The History Of Europa Universalis 4: What are your sources?
- Thread starter pattb011
- 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.
Summarized history from a guy (me) that actually visited Lamu and Pate towns.I've read that article before. Its okay, but more geological (town locations) rather than history
Pate has a history dating way back, being recorded in the Periplus of the Erythraean sea as Pyralax island. Islam was introduced to the island probably around the rise of the Abbasids and was a small trading post. The sultanate of Pate was founded in 1204 by powerful people related to the Nabhan sultan of Oman who left due to some civil conflict happening in coastal Oman. The land previously belonged to the Kilwa Sultanate but was probably bought or ceded. The early rulers of Pate might've been Ibadite, but in the 14th century some rulers followed Sunnism which is what most of the citizens followed. In 1408 Pate's rulers went back to the Ibadi religion. Pate's largest town, Faza, was also razed by troops loyal to the sultan of Pate not long after game start. Pate was one of the towns that surrendered to the Portuguese in 1505 but the Portuguese were unusually kind towards the island's inhabitants (probably due to Pate's outstanding silk). Pate island, in particular Faza, also supported turkish corsair Mir Ali Bey against the Portuguese, so the ruler of Faza was killed and his head was displayed in Goa. Pate entered a golden age along with its neighbor Lamu in the 18th century, but in 1812 the army of Pate was crushed at Shela by Lamu's forces and experienced a downfall. Around 1850 or so the sultan moved his capital to Witu where it remained until the 1890s. I can explain a little bit more, but this tablet keyboard keeps on closing out on me. I can't seem to find a source on the 1444 ingame ruler Abubakr , but I've ordered the Pate chronicle and some more Swahili history books.
The people of Pate (Wapate) are the Bajuni, who are usually found in coastal Jubaland, Somalia and the Lamu archipelago.
Last edited:
- 1
Wow, thanks! That's a ton of information. Exactly what I was looking for! If you find any websites that back up your information, please post it here, but even so; the information you gave was spot on.
I mostly got my information from Jstor and Google Books reports. Tons of books relating to the east african coast or Zanzibar will talk about Pate to some extent. One i liked was "The Persian Gulf: Dutch-Omani relation" which also talks about Oman's ouster of the Portuguese from the Swahili coast and Pate, and the Pate Chronicle which is a bit expensive ($30-60) but is a greeat source, i read through part of it in a Mombasa library.Wow, thanks! That's a ton of information. Exactly what I was looking for! If you find any websites that back up your information, please post it here, but even so; the information you gave was spot on.
As for websites, I don't remember which ones exactly i looked at but with some good google-fu you can find a lot of stuff. Try to look for reports by Neville Chittick or Mark Horton, 2 archaeologists who know what they are talking about. And if you're interested in foreign depictions of the east african coast and hinterlands check this place out. https://sites.google.com/site/historyofeastafrica/
Oh and one thing to note: Pate island (and pretty much all of the swahili coast save Kilwa) was not unified in 1444 like you see in game, Pate was the strongest power in the archipelago, the other towns were essentially vassals. It's important to look at these Swahili sultanates as more of like confederations or loose trading alliances where the rule was in the hands of any person powerful enough.
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pate_sultanate
I just found this wiki for Pate. From what you're saying; do you mean that Pate wasn't strictly independent, or that Kilwari provinces weren't?
Also, I think I'll take a good look at this Pate chronicle, sounds like a brilliant source! I was researching Post-classical Mayan independent Mayan states, and I found a chronicle from one of the states, although which state it was eludes me at this current moment.
Anything remotely related to history between 1AD to 1850AD interests me greatly, so any unique information is greatly appreciated, however; common European history no longer interests me like it perhaps used to. Any commonly unknown European history is appreciated nonetheless. At my age (14), it find it very difficult to get any sources of history in the form of solid material, and therefore I am limited to the ocean of the internet, so I give my thanks for all the information I've been given thus far.
Also, RockmanYoshi; are you the person I have as a friend on steam?
I just found this wiki for Pate. From what you're saying; do you mean that Pate wasn't strictly independent, or that Kilwari provinces weren't?
Also, I think I'll take a good look at this Pate chronicle, sounds like a brilliant source! I was researching Post-classical Mayan independent Mayan states, and I found a chronicle from one of the states, although which state it was eludes me at this current moment.
Anything remotely related to history between 1AD to 1850AD interests me greatly, so any unique information is greatly appreciated, however; common European history no longer interests me like it perhaps used to. Any commonly unknown European history is appreciated nonetheless. At my age (14), it find it very difficult to get any sources of history in the form of solid material, and therefore I am limited to the ocean of the internet, so I give my thanks for all the information I've been given thus far.
Also, RockmanYoshi; are you the person I have as a friend on steam?
The Mayan chronicle was produced by the Mixtec people an is called the
Codex Zouche-Nuttall
In case anybody is interested: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004DI73UU/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_hist_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Zouche-Nuttall
Codex Zouche-Nuttall
In case anybody is interested: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004DI73UU/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_hist_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Zouche-Nuttall
Since I'm becoming a teacher for history I could use these pornographic films for my lessons.
For the more obscure stuff, you probably won't be able to get much sources in English. Even for a country like Bohemia, I can't find any more than two or three books in English, and they are hardly in depth. So before one can get to the meat of those sources, one will have to learn more languages.
I know, I found this when trying to find a decent english translation of the Pate Chronicle
Pate was an independent town just like Malindi and Mombasa but it didn't exactly rule all of the island. About Kilwa, that was pretty much a unified sultanate but their suzerainty over zanzibar and the comoros was nominal. In fact Mombasa should technically be Kilwan but since they were so autonomous Paradox gave them independence (if they were Kilwan they'd most likely break away from the sultanate during the Kilwan civil war ) I have no idea if you're friends with me on Steam, my name on steam is RockmanYoshi though, look for the one with the weird face as a avatar.
Oh and in regards to the wiki page and rulers list: those things did happen but they obviously can't be simulated in EU4 without adding some tags and reworking the Swahili coast as a whole
Okay, thank you for clearing that up
I was looking into the Qasim Khanate, a state which can be found in the province of Kasimov in the year AD1452. There is a lot of information on the wiki page regarding this important Turkic-Russian buffer state. I reccomend reading into it if anyone here hasn't ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_Khanate )
Although the facts on the wiki are fairly straight-forward for the most part, the last paragraph of the wiki is hard to interpret due to disorginisation, but it seems to suggest that Qasim revolted against their russian overlords in 1656, however there is no information or even a referance to this Tartar revolt. Does anybody have any information on this, and any extra information about the Qasim Khanate?
Thanks
I was looking into the Qasim Khanate, a state which can be found in the province of Kasimov in the year AD1452. There is a lot of information on the wiki page regarding this important Turkic-Russian buffer state. I reccomend reading into it if anyone here hasn't ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_Khanate )
Although the facts on the wiki are fairly straight-forward for the most part, the last paragraph of the wiki is hard to interpret due to disorginisation, but it seems to suggest that Qasim revolted against their russian overlords in 1656, however there is no information or even a referance to this Tartar revolt. Does anybody have any information on this, and any extra information about the Qasim Khanate?
Thanks
I am aware of the existence of the nation of Styria, but I require a source (preferably primary) aswell as semi-detailed history.
To be clear there was no nation of Styria at this time (or any time, really). However, Styria was a "country" or "state" in the same way that Moravia, Bohemia (proper), Upper and Lower Austria, etc. were all states within the Habsburg Monarchy. In fact most of the "countries" in EU should have the same structure as the Habsburg Monarchy, that is: they should consist of different states united loosely by a personal union. For exmaple: Spain!
All the states within the Habsburg Monarchy had their own political traditions, some degree of self-administration and parliaments (estates/Stände/cortes) - which of course were not parliaments in the modern sense, as they were dominated by the big landholders in the respective state, or, in the second half of EUs timeline, by the monarch/crown ("absolutism" --> then the nobles had other means of influence, at court). So basically, Styria was just one of many, many states that are not represented in EU at all. EU fails to grasp the very basic political structures and the big development of the age it is set in, I'm afraid. It should be a game of conflict between crown/centre and estates/peripheries. Conflicts of centralization were just as characteristic for the period as conflicts between souvereigns (think Huguenot Wars, think the "Rebellion" of the bohemian estates 1618, etc). If at all, they are represented in EU not dynamically but in scripted and rather supferficial manner. The "countries" that players control in EU are by far too much centralized and unified. An early modern 17th century composite monarchy was very different from a modern nation state!
The whole age could have been represented much more plausibly with the CKII engine (featuring characters and titles) and some tweaks (focus on the political rather than the personal/private aspects of relationships, parliaments as strong "actors"). This way, we could also have courts play their proper role and also favouritism (this was the golden age of grey eminences and favourites!). It would not only give us a much more plausible historical setting/structure, but also the much needed baroque flavour that EU totally lacks.
As it has already been mentioned in this thread, Styria might be included as a souvereign "country" somehow because in 1564 Ferdinands I' heritage (the titles) was split up under his three sons, according to the inheritence law/tradition of the house of Habsburg (later on they finally realized it was not a very smart thing to do...). This led to three well .. semi- or - in InnerAustrias case fully souvereign territories, the last of which were united under one person only under Leopold I. 1655 (?). Archduke (=prince) Charles (the youngest son) received Inner Austria, which comprised the states Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Gorizia, Gradiska, Trieste, Istria and Friuli. Maximilan, the oldest son, received the imperial crown, the kingdom of Bohemia (consisting of the "states" Moravia, Silesia, Bohemia proper, the two Lusatias), the kingdom (you might also call it empire) of Hungary and the two Austrias (Lower and Upper Austria). Archduke Ferdinand, the middle son, received Tyrol and the "Vorderlande", that is a lot of tiny territories in what is today southern Germany.
As for sources for Styria: you could just look up any good history of Austria. The one standard reference for the Habsburg Monarchy in this age are the two volumes by Thomas Winkelbauer, Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht 1522-1699. Of course there might also be articles in history journals on the estates of Styria in particular (Styria was also very involved in organizing/paying for the habsburg military border). In English, I think R. J.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy is the way to go and gives a nice overview. I don't know what kind of "primary sources" you'd like to see for Styria.
There are probably millions of documents that have been produced by or refer to the institution of the Styrian state/estates in this age (the estates usually came into being in the late middle ages, when - in absence of "stable" territorial lords - they took over the administration of the country). Perhaps one could find a list of the most important noblemen of the styrian estates (...). Today, Styria is still a federal state of Austria.
Last edited:
- 1
To be clear there was no nation of Styria at this time (or any time, really). However, Styria was a "country" or "state" in the same way that Moravia, Bohemia (proper), Upper and Lower Austria, etc. were all states within the Habsburg Monarchy. In fact most of the "countries" in EU should have the same structure as the Habsburg Monarchy, that is: they should consist of different states united loosely by a personal union. For exmaple: Spain!
All the states within the Habsburg Monarchy had their own political traditions, some degree of self-administration and parliaments (estates/Stände/cortes) - which of course were not parliaments in the modern sense, as they were dominated by the big landholders in the respective state, or, in the second half of EUs timeline, by the monarch/crown ("absolutism" --> then the nobles had other means of influence, at court). So basically, Styria was just one of many, many states that are not represented in EU at all. EU fails to grasp the very basic political structures and the big development of the age it is set in, I'm afraid. It should be a game of conflict between crown/centre and estates/peripheries. Conflicts of centralization were just as characteristic for the period as conflicts between souvereigns (think Huguenot Wars, think the "Rebellion" of the bohemian estates 1618, etc). If at all, they are represented in EU not dynamically but in scripted and rather supferficial manner. The "countries" that players control in EU are by far too much centralized and unified. An early modern 17th century composite monarchy was very different from a modern nation state!
The whole age could have been represented much more plausibly with the CKII engine (featuring characters and titles) and some tweaks (focus on the political rather than the personal/private aspects of relationships, parliaments as strong "actors"). This way, we could also have courts play their proper role and also favouritism (this was the golden age of grey eminences and favourites!). It would not only give us a much more plausible historical setting/structure, but also the much needed baroque flavour that EU totally lacks.
As it has already been mentioned in this thread, Styria might be included as a souvereign "country" somehow because in 1564 Ferdinands I' heritage (the titles) was split up under his three sons, according to the inheritence law/tradition of the house of Habsburg (later on they finally realized it was not a very smart thing to do...). This led to three well .. semi- or - in InnerAustrias case fully souvereign territories, the last of which were united under one person only under Leopold I. 1655 (?). Archduke (=prince) Charles (the youngest son) received Inner Austria, which comprised the states Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Gorizia, Gradiska, Trieste, Istria and Friuli. Maximilan, the oldest son, received the imperial crown, the kingdom of Bohemia (consisting of the "states" Moravia, Silesia, Bohemia proper, the two Lusatias), the kingdom (you might also call it empire) of Hungary and the two Austrias (Lower and Upper Austria). Archduke Ferdinand, the middle son, received Tyrol and the "Vorderlande", that is a lot of tiny territories in what is today southern Germany.
As for sources for Styria: you could just look up any good history of Austria. The one standard reference for the Habsburg Monarchy in this age are the two volumes by Thomas Winkelbauer, Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht 1522-1699. Of course there might also be articles in history journals on the estates of Styria in particular (Styria was also very involved in organizing/paying for the habsburg military border). In English, I think R. J.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy is the way to go and gives a nice overview. I don't know what kind of "primary sources" you'd like to see for Styria.
Wow, that's amazing. So much information!
I understand what you mean about the inaccurate centralization of the nations in EU4. Nations where comprised of semi-autonomous vassals. Thank you for all the info.
Well yes I'm a person that is interested in history (primarily 1650-1750 though). I don't see what's wrong with that. Most games that are ... well somewhat ... informed on the age they're trying to portray are better and more flavourfull games. CK II offered vassals, no standing armies and a kind of "decentralization" unseen in games before. That is/was great! Although it's not perfect, I love CK II. EU could have gone the same way, surprising their players with something unusual/unexpected in computer games, yet historical. I don't see what would be wrong if we could finally play out precedence quarrels between ambassadors in Rome.
My carriage is going first! I will force my way!!Wow, that's amazing. So much information!
I understand what you mean about the inaccurate centralization of the nations in EU4. Nations where comprised of semi-autonomous vassals. Thank you for all the info.
Well let's not call them nations (which always implicates culture somehow), just souvereign powers (monarchies/republics).
I have put some effort into sketching out a "solution" (see signature) although I admit it was too complicated and needed to be distilled/abstracted down further. In general, you would have one to a few "regions" per parliament/state. Each region is "inhabited" by one noble family. The opinion of all noble families added together (and weighted by their rank) would make up the opinion of the parliament. The parliaments would be very strong actors that would agree/disagree to give you manpower and taxes.
You could also influence the opinion of individual noble families at your "court". Noblemen would be your personal for diplomats and generals and advisors, their skill influenced by their opinion of you. All noblemen would be part of factions. There would be almost no need for "private" things affecting opinion, just political things (I had mechanisms for diplomatic factions, "ethnical" factions, clientel-factions and confessional factions).
The system would have been quite flexible and also well suited to all kinds of government forms/able to depict many variations of the age.
I don't think anyone's claiming that Haasa, Najd, or Circassia were actual polities at the time, but EU4 has no way to represent inhabited areas with no centralised power other than being ruled by some other tag. It'd be strange to have Najd under Hejazi or Omani control, so it's Najd. What is strange is that their NIs are largely based on Wahhabism, which was obviously not invented yet.
As for Finland, it did exist during the time period as the Grand Duchy of Finland, albeit not in 1444. However, it doesn't exist in 1444 anyway.
I'd like you to enlighten me when it comes to Timbuktu, Kham, and Uzbek, though.
Such areas can be left empty, plain and simple. And tags which appeared later may be introduced through events in appropriate time.
Finland has cores, I believe. Independent Finland appearing before 19th century is weird.
Kham is a region, never was a unified polity.
Timbuktu is a town, not a state.
Uzbek did not exist until well into 19th century, neither as a state, nor as a culture.
But as I wrote before, I don't want to get involved in historical discussions. Another user asked me for examples, so I've thrown several of many. That's all.