Well just include it in the next version then. I am gonna change it manually in my own build though
[SWMH] Persia - suggestions & discussion
- Thread starter elvain
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well just include it in the next version then. I am gonna change it manually in my own build though
Hey. I've been doing rearrangement for vanilla map and I'd like to share my view on the whole Persia thing.
Geographically (and as such historically) there're 6 distinct regions east and north Zagros. They are:
* Azerbaijan - the grazing ground of Persia, including Shirvan and all the way to the Caspian steppe through Derbent. This is where Seljuks settled en masse, this is where Mongols had their first capitals (precisely for the reason of lovely pastures), and this is where from all those nomads were projecting their power on Armenia. If this image is still valid, I suggest splitting duchy of Azerbaijan into Azerbaijan (centered on Tabriz) and Shirvan. Look up Shirvanshahs - a very peculiar duchy and dynasty. A reason to stretch the kingdom towards Pontic-Caspian steppe is to give it border with the Golden Horde. I'm sure you've read about wars over Azerbaijan - again, precisely because of how awesome the pastures here were.
* Jibal, otherwise known as Persian Iraq or Iraq-i Ajam, including Lorestan, Rayy, Hamadan, Esfahan.
* Codename Fars - an area encompassing Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman. It's geographical justification is that it encompasses southern extension of Zagros mountains. Here's a very nice map
As you can see, these two areas are separated from eastern Persia by two huge deserts: Lut and Kavir.
* To north-east, between Kavir and Khwarasm/Transoxania/Mawarannahr lies Greater Khorasan, stretching all the way to Balkh. It's another region favored by nomads, Oguzes put particularly strong pressure on Great Seljuks here.
* To its south lie Afghanistan and Indus border. Depending on the treatment map extension gets, it could be two more kingdoms (Afghanistan and that Sindh thing including Mekran). Edit: Actually, having taken a look at dev diaries screenshots, everything seems setup for these three kingdoms:
* And then there's inaccessible Tabaristan that includes Daylam. A very small realm, but due to it being so inaccessible, it managed to remain virtually independent for large periods of time. It took major efforts both by Ilkhans and Safavids to subdue it.
Finally, to the farthest north-east lie Khoresm/Khwarazm (south/south-west from Aral) and Transoxiana/Marawannahr (behind Oxus). Why Paradox sticks to the name Khiva is beyond me. Whether Khoresm deserves being a separate kingdom or be merged with Transoxania is a matter of personal preference and balance I guess.
This is how it looked in the end superimposed on vanilla map
Geographically (and as such historically) there're 6 distinct regions east and north Zagros. They are:
* Azerbaijan - the grazing ground of Persia, including Shirvan and all the way to the Caspian steppe through Derbent. This is where Seljuks settled en masse, this is where Mongols had their first capitals (precisely for the reason of lovely pastures), and this is where from all those nomads were projecting their power on Armenia. If this image is still valid, I suggest splitting duchy of Azerbaijan into Azerbaijan (centered on Tabriz) and Shirvan. Look up Shirvanshahs - a very peculiar duchy and dynasty. A reason to stretch the kingdom towards Pontic-Caspian steppe is to give it border with the Golden Horde. I'm sure you've read about wars over Azerbaijan - again, precisely because of how awesome the pastures here were.
* Jibal, otherwise known as Persian Iraq or Iraq-i Ajam, including Lorestan, Rayy, Hamadan, Esfahan.
* Codename Fars - an area encompassing Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman. It's geographical justification is that it encompasses southern extension of Zagros mountains. Here's a very nice map
* To north-east, between Kavir and Khwarasm/Transoxania/Mawarannahr lies Greater Khorasan, stretching all the way to Balkh. It's another region favored by nomads, Oguzes put particularly strong pressure on Great Seljuks here.
* To its south lie Afghanistan and Indus border. Depending on the treatment map extension gets, it could be two more kingdoms (Afghanistan and that Sindh thing including Mekran). Edit: Actually, having taken a look at dev diaries screenshots, everything seems setup for these three kingdoms:
Merv being in Khorasan
* And then there's inaccessible Tabaristan that includes Daylam. A very small realm, but due to it being so inaccessible, it managed to remain virtually independent for large periods of time. It took major efforts both by Ilkhans and Safavids to subdue it.
Finally, to the farthest north-east lie Khoresm/Khwarazm (south/south-west from Aral) and Transoxiana/Marawannahr (behind Oxus). Why Paradox sticks to the name Khiva is beyond me. Whether Khoresm deserves being a separate kingdom or be merged with Transoxania is a matter of personal preference and balance I guess.
This is how it looked in the end superimposed on vanilla map
Last edited:
I think Elvain is sort of postponing working on Persia until after the team have made the mod compatible with RoI. But should the Persian regions really be Kingdom level titles? Your screenie is of the Kingdom level view. I agree that the big Persian Kingdom blob should be broken up. Elvain have already started this with the introduction of Daylam, but aren't you going a bit overboard?
Could be. I absolutely hate huge blobs though. And it gives all the Invasions more buffers to invade.
For a less fractured realm I guess Fars and Jibal are the candidates to be united into k_persia. RoI map expansion will most likely add more flesh to Khorasan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan.
And it gives all the Invasions more buffers to invade.For a less fractured realm I guess Fars and Jibal are the candidates to be united into k_persia. RoI map expansion will most likely add more flesh to Khorasan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan.
Merv being in Khorasan
These are very valid points.
The maps you can see in the first post are valid, though they are a preliminary overhaul of Persia. The final plan is to divide it into 3 historical kingdoms/nations which the medieval Persians distincted themselves (as I have found in variou sources, mainly in Nizám-al-Mulk's Siyásat-náme, and in Ibn Battutah's works to which I have direct access), and these are Khorasan, Persia and Daylam/Tabaristán.
Concerning Azarbaijan - it will definitely be splitted into Azerbaijan and Shirvan (if not already done, I don't see a reason why these 2 are united, except that I don't really like 2province duchies, which may have been why I merged the 2 together).
As for the rest of Persia:
there is no way of having kingdom of Sindh within borders of Persia. Sindh is India and it can never include regions like Sístán or Makrán or Ghór in todays Afghanistan.
While Ghór and most of todays Afghanistan is part of Khorasan (that one in your map is in fact limited to its western quarter), Makrán and Sístán are quite remote from the core of Persia and are both quite distinctive regions, so they can either be united in a kingdom of Makrán&Sístán, or stay as remote part of Persia.
Concerning the core regions of Persia, I think there is nothing to discuss. Having it as 2 separate kingdoms would IMO be little off the board, because while there were clear differences between medieval Persians from Fárs and Djebal and they certainly should be as separate duchies, the contemporary sources, IIRC still consider their people as Persians from Fars or Djebal, on the contrary to Khorasanians or Daylamites who were considered as special entities with different nature.
So, as long as the map extends to the east and allows me to have propper Khorasan, Kohorasan will become a separate kingdom as it should be.
As for Khwarezm, there is nothing to discuss, except that calling it Khiva is ridiculously anachrnonistic... and discussing Transoxania makes no sense before RoI map expansion.
PS: just to show you.... I'm using this map I made few years ago as a reference map... it has its flaws, but it does show the main regions of medieval Persia
Anyway, thanks again for very valid remarks.
The maps you can see in the first post are valid, though they are a preliminary overhaul of Persia. The final plan is to divide it into 3 historical kingdoms/nations which the medieval Persians distincted themselves (as I have found in variou sources, mainly in Nizám-al-Mulk's Siyásat-náme, and in Ibn Battutah's works to which I have direct access), and these are Khorasan, Persia and Daylam/Tabaristán.
Concerning Azarbaijan - it will definitely be splitted into Azerbaijan and Shirvan (if not already done, I don't see a reason why these 2 are united, except that I don't really like 2province duchies, which may have been why I merged the 2 together).
As for the rest of Persia:
there is no way of having kingdom of Sindh within borders of Persia. Sindh is India and it can never include regions like Sístán or Makrán or Ghór in todays Afghanistan.
While Ghór and most of todays Afghanistan is part of Khorasan (that one in your map is in fact limited to its western quarter), Makrán and Sístán are quite remote from the core of Persia and are both quite distinctive regions, so they can either be united in a kingdom of Makrán&Sístán, or stay as remote part of Persia.
Concerning the core regions of Persia, I think there is nothing to discuss. Having it as 2 separate kingdoms would IMO be little off the board, because while there were clear differences between medieval Persians from Fárs and Djebal and they certainly should be as separate duchies, the contemporary sources, IIRC still consider their people as Persians from Fars or Djebal, on the contrary to Khorasanians or Daylamites who were considered as special entities with different nature.
So, as long as the map extends to the east and allows me to have propper Khorasan, Kohorasan will become a separate kingdom as it should be.
As for Khwarezm, there is nothing to discuss, except that calling it Khiva is ridiculously anachrnonistic... and discussing Transoxania makes no sense before RoI map expansion.
PS: just to show you.... I'm using this map I made few years ago as a reference map... it has its flaws, but it does show the main regions of medieval Persia
Anyway, thanks again for very valid remarks.
That's a lot of provinces on that last map :laugh: Despite that it looks good though.
:laugh: Despite that it looks good though.
Last edited:
That Sindh seen on the map refers more to Arab designation of their easternmost possessions bordering Indus me thinks. I simply don't have a better name for Makran+Sistan.
Nizám-al-Mulk was writing as Oguzes were only starting to change the country, wasn't he? And have you ever seen Tabaristan depicted as anything larger than the South Caspian littoral?
o7 A side question. Given your sources, are there any fitting endonyms for the whole empire of Persia? A name I'm yearning to replace almost as much as Tartaria.
Last edited:
Having just had a quick look, it appears that the most fitting name from the point of view of what the locals called themselves is, in fact, Eran/Iran even in this period.
Aasmul suggested moving Derbent to Daylam instead of Khazaria in the Steppes thread, so i'm just moving my tiny little nitpick over here instead. There is really no historical basis from everything i've read to place Derbent in the Georgian Kingdom, can you take care of it for a coming version, Elvain?
I think Eran would be a good suggestion for a new Empire name for Persia.
I think Eran would be a good suggestion for a new Empire name for Persia.
That Sindh seen on the map refers more to Arab designation of their easternmost possessions bordering Indus me thinks. I simply don't have a better name for Makran+Sistan.
The answer is simple. Was there no true entity beyond a duchy/emirate level? Ok, so don't try to create one and leave as it was
I will consult this with my bro, just graduated doctor of Iranian history and culture....
That's why I mentioned Ibn Battutah as the other direct source which confirms other secondary sources about persian understanding of division of the land.Nizám-al-Mulk was writing as Oguzes were only starting to change the country, wasn't he? And have you ever seen Tabaristan depicted as anything larger than the South Caspian littoral?
I'm not saying that Tabaristan shouldn't be a kingdom. Just that you'd get a huge Persia otherwise with the three aforementioned kingdoms.
The three nations are clear with their separate cultures and kingdoms. Azerbaijan is another one, pretty distinct and isolated from the rest of Persia by Daylam. As for Tabaristan, according to contemporary Persians it was understood as part of wild Daylamite nature... so its belonging is clear, as you can see on the preliminary map.
I originaly thought that Persia could be fine but as far as I know and as was mentioned just above, Eran looks like a very good candidate.
PS: king- that suggestion sounds quite logical...well considering the fact that Azerbaijan might deserve a kingdom tier. Derbe .nt as part of Daylam would be weird, but Derbent as part of Azerbaijan would be fine, what do you think?
Concerning the border region of Persia and India that Konstantinos called Sindh, and is called Baluchistan (apparently) by PI, I have seen some (academic) books mention sources that called that refer to that area a kingdom of Makran or such, such as Marco Polo. Didn't look too much into it myself.
The answer is simple. Was there no true entity beyond a duchy/emirate level? Ok, so don't try to create one and leave as it was
I will consult this with my bro, just graduated doctor of Iranian history and culture....
That's why I mentioned Ibn Battutah as the other direct source which confirms other secondary sources about persian understanding of division of the land.
The three nations are clear with their separate cultures and kingdoms. Azerbaijan is another one, pretty distinct and isolated from the rest of Persia by Daylam. As for Tabaristan, according to contemporary Persians it was understood as part of wild Daylamite nature... so its belonging is clear, as you can see on the preliminary map.
I originaly thought that Persia could be fine but as far as I know and as was mentioned just above, Eran looks like a very good candidate.
PS: king- that suggestion sounds quite logical...well considering the fact that Azerbaijan might deserve a kingdom tier. Derbe .nt as part of Daylam would be weird, but Derbent as part of Azerbaijan would be fine, what do you think?
I would love it. Do you have any plans of making Daylam bigger then or will you just leave it as a two-duchy Kingdom?
Or are you splitting one of the current three duchies so Azerbaijan would get two and Daylam would get three then?
Yes, Makrán is one of possible names, but I don't think it was entity worth becoming a kingdom tier (just like Sístán just north of it).
It will most probably just be part of k_persia as 2 duchies Makrán and Sístán, as it is now...
With Azerbaijan being splited from Daylam, there are 3 possibilities for Daylam:
1) 2 duchy kingdom (current Daylam without Azerbaijan)
2) 3 duchy kingdom of expanded Daylam with Gorgan+Dehestán becoming the third duchy.
3) splitting te duchy of Daylam into Daylam (inland) and Gílán (coastal), but that would require some provinces to be added there (which is possible as the overhauled Persia might deserve some new provinces).
As for now I prefer 1 or 2 though
Not having it as a kingdom makes sense to me, especially given you're not using vanillas map anyways. For my purposes though I'll be renaming vanilla's Baluchistan to Makran, which makes more sense for the time period in my opinion.
Also, on another unrelated topic concerning Persia, have you guys found any decent scholarly sources on the Zunbils and/or Shahis? I've found a small amount of decent sources - which suffices for my purposes - but I'd like to find more, and there unfortunately doesn't seem to be a lot (even the encyclopedia iranica which is a very reliable "basic" but comprehensive source doesn't have much on them). I usually don't do too much extensive research for the purposes of VIET, but these guys fascinate me quite a bit so I was wondering if you guys came across anything.
Well, in current SWMH it is already renamed to Makran.
Frankly I don't know much about pre-Islamic Persia, but if I find something about them, I will share it with you.
The Zunbils seem to make it until the Old Gods start date, so some research on them definitely makes sense.
For the Shahis and Zunbils the best source I could find for them is Andre Wink's Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, but nothing much else - everything else I could find that mentions them mentions them very briefly (i.e. "Oh there were these weird Zunbils, they got conquered by the Muslims."). I do vaguely recall Encyclopedia Iranica having a bit more of a dedicated treatment to the Shahis in one of their entries not directly related to the Shahis but I forgot which.
Anyhow Zunbils and Shahis, maybe, seem be those groups of which there isn't much known about to begin with. For instance, Wink (if I remember correctly) says that the Zunbils have been interpreted as pagans, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, though I've come to the conclusion they were probably practicioners of some form of Indo-Iranian polytheism prevalent in Afghanistan at one time related to the polytheism of the modern-day Kalash and the Nuristanis (before they converted to Islam). As for the Shahis, the main issue I've been haivng with them is their exact origins (I remember coming across a line in Encyclopedia Iranica which says they may have had Hephthalite stock), as well as exactly when they went from Buddhist to Hindu - I've seen it suggested as 870, or (as vanilla is interpreting it apparently) sometime before 870.
So... yeah. Interesting folks, all the whiles.
Wink seems to suggest though the the first conversions to Islam start in the mid 7th Century, a full 200 years before the Old God's start. Would there be many around in 867?
I read over Wink"s section on the Zunbils and Shahis again, and my conclusion is that the penetration of Islam into the region is kind of ambiguous, particularly for the Zunbils. I think he's stating that merchants and political (?) refugees made in roads into Zabulistan definitely, particularly Kharjites, but he doesn't seem to give us any clear indication of how widespread and influential they were - nor does he seem to, from my quick reading, really know anyways. He does mention that Muslim sources stated that the rulers of Kabul (I'm presuming the Zunbils and Shahis here) professed to Islam in the early 9th century, but the way he mentions it he appears to doubt whether it really amounted to much - that is the conversions either didn't last long or never happened on the first place. With the Shahis that is definitely true - they were definitely Hindu after c. 870 and Buddhist before then (and then again the date when they switched from Buddhist to Hindu seems to be vague as well, I think Wink says something like "third quarter of the ninth century" which doesn't help since TOG's 867 is smack dab in the middle of there). For the Zunbils.. dunno, pretty ambiguous.
Overall pretty ambiguous situation from what we know, which even Wink seems to admit.
I just wanted to throw my two cents in here. I'm by no means an expert on the history of Iran. I just like reading about the empires cradled in that quadrangle formed by Mosul, Transoxania, The Hindu Kush, and Basra. Anyway;
The consistent unification of the Iranian plateau does make the four-kingdom setup advocated by elvain incredibly elegant. Azerbaijan, with Derbent added; Daylam (with Gorgan and Dehestan!); Khorasan; and Persia, encompassing the center. But something about it nags me. I hope my proposal isn't simply unworkable.
I think my problem is that we're trying to treat Persia like a kingdom at all. It simply wasn't. Persia always was, from the Medes to the Safavids, an Empire. There was no Shah of Persia. There was only the Shahanshah of Persia: holding Persia meant being an emperor.
I was grappling with how to actually represent this, and I sort of realized that it's perfectly dealt with in one of the things Paradox almost got right on their own. Breaking up the ERE into kingdoms is pretty much silly. I'm not suggesting that the demarcations aren't well thought out - the Despot of Epirus was a guy, after all. But the ERE was really an Empire with a bunch of ducal vassals, and the kingdom-tier titles only made sense in the context of periods of superlative turmoil. So, they left the kingdoms to basically only exist in the wake of significant imperial degradation. PB/SWMH actually perfected this, by how the "reconquer the empire" CBs were structured; the de jure empire grows in size as the central kingdoms are reconquered. This playbook should broadly be stolen for Persia.
That central Persian kingdom is simply too big. It needs to be divided like France needs Aquitaine, and like the ERE needed multiple Greek kingdoms west of the Bosphorus. These kingdoms should start without holders under the Abbasids or Seljuks. But one could argue that the post-Abbasid, pre-Seljuk era, we saw the "kingdoms" of the Persian empire for CKII purposes. I think these kingdoms reveal not four, but five total and distinct power-bases.
1.) Azerbaijan - Including Derbent is really great! Total slam dunk: wish I'd thought of it.
2.) Daylam - Gorgan and Dehestan included.
3.) Eran - I'm going to call this the Kingdom definitively including the following duchies: Khozestan, Djebal, Fars, and Khoar. I would strongly encourage also including one but not both of Kerman and Kermanshah, with the latter as my person recommendation. Obviously, redrawing ducal borders could improve this; Kermanshah could be split. (So could Kerman, actually…)
4.) Khorasan - I'm thinking the more scholarly ladies and gents here have a better idea than I about the eastern and northern borders. I'd just start it NE of Al-Mafaza.
5.) Sistan - I wish there was a better name for the Saffarids' power base, but looks like it's going to have to be both a duchy and a kingdom, unless I can majik a reason to call this one Khorasan, instead. This Kingdom should include Sistan (obviously); Makran; and Kerman and/or Qohestan. The four duchy version is my recommendation. I understand that the rulers of my "Eran"-kingdom often held Kerman and Qohestan. That's basically just because the de facto Shahanshah was usually based out of the west. Kerman and Qohestan are truly border provinces, and the Saffarids, Saminids, and Ghazni all controlled a Khorasan that stretched to included my Sistan and Khorasan kingdoms pretty exactly.
So to recap:
Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan;Shrivan;Derbent
Daylam: Daylam;Tabaristan;Dehestan
Eran: Khozestan;Kermanshah;Djebal;Fars;Khoar
Khorasan: Whatever gets Herat in here.
Sistan: Kerman;Qohestan;Sistan;Makran.
Eran is the most powerful to control, then Khorasan, but any two are better than any one. I'll call that historical and balanced. The west is comparatively stronger, unless the east controls a horde of Pashtuns, which is also historical and balanced. The initial de jure kingdom borders are contentious, but plausible. If someone wants to play Abbasids/Buyids v. Saffarids/Samanids/Ghaznis, de jure drift would probably happen, anyway. In more stable starting dates, there's no need for any of the kingdoms to exist.
The consistent unification of the Iranian plateau does make the four-kingdom setup advocated by elvain incredibly elegant. Azerbaijan, with Derbent added; Daylam (with Gorgan and Dehestan!); Khorasan; and Persia, encompassing the center. But something about it nags me. I hope my proposal isn't simply unworkable.
I think my problem is that we're trying to treat Persia like a kingdom at all. It simply wasn't. Persia always was, from the Medes to the Safavids, an Empire. There was no Shah of Persia. There was only the Shahanshah of Persia: holding Persia meant being an emperor.
I was grappling with how to actually represent this, and I sort of realized that it's perfectly dealt with in one of the things Paradox almost got right on their own. Breaking up the ERE into kingdoms is pretty much silly. I'm not suggesting that the demarcations aren't well thought out - the Despot of Epirus was a guy, after all. But the ERE was really an Empire with a bunch of ducal vassals, and the kingdom-tier titles only made sense in the context of periods of superlative turmoil. So, they left the kingdoms to basically only exist in the wake of significant imperial degradation. PB/SWMH actually perfected this, by how the "reconquer the empire" CBs were structured; the de jure empire grows in size as the central kingdoms are reconquered. This playbook should broadly be stolen for Persia.
That central Persian kingdom is simply too big. It needs to be divided like France needs Aquitaine, and like the ERE needed multiple Greek kingdoms west of the Bosphorus. These kingdoms should start without holders under the Abbasids or Seljuks. But one could argue that the post-Abbasid, pre-Seljuk era, we saw the "kingdoms" of the Persian empire for CKII purposes. I think these kingdoms reveal not four, but five total and distinct power-bases.
1.) Azerbaijan - Including Derbent is really great! Total slam dunk: wish I'd thought of it.
2.) Daylam - Gorgan and Dehestan included.
3.) Eran - I'm going to call this the Kingdom definitively including the following duchies: Khozestan, Djebal, Fars, and Khoar. I would strongly encourage also including one but not both of Kerman and Kermanshah, with the latter as my person recommendation. Obviously, redrawing ducal borders could improve this; Kermanshah could be split. (So could Kerman, actually…)
4.) Khorasan - I'm thinking the more scholarly ladies and gents here have a better idea than I about the eastern and northern borders. I'd just start it NE of Al-Mafaza.
5.) Sistan - I wish there was a better name for the Saffarids' power base, but looks like it's going to have to be both a duchy and a kingdom, unless I can majik a reason to call this one Khorasan, instead. This Kingdom should include Sistan (obviously); Makran; and Kerman and/or Qohestan. The four duchy version is my recommendation. I understand that the rulers of my "Eran"-kingdom often held Kerman and Qohestan. That's basically just because the de facto Shahanshah was usually based out of the west. Kerman and Qohestan are truly border provinces, and the Saffarids, Saminids, and Ghazni all controlled a Khorasan that stretched to included my Sistan and Khorasan kingdoms pretty exactly.
So to recap:
Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan;Shrivan;Derbent
Daylam: Daylam;Tabaristan;Dehestan
Eran: Khozestan;Kermanshah;Djebal;Fars;Khoar
Khorasan: Whatever gets Herat in here.
Sistan: Kerman;Qohestan;Sistan;Makran.
Eran is the most powerful to control, then Khorasan, but any two are better than any one. I'll call that historical and balanced. The west is comparatively stronger, unless the east controls a horde of Pashtuns, which is also historical and balanced. The initial de jure kingdom borders are contentious, but plausible. If someone wants to play Abbasids/Buyids v. Saffarids/Samanids/Ghaznis, de jure drift would probably happen, anyway. In more stable starting dates, there's no need for any of the kingdoms to exist.
Last edited: