Suggestion on the system of Iqta and the Inheritence in the Mamluk Kingdoms

[Barcley de Tolly]

While playing CK2 I have found that the developers has not pondered enough into the system of Iqta and of inheritance of kingdom in the society governed by the Mamluk society. Talking about iqta the developers can divide the entire kingdom into two kinds of land Iqta and Khalisa. This Khalisa land was kept by the emperor for meeting the Sultan's personal needs. Later this land was used to maintain a permanent troops for the sultan himself this little addition can change so much in the game a personal standing army can add additional flavor. Another thing that can be added is that important commander in the realm of the sultan must be given land to keep them happy and better the strategic importance of the land and the potentiality of income from it the more they are happy.
Now with the Inheritance in Mamaluk society I suggest that the developers can include a new form of inheritance that is after the demise of the sultan his land according to the system is divided into his slave commanders rather than his natural heir (this happened in most cases except a few) if the prime slave commanders are denied of the land they rebel against the ruler but the developer can add that each slave commander had a permanent claim on the other's domain that is the slave commander who served the same master.

These are the two ideas i want to share here hope that maybe the developers will think about it

 

[Battlex]

While playing CK2 I have found that the developers has not pondered enough into the system of Iqta and of inheritance of kingdom in the society governed by the Mamluk society. Talking about iqta the developers can divide the entire kingdom into two kinds of land Iqta and Khalisa. This Khalisa land was kept by the emperor for meeting the Sultan's personal needs. Later this land was used to maintain a permanent troops for the sultan himself this little addition can change so much in the game a personal standing army can add additional flavor. Another thing that can be added is that important commander in the realm of the sultan must be given land to keep them happy and better the strategic importance of the land and the potentiality of income from it the more they are happy.
Now with the Inheritance in Mamaluk society I suggest that the developers can include a new form of inheritance that is after the demise of the sultan his land according to the system is divided into his slave commanders rather than his natural heir (this happened in most cases except a few) if the prime slave commanders are denied of the land they rebel against the ruler but the developer can add that each slave commander had a permanent claim on the other's domain that is the slave commander who served the same master.

These are the two ideas i want to share here hope that maybe the developers will think about it

Seizing power from a Palace coup via installation factions should be how you get slave sultans. When regent mechanics are added then you can get mamlukes as de facto rulers, as well as being able to seize power on the death of the child.
Predetermined gameplay like that would make it very annoying to play as a Muslim and so unlikely to be implemented.

 

[Barcley de Tolly]

Seizing power from a Palace coup via installation factions should be how you get slave sultans. When regent mechanics are added then you can get mamlukes as de facto rulers, as well as being able to seize power on the death of the child.
Predetermined gameplay like that would make it very annoying to play as a Muslim and so unlikely to be implemented.

These slaves can be stopped, as history showed, by raising your own salves and giving them important position so that the old slaves of your father looses power after few days of his demise and the empire staying united or else the slaves will try to dethrone the legitimate heir and also as history showed if the sultan himself selects one of his slaves to become the heir to the throne then too the empire can be kept united too. This was an era of intrigue so these things can only add spice in the game

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Firstly iqta is gone.

We get a clan based system instead.

Secondly this suggestion feels very much like the problem with the "muslim" succession in CKII - it was highly specific to one state and one time period, and not representative of the whole period, across even the entire culture its drawn from, let alone other muslim groups.

You can already arrange a permanent military force (that's your men at arms and knights) from your own land, so that concept doesn't require the Khalisa land.
Having all of your land given away to slave commanders at succession means your dynastic heir has no land. That's a game over.

 

[Barcley de Tolly]

If iqta is removed then a large part of the history will be denied and no as i said above u must use extra intrigue to make sure your son gets the land or if the slave commander gets the kingdom you can play as them. And a thing not tried practically cannot be understood.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If iqta is removed then a large part of the history will be denied and no as i said above u must use extra intrigue to make sure your son gets the land or if the slave commander gets the kingdom you can play as them. And a thing not tried practically cannot be understood.

Whether history is denied or not depends on how the clan system plays out. It will hopefully apply better to more states across more of the map than the old system did.

And of course, imposing one specific, regional, succession method across all muslims (which is pretty much what iqta + their open agnatic succession did) denies the history of other areas.


There's also that you *cannot* play the slave commanders in the next generation, as you play your dynasty, not the succession of titleholders to one particular title.

 

[Battlex]

If iqta is removed then a large part of the history will be denied and no as i said above u must use extra intrigue to make sure your son gets the land or if the slave commander gets the kingdom you can play as them. And a thing not tried practically cannot be understood.

The purpose of ck2 is dynastic gameplay, in both intrigue and war, the ability to turn any slave into your playable heir would be op as you simply choose the most powerful one.

Ck3 has people randomly appear in courts, and you could use something like the "periodically attracts great warriors" bloodline event to show mamlukes that prove themselves capable in battle and so worthy of being granted estates and troops to command.

Open succession was used in ck3 in absence of a suitable heir for a top tier title (most powerful vassal inherits), so the best choice is not to have this extremely limited governing system you propose but to use and expanding existing mechanics. The abbasids could never collapse as they did historically, because ck2 had feudal land holding, so it was impossible for them to land and empower the turks to create a power base to fight with the other ones

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

I think situations like Mamluks could be dealt the same way when a mercenary company conquers a land for itself in CK2 -- a new state is created with mercenary succession, but unplayable (it's a game of dynasties, not of states).

E: unless you are a vassal of the Mamluks, that could be playable.

 

[Barcley de Tolly]

Well if iqta is removed it would be an injustice but anyway its upto the community to decide.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well if iqta is removed it would be an injustice but anyway its upto the community to decide.

It has been *replaced* with a more broadly applicable system.

Hopefully it, along with differences in the specific faiths and minor adjustments from cultural innovations, will be able to model at least one muslim society correctly, instead of CK2's failed effort that basically resulted in none of them being represented properly - not even the one it was modelled from.

A (theoretically) better and more applicable system is not an injustice (which is a very, very strong word to use here).

 

[Tryvenyal]

A CK2 simulation or abstraktion of this could be giving weak claims to "powerfulls vassals" under Iqta government or Turkish successionlaw. This would weakening the strongest and most stable successionlaw in CK2 and make regencies very dangerous and actually thrilling to play!

 

[Barcley de Tolly]

Well i think ck3 can introduce slave trade as it was one of the most integral part of the medieval economy. From here we could buy slaves which can be a fierce fighting force and slaves as gifts can also be given to ensure friendship. These slave commanders will be much more loyal to their master than any ordinary subordinates of the king.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

Well i think ck3 can introduce slave trade as it was one of the most integral part of the medieval economy. From here we could buy slaves which can be a fierce fighting force and slaves as gifts can also be given to ensure friendship. These slave commanders will be much more loyal to their master than any ordinary subordinates of the king.

Europeans became reliant on slaves only after CK timeframe. No idea about Muslim and far eastern countries though.

 

[Battlex]

I think situations like Mamluks could be dealt the same way when a mercenary company conquers a land for itself in CK2 -- a new state is created with mercenary succession, but unplayable (it's a game of dynasties, not of states).

E: unless you are a vassal of the Mamluks, that could be playable.

Yeh mercenary invasion due to low payment as well as landing a merc company that is then able to become ruler via factions could work. But don't mercenary invasions only ever take duchies for themselves in ck2? Not whole kingdoms, where you kinda need the mamlukes to take all of Egypt whilst the Ayyubid remnants are left in Syria fighting with each other

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well i think ck3 can introduce slave trade as it was one of the most integral part of the medieval economy. From here we could buy slaves which can be a fierce fighting force and slaves as gifts can also be given to ensure friendship. These slave commanders will be much more loyal to their master than any ordinary subordinates of the king.

Slave trade was almost non-existent at this period for most of Europe, and (as far as I am aware) down into India and the near part of Asia.

There were bad conditions for the poorest classes, but they weren't "slaves" in the sense of a commodity to buy or sell.

Serfdom (and equivalents elsewhere) weren't slaves, even if they weren't entirely free.

You *certainly* wouldn't think to arm what few slaves there were in Europe, as there was a good chance that they would revolt and try to escape or overthrow their former ruler.
And historically a slave (as someone to be bought and sold) was not a legal status at all in some areas - although a person convicted of a crime and forced to work for someone until the debts/fines were paid by labour *was* known.

 

[Barcley de Tolly]

Slave trade was almost non-existent at this period for most of Europe, and (as far as I am aware) down into India and the near part of Asia.

There were bad conditions for the poorest classes, but they weren't "slaves" in the sense of a commodity to buy or sell.

Serfdom (and equivalents elsewhere) weren't slaves, even if they weren't entirely free.

You *certainly* wouldn't think to arm what few slaves there were in Europe, as there was a good chance that they would revolt and try to escape or overthrow their former ruler.
And historically a slave (as someone to be bought and sold) was not a legal status at all in some areas - although a person convicted of a crime and forced to work for someone until the debts/fines were paid by labour *was* known.

Slave trade was quite popular in the Middle East even slaves were gifted to sultans by visitors in the courts and anyway Mamluks were themselves slaves

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Slave trade was quite popular in the Middle East even slaves were gifted to sultans by visitors in the courts and anyway Mamluks were themselves slaves

You can reasonably model the Mamluks (at least from what we've seen) by assuming that the men at arms you're raising are from the slave class if you want.
Similarly the "knights" (I don't know which localisation they're going to use) and commanders that you raise from "lowborn" stock can be treated as slave-commanders if you want.

It's also worth noting that they were only *technically* slaves compared to other uses of the term.
They were more like clients of their patrons than slaves in many ways - certainly when compared to those taken into "classic" slavery.


It would also be... somewhat touchy to include slave trading into the game as something you have to actively deal with.

 

[Barcley de Tolly]

You can reasonably model the Mamluks (at least from what we've seen) by assuming that the men at arms you're raising are from the slave class if you want.
Similarly the "knights" (I don't know which localisation they're going to use) and commanders that you raise from "lowborn" stock can be treated as slave-commanders if you want.

It's also worth noting that they were only *technically* slaves compared to other uses of the term.
They were more like clients of their patrons than slaves in many ways - certainly when compared to those taken into "classic" slavery.


It would also be... somewhat touchy to include slave trading into the game as something you have to actively deal with.

I somewhat agree with you but if paradox gives another late starting year then slave system can be used for after crusades slaves in Europe were taken from captives in the middle east and byzantine empire even did slave trades too.