easily stay stable for two centuries before Mongols arrive and even after that, Mongols generally kill each other.

 

[IsadorBG]

One thing which might also be worth considering in current system, is that Muslims could not revoke titles from non-muslims (naturally from their own branch) until medium CA without incurring tyranny penalty. This might weaken the Caliphate in a bit in CM start. Another thing we could argue that Seljuks in 1066/81 with medium CA (when vassals were essentially autonomous) is somewhat weird or the fact they do not have a titular empire like the Horde Seljuk gets. From what I have seen, Seljuks can easily stay stable for two centuries before Mongols arrive and even after that, Mongols generally kill each other.

The Seljuks are too stable because in reality their real inheritance law was closer to elective gavelkind than "agnatic islamic" (that not many islamic state used anyway). the medium CA is probably to gave them a chance to kick the byzantine butt as they did historically.
In fact one could say the reverse for the abbassid in 769 they start with autonomous and have half of their land already independent but here again its gameplay consideration.

Nothing to do with "decadence" also the mercenary vassal band (ghilam) makes them really resilient to internal revolt like the Byzantine and the Fatimid which share between them that only external threat are dangerous to them and are very stable internally. Seljuks and Fatimind also have the decadence threat that may (or not thanks to mercenary) break their realm.

For the medium CA free revocation I am not necessarily against it. In fact I think the revocation should be tied with the Iqta law. (and the with the CA that makes the difference between a feudal state and a bureaucratic one).

Sorenzo:

Well that's to partly to make muslim a bit special and partly so imperial administration is still something that take effort to achieve or you would just have to convert to islam to have it.

Here Iqta does not give the vassal limit bonus (and let's not forget that it's one of the drawback of decadence) and is tied to realm authority and religion. To make it something a bit between feudal and imperial administration.

 

[omega20056]

The Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates were administrative realms, but the Abbasid central government was quite weak. The Emirates became heredity titles and the power of the Caliph was largely ceremonial. The Muslim free duchy revokation ability covers things well enough.

 

[grisamentum]

To be honest this have been bugging me since the devs announced that the Byzantine Empire will get the Imperial Administration law because as we know the Empire wasn't really feudal. But the fact is neither were Muslims states.

Indeed, neither were the Karlings, including both the CM and TOG starts. Counties were not hereditary then, nor were many of them even associated with particular plots of land.

Let's not worry about who was really feudal and who wasn't. Because there was no such thing as "feudalism" as we think of it in its most generic sense. It's a notion made up by pro-absolutists in the 1600 and 1700s.

 

[Talq]

Indeed, neither were the Karlings, including both the CM and TOG starts. Counties were not hereditary then, nor were many of them even associated with particular plots of land.

Let's not worry about who was really feudal and who wasn't. Because there was no such thing as "feudalism" as we think of it in its most generic sense. It's a notion made up by pro-absolutists in the 1600 and 1700s.

This. One adds, medieval times featured more than a few one-off grants that in practice were held by a family in perpetuity (it got better when the family died out and the liege STILL could not get certain fiefs back)

 

[IsadorBG]

Indeed, neither were the Karlings, including both the CM and TOG starts. Counties were not hereditary then, nor were many of them even associated with particular plots of land.

Let's not worry about who was really feudal and who wasn't. Because there was no such thing as "feudalism" as we think of it in its most generic sense. It's a notion made up by pro-absolutists in the 1600 and 1700s.

True however the Iqta' did not exist either in 769 or 867, in those date muslims states (or at least Abassid and Ummayads) were closer to the Byzantine Empire bureaucratic state than the Frankish states. It's only a compromise to represent the islamic state during the whole middle age era.

As I said the closer Muslims ever get to European feudalism if you like it better is in game represented by vice-royalties.

 

[Pte Baldrick]

Either way, regardless of the argument that "The game doesn't correctly model early Feudalism, so it doesn't really matter how the rest of the world is represented," it does seem odd that they still have free duchy revocation. It was for the exact same justification (that their governments did not operate in the same way as Catholic Europe) that the Byzantines recieved free duchy revocation in Legacy of Rome, and this was removed with the Charlemagne patch since it was made redundant at that point.