Should the title be Europa Universalis II: The Legacy of Timur? :)

[Demetrios]

The more I think about it, the more that Timur's shadow looms large over the situation at the beginning of EU2 in 1419. Hardly a nation between Germany and China was not affected by his actions, either directly or indirectly. His armies conquered Persia and the Middle East, sacked Sarai and Delhi, and so weakened the Golden Horde and the Sultanate of Delhi that they collapsed with a century. The Ottomans came very close to collapse as a result of his invasion; they lost alltheir vassals, allowing the Christian states of the Balkans another 50 years or so of life. The weakening of the Golden Horde meant the subsequent break-up of that state and the awakening of Muscovite power. China only escaped being affected by the death of the great conqueror as he led his armies east to attack the Ming state.

Timur died only 15 years before the scheduled start of EU2, I hope that Paradox factors in his legacy when dealing with the states from eastern Europe to central Asia. I especially think that the Timurid state should start the game with a Badboy value already factored in to represent the fear and hatred that other states felt towards Timur and his successors...

 

[Emre Yigit]

Fully agree.

 

[unmerged(3773)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
The more I think about it, the more that Timur's shadow looms large over the situation at the beginning of EU2 in 1419. Hardly a nation between Germany and China was not affected by his actions, either directly or indirectly. His armies conquered Persia and the Middle East, sacked Sarai and Delhi, and so weakened the Golden Horde and the Sultanate of Delhi that they collapsed with a century. The Ottomans came very close to collapse as a result of his invasion; they lost alltheir vassals, allowing the Christian states of the Balkans another 50 years or so of life. The weakening of the Golden Horde meant the subsequent break-up of that state and the awakening of Muscovite power. China only escaped being affected by the death of the great conqueror as he led his armies east to attack the Ming state.

Timur died only 15 years before the scheduled start of EU2, I hope that Paradox factors in his legacy when dealing with the states from eastern Europe to central Asia. I especially think that the Timurid state should start the game with a Badboy value already factored in to represent the fear and hatred that other states felt towards Timur and his successors...

I think that it is already behind the choice of 1419 as a starting point of the game: as the turmoil in Central Asia - Middle East effectevely closed the spice-silk road, this triggered the european effort to find a way to Eastern Asia by sea...hence Henry the Navigator and the Sagres School

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Um, good try, but no.

For everyone else who slept thru that history class Timur the Great (d. 1405)—better known in the west as Tamerlane thanks to Christopher Marlowe--united Central Asia in the wake of the Mongol decline.

Timur was a Turk who, like Alexander the Great, took a Mongol wife. He and his successors ruled Central Asia and northern India from the 14th century until the end of the Moghul dynasty of India in the 18th century (his direct descendant Babur 1483-1530 founded the Moghul dynasty).

Timur's claim to the throne of "Europa Universalis" is a bit weak. However, I'm all for a bit of historical revisionism.

 

[Blade!]

Petrus

Everything you say is true, but I don't see how it contradicts anything else said. I mean, nothing is more sure in my mind that Chenghis (genghis) Khan and natrually via Timur is more responsible for the shape of the world than any other dynasty/family. I mean because of Chengis's unification of the tribes; Europe, India, Arabia, and China were all severely altered in their courses.

 

[Cakravarti]

I mean, nothing is more sure in my mind that Chenghis (genghis) Khan and natrually via Timur is more responsible for the shape of the world than any other dynasty/family. I mean because of Chengis's unification of the tribes; Europe, India, Arabia, and China were all severely altered in their courses.

I agree with you that Chinghis Khan was did have a huge impact on the whole world, but Im not sure. I mean its really hard to say who was the man who influenced the world the most. However, if at this moment you asked me who I thought was the most influential man ever, Id have to say Chinghis.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

I though the significant thing about the mongols is that, like so many of those nomad barbarians, they came, they saw, they conquered and they disappeared without a trace, absorbed into the societies they conquered.

While they destroyed a few small areas completely, most just regrew, china, india, and in pretty much the same shape.

Islam ultimately conquered the mongols, not vice versa (they were originally a pagan/nestorian christian mix).

The most significant change i can think of is that prior to the mongols, christianity in various forms was quite powerful in the middle east belt, but by allying themselves with the mongols they created an amimosity from the muslims that ultimately led to their destruction, with only the armenians still present today.

Timur was just like alexander, a wrecker who left nothing of lasting value, he just broke a few things into smaller units and died.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Martinov
The most significant change i can think of is that prior to the mongols, christianity in various forms was quite powerful in the middle east belt, but by allying themselves with the mongols they created an amimosity from the muslims that ultimately led to their destruction, with only the armenians still present today.

What forms? Even the Crusader states, the ones who actually did ally with tha Mongols briefly, were shadows of their former selves by the time the Mongols attacked the Middle East.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Petrus
Um, good try, but no.

For everyone else who slept thru that history class Timur the Great (d. 1405)?better known in the west as Tamerlane thanks to Christopher Marlowe--united Central Asia in the wake of the Mongol decline.

Timur was a Turk who, like Alexander the Great, took a Mongol wife. He and his successors ruled Central Asia and northern India from the 14th century until the end of the Moghul dynasty of India in the 18th century (his direct descendant Babur 1483-1530 founded the Moghul dynasty).

Timur's claim to the throne of "Europa Universalis" is a bit weak. However, I'm all for a bit of historical revisionism.

That's why I put the after the title of the thread. Those cute little icons doesn't show up in subject lines, though...

But the real point of starting this thread is to point out how much turmoil central Eurasia had just gone through as the game opens in 1419 as a result of Timur's conquests and invasions. After all, the turmoil and changes went from the Balkans and Russia all the way to India. Stability should be quite low for all the majhor states in the area (Timur's armies had disrupted their social fabrics and sacked their capitals), while almost everyone should fear and hate the remnant Timurid state (which should be quite extensive as EU2 opens in 1419; Timur's son Shah Rukh was a fairly able administrator).

 

[unmerged(4944)]

Agelastus, its been a while since i read on the subject, but there were a lot more christians than just crusader states, especially further inland, a significant portion of the population, (early islam was relatively tolerant, people joined because of its tax exempt status(!) not from coercion). As i understand it there was a whole branch of the church, called nestorian, that was wiped out with the fall of its mongol overlords. It had certain variations from western church, more of blend of tribalism? can't remember exactly.

 

[Agelastus]

Ah, the Nestorians. I think you overestimate their influence/strength/numbers.

And I'm not starting yet another dicussion about conversions to Islam-there's been enough of that on another thread.

 

[AllonEU]

I like Europa Universalis 2: The Fall of the Byzantine Empire. It fell only a few decadeds after EU2 starts and when EU2 starts it is in desperate trouble. 400 years before this Byzantine saved Western Europe from the Muslims, now there was no one stopping them.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by AllonEU
I like Europa Universalis 2: The Fall of the Byzantine Empire. It fell only a few decadeds after EU2 starts and when EU2 starts it is in desperate trouble. 400 years before this Byzantine saved Western Europe from the Muslims, now there was no one stopping them.

700-siege of Constantinople early eighth century.

Byzantium's been stumbling since Manzikert in 1071, and on its' last legs since the Fourth Crusade in the early thirteenth century. Naming this game after it's fall is a tad excessive-although it might be appropriate if a "Crusades" variant was ever done.

 

[Demetrios]

The Byzantines recovered quite nicely under the Kommenoi Dynasty, thank you. It was only under the disastrous rulers of the Angeloi that the Byzantine state began to crumble, leading the to the disaster of 1204-5. Even then, Theodoros Laskaris and Michael Palaiologos mnaged to get things pretty much back on track. The Byzantine Empire in 1264 was a fairly good-sized state, large enough to remain viable if given a chance. But the unwanted attentions of the Angevins, the rampage of the Catalan Company, and incessant civil war unfortunately wrecked any chance of that...

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Demetrios
The Byzantines recovered quite nicely under the Kommenoi Dynasty, thank you. It was only under the disastrous rulers of the Angeloi that the Byzantine state began to crumble, leading the to the disaster of 1204-5. Even then, Theodoros Laskaris and Michael Palaiologos mnaged to get things pretty much back on track. The Byzantine Empire in 1264 was a fairly good-sized state, large enough to remain viable if given a chance. But the unwanted attentions of the Angevins, the rampage of the Catalan Company, and incessant civil war unfortunately wrecked any chance of that...

The Kommenoi never recovered large areas of Anatolia, and those they did recover had been seriously damaged by the Turk, so the Empire had permanently lost its main recruiting grounds, hence a greater reliance on possibly unreliable Mercemaries began even then. As for the Nicaeans, even while recovering Constantinople and the other fragments of the Empire in Europe, they were losing ground to the Turks in Anatolia. It may have been a fairly good sized state in 1264, but it was a strained one that was fundamentally weaker in many ways than the pre-Manzikert entity. I disagree with you about its' ultimate viability-the Fourth Crusade shattered too much of its unity.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Agelastus


The Kommenoi never recovered large areas of Anatolia, and those they did recover had been seriously damaged by the Turk, so the Empire had permanently lost its main recruiting grounds, hence a greater reliance on possibly unreliable Mercemaries began even then. As for the Nicaeans, even while recovering Constantinople and the other fragments of the Empire in Europe, they were losing ground to the Turks in Anatolia. It may have been a fairly good sized state in 1264, but it was a strained one that was fundamentally weaker in many ways than the pre-Manzikert entity. I disagree with you about its' ultimate viability-the Fourth Crusade shattered too much of its unity.

I'm not saying that all was sweetness and light in 1264! But given a bit of a chance and a little breathing room, the Empire might have stablized. Instead, Charles of Anjou sent expedition after expedition, and the Empire didn't have a chance to settle down. If left to its own, there's no reason to think why the remaining petty Crusader states wouldn't eventually have fallen as swiftly as the Despotate of Epeiros, given the fact that their manpower had been decimated by the Byzantines at Pelagonia in 1259. The Turks in Anatolia were reeling from the Mongol incursions under Hulagu and the Seljuk Sulatinate of Rum was teetering on the edge of its final collapse. Instead, the Empire had to waste its remaining money and strength on fighting off the relentless attacks of Charles of Anjou and his allies, which sapped its strength at a time when it sould have been either hoarded or more wisely used elsewhere.

As for the Kommenoi, through the judicious use of both their own armies and the Crusaders, they reconquered the entire coastland of Anatolia as well as most of the northwest of Asia Minor. Sure, it wasn' the whole peninsula, but it was a pretty substantial portion.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Demetrios
As for the Kommenoi, through the judicious use of both their own armies and the Crusaders, they reconquered the entire coastland of Anatolia as well as most of the northwest of Asia Minor. Sure, it wasn' the whole peninsula, but it was a pretty substantial portion.

But it was still a damaged portion, much of the area never really recovered in the period in question-much as you can make a good argument that much of Persia/Iran never recovered from the effects of Timur's invasion.

As I said, even absent Charles of Anjou, I don't see the Empire managing to recover-don't forget that the Turks got their foothold in Europe at Gallipoli at the request of one of the contenders in one of the many Byzantine civil wars of the period.