The pre-1419 storyline

[Avernite]

As I said. There is no historical precedent where muslims nation converts to christianity, but lot of oppposite (as Nubia etc).

There is no historical precedent for the Caliphate surviving, either. Doesn't stop us from doing it.

Even Interregnum has a sort of precedent, the KoJ can install a christian ruler in Egypt, so why couldn't the Byzantines do the same for the Turks? I'm sure there are some few Turks to be found, even, who'd convert to Orthodoxy if given such a chance...

 

[Sekenr]

There is no historical precedent for the Caliphate surviving, either. Doesn't stop us from doing it.

Even Interregnum has a sort of precedent, the KoJ can install a christian ruler in Egypt, so why couldn't the Byzantines do the same for the Turks? I'm sure there are some few Turks to be found, even, who'd convert to Orthodoxy if given such a chance...

There certainly were orthodox Turks living in Byzantium, and even an army corps completed of them.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

There is no historical precedent for the Caliphate surviving, either. Doesn't stop us from doing it.

Even Interregnum has a sort of precedent, the KoJ can install a christian ruler in Egypt, so why couldn't the Byzantines do the same for the Turks? I'm sure there are some few Turks to be found, even, who'd convert to Orthodoxy if given such a chance...

About CAL. It is state but we are talking about religion. There is no precedent in muslim society.
Egypt is another story cos Egypt turned from christianity to islam a very long period (not finished). At 15C they still had a lot christians. But it is questioning about goverment not about society. There is no precedent for muslim society peaceful conversion to another religion.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Just out of interest how did the remnants of the Golden Horde convert to Orthodoxy when conquered by Russia?

 

[unmerged(55521)]

Just out of interest how did the remnants of the Golden Horde convert to Orthodoxy when conquered by Russia?

They didnt. Kazan Tatars and Bashkirs are muslims still now (except some regions where they were force "converted"). All Crimean tatars was deported to siberia and centralasia by stalin. Those of Sibir, Astrahan etc were very low density population and later russians just overwhmelled their teritories and colonised them. There is still living tatar anklaves. But soviet union with it ateism policies has affected a lot (christians too ofcourse). So there is poor with practising islam, but it change to better.

 

[Avernite]

Still, I don't see why islam should be inherently more resistant to conversion than Christianity. Many Spanish muslims converted for the threat of force, so why not for the boon of rulership over Anatolia?

 

[unmerged(31994)]

The threat of force, but remained secretly Muslims - until their expulsion in 1609 by an edict, it turned out there were somewhere around 1 million Moriscos who secretly proffessed Islam.

Ahmed is right, there is simply no precedent of peaceful conversion of a Muslim community to another faith, unless it came by expulsion, the sword, and repopulation(like Spain).

 

[yourworstnightm]

Still, there were christian turks, not just that many of them, but under Byzantine supremacy some turks might convert to increase their social position (these who were not that good moslems anyway, and would neither become good christians). That the tribes closest to Byzantium might have got christian leadership (through a coup, or just a greedy emir converting) is not that farfetched. However if islam reclaim these lands it wouldn't be too hard to convert the turks to islam, since it probably still is a very active undergroumd ,ovement among the common turks.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Hey, I'm vaguely back. Unrelated to the current conversation (sorry), but, with the resettling of Christian Iberians in Ireland, and the lack of conquest of Ireland, there are some key things I'd not considered before;

- Numerous Christian thinkers came from Iberia. Key among them in my mind here are Ss. Ignatius of Loyola and Francis Xavier, founders of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order).
- Ireland was, at one time, a key center of western Christianity, and was singularly more resilient to conversion than most nations within the Renaissance; Catholicism was not a 'choice', it was a part of Irish culture, and Protestants and Reformists were shunned, beaten, and often killed when they could (in the remnants of Irish tribes that managed to avoid interference from the English lords, it was even legal to kill non-'Christians' {the Irish considered Catholics and Orthodox equally Christian for a very long time, and only officially joined the Roman Catholic Church due to concessions during the First Crusade}).

The key thing in these two is that the Irish church (itself a fairly monastic-run body) was extremely interested in converting (or re-converting) people to Christianity. During the Dark Ages, it was the Gaelic-run local churches in Britain that converted the Saxons and re-converted many Britons. Rory O'Connor (the last powerful Irish high king, defeated by the Normans, though Edward Bruce was technically a 'Gaelic' high king {he was of half-Gaelic/quarter-Norman/quarter-Saxon descent}, but I digress) had even introduced the idea of sending missions into the east, and had secured promises of aide from both Catholic and Orthodox powers. The goal was to send missionaries as far as India, to try and convert the Nestorian Christians, and then into China. However, the financing fell through, and it never happened (a revival of the mission almost occured, but the Norman invasion came, and Rory no longer had that authority).

The Jesuits, coincidentally, made major missions into Asia; Francis Xavier converted people in India, China, and Japan, amid other places. Given a similar order's creation in Eire (considering that the high kingship relates to good relations with the church; a noble deemed a heretic or heathen was forbidden to hold any office), and Eire's freedom from any such Norman troubles, revived movements to go east and convert people might be brought up. I was thinking about it due to the conversion events in Japan. The order would probably be something more like the 'Maeli Iosu' ('Followers of Jesus'), by the by, if originating in Ireland.

On a related note; there was almost a 'joint' crusade between pagan/Buddhist/Nestorian Mongols and Christian Europe. Has anyone approached this idea? When the final citadels of Outremer were about to fall, Arghun, the Mongol who ruled Persia, and a vassal of Kublai Khan, sent a diplomat to Europe in 1287. In 1258, Hulagu Khan, brother of Kublai Khan, had defeated the Abbasid caliphate. Then, in 1260, it was a Christian Mongol, Kitbuka, that captured Damascus and Allepo. Arghun, a Buddhist, wanted to encourage the Christian kings of Europe to make a common cause to take the Holy Land from Muslims and drive them into Arabia, if not utterly drive them out of the peninsula and into Africa. He was very fond of both Christians and Jews, but Muslims had always been an agitation to him, and he even used it as an excuse to attack Ahmed of Persia (Ahmed was a Muslim who converted from Nestorian Christianity, though the genuine reason was not due to conversion, but fear of Ahmed joining with the Mamluks).

Arghun wrote to Pope Honorius IV in 1285, suggesting an alliance; the letter was not returned though (Honorius died before he could read it, and successor was not selected yet), so he sent Rabban Sauma, a Christian from Asia, to speak with the Pope (not realizing there wasn't one at the time) and Christian kings. He did eventually meet with Pope Nicholas IV, as well as the king of France, England, Emperor Andronicus, and many others, and all of them seemed to love the idea, and were extremely enthusiastic, but none could set a date for when to begin. Discussion continued for some time, but Arghun was dead before a date could be selected, and the plan fell apart, as Outremer had fallen, so niether side saw much use in continuing negotiation.

Has anyone considered to work with that? The Pope was aware of the Buddhist and Christian Mongols and other Christians in Asia. With Jerusalem still present, a revival of the movement to ally Buddhists, Nestorians, Orthodox, and Catholics to take the Holy Land (the Buddhists weren't overly interested in that matter; more simply that they desired to remove Muslims from about anywhere they came across, if they could, and an alliance with Christians {and even a few Jews, actually} was seen as a prime chance to fight Muslims) might be plausible (perhaps tied with aforementioned suggestion for a 'Society of Jesus' type series of events with missions into Asia). It could provide an interesting, very late 'Crusade' type event.

 

[Lurken]

Has anyone considered to work with that? The Pope was aware of the Buddhist and Christian Mongols and other Christians in Asia. With Jerusalem still present, a revival of the movement to ally Buddhists, Nestorians, Orthodox, and Catholics to take the Holy Land (the Buddhists weren't overly interested in that matter; more simply that they desired to remove Muslims from about anywhere they came across). It could provide an interesting, very late 'Crusade' type event.

Sounds like a plausible idea, and in the Interregnum world is it quite likely it could happen. Since it was close to happen in OTL.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

I suggested a possible alliance between the Ill-Khans and the Christians of Jeruslem, but for plausibilities sake, after the defeat of the Mongols outside of Baghdad, we decided that the Christians and Muslims allied with each other to stop Ghengis's hordes.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

I suggested a possible alliance between the Ill-Khans and the Christians of Jeruslem, but for plausibilities sake, after the defeat of the Mongols outside of Baghdad, we decided that the Christians and Muslims allied with each other to stop Ghengis's hordes.

Do you refer here to the Christians of Jerusalem? And it would be of little consequence at this point how the hordes were stopped; it doesn't mean Nestorians and Hindus and Buddhists were cheerfully interacting with Islam, not to mention that Christians wouldn't necessarily be too happy with Muslims; short-lived alliances between Christians and Muslims happened plenty of times, it doesn't seem like it should be a major factor in deciding on interactions with the easterners. And the contact by Arghun was not the first, simply the most elaborate and nearest that came to a joint war effort. There were also contacts with Hindus a few times, Nestorian Indians, Tibet (feared that Indian Muslims would go north), and Nestorian Chinese. It's not necessarily just potential for interaction with Mongols, but to exploit that eastern and western Christians were aware of eachother and did attempt to work together (Arghun just being the nearest to succeeding at it).

 

[MattyG]

The threat of force, but remained secretly Muslims - until their expulsion in 1609 by an edict, it turned out there were somewhere around 1 million Moriscos who secretly proffessed Islam.

Ahmed is right, there is simply no precedent of peaceful conversion of a Muslim community to another faith, unless it came by expulsion, the sword, and repopulation(like Spain).

The problem is that the game permits the conversion from Christianity to Islam and islam to Christtianity, when in reality the world has seen very little of either. Despite centuries of Moor rule in Iberia and Ottoman rule in the Balkans the populations remained largely Christian. Christians did convert to Islam, but taken as a whole it was a very limited occurance. The same is true for Shinto, Hindu and Confucianism. The Islamic Mugals ruled India for centuries but by and large the Hindus remained Hindu. Real conversion (see Egypt) takes a millenium. People don't give up their religion easily, because it is part of their culture. They may change the way they practice it or who they report to (see protestantism ) but they remain, as in that case, a Christian still.

Of course, as population's religion can be different from the ruling class, as in the Muhgals, Ottomans, Moors, Levant kingdoms. So, a Turkish orthodox state is conceivable, but the provinces would remain muslim.

Except that conversion is so easy in those situations, especially for the ai. Burgundy converting Mecca to Catholic would be very very difficult because of the distance and lack of a land connection, but still possible, when it ought really to be impossible. In the events for Sicily in North Africa, the conversion to Catholic and change if culture to Italian is predicated on the forced removal of people, colonization by Sicilians and a repressive governance. All of which can be quickly reverted by event if Sicily is swept from the region. This model makes sense historically.

Sadly, we cannot change the game. And a lot of people like the fun of converting the whole world to Islam in under 400 years (eh Ahmed?!) even though I guarentee you that would have been impossible. Then again, so is conquering the world, especially in that period. EU2 is a great game, but we have to swallow some stuff. Hopefully conversion will be much much more difficult in EU3.

 

[MattyG]

Do you refer here to the Christians of Jerusalem? And it would be of little consequence at this point how the hordes were stopped; it doesn't mean Nestorians and Hindus and Buddhists were cheerfully interacting with Islam, not to mention that Christians wouldn't necessarily be too happy with Muslims; short-lived alliances between Christians and Muslims happened plenty of times, it doesn't seem like it should be a major factor in deciding on interactions with the easterners. And the contact by Arghun was not the first, simply the most elaborate and nearest that came to a joint war effort. There were also contacts with Hindus a few times, Nestorian Indians, Tibet (feared that Indian Muslims would go north), and Nestorian Chinese. It's not necessarily just potential for interaction with Mongols, but to exploit that eastern and western Christians were aware of eachother and did attempt to work together (Arghun just being the nearest to succeeding at it).

Intriguing material. How do you see it actually playing out in the game? My initial feeling is that this would be very difficult to model with the structures of the game, especially with the 'west' not even having maps of the 'east' (and we don't want them to have them in 1419 .

It is also one thing for kings be be receptive to an idea and quite another for them to get of their backsides, put the cash up and send troops off overseas.

Not trying to be negative here, just slipping into practical code-writer mode.

I wouldn't want us to be rewriting the history of that region again and wondering what would have happened if that alliance had occured in the late 1200s. However, the game at 1419 is poised with the Caliphate ready to enter a new golden age if it can destroy the Kingdom of Jerusalem, before turning on the Mongols of the Il-Khanate. Your storyline could play out in an alliance not between the European kings and the mongols, but between the KoJ and the Il-Khanate, something that now appears to be an obvious connection now that I think about it.

It would put the spicey sping on theings the region needs, because as it stands the Caliphate has a pretty easy time (usually) of turning on first one opponent, then the next, with none of them in a position to help the other, but itself having allies in the Mamelukes and Turkish minors.

The allaince between the KoJ and Il-Khanate could be a done deal if they are both ai-controlled, and it wouldn't even have to be an alliance. If the Caliphate DoWs the KoJ, then the Il-Khanate will have an action_a to DoW the Caliphate, seeing their opportunity to strike at their ancient foe. A great challenge for the player, and player's need challenges. And we can avoid an actually alliance and the trouble that causes. Let us not pretend that relations between the mongols and Christians would not have broken down completely once the Muslim Arabs were 'swept from the region'.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

Still, there were christian turks, not just that many of them, but under Byzantine supremacy some turks might convert to increase their social position (these who were not that good moslems anyway, and would neither become good christians). That the tribes closest to Byzantium might have got christian leadership (through a coup, or just a greedy emir converting) is not that farfetched. However if islam reclaim these lands it wouldn't be too hard to convert the turks to islam, since it probably still is a very active undergroumd ,ovement among the common turks.

While in modern world christian misionaries get this kind few hundrets "christians" ("these who were not that good moslems anyway, and would neither become good christians"), who are christians only for job or to emigrate to europe, this kind "conversion" can not be in wide in muslim societies. It can not be aplied to whole society or majority or even important minority. EU2 have this conversion muslims to another religion but its only for gameplay. In real life there is only options which calipah counted.
IRL I can mention only few cases where muslims (or muslim teritories become mainly poplated with nonmuslims) later become nonmuslims:
1) muslim spain. But there ofcource was emigrations and those who left hoped for better times. Its taked centuries, inqusition, coercion and emigration and repopulation with catholics.
2) some 10% slaves from west africa was muslims. But they become slaves and families were broke and in slavery childrens was taken away and so on...
3) One region in Tatarstan. Converted by sword.

Now muslim teritories which is not so now:
1) Many muslim teritories in Russia which were low desity so lot a russians settled there. Like many parts of GH and Sibir.
The same case with south philipine.
2) Some muslim nations have been whole deported to Siberia or Cenralasia by stalin and this empty space was colonised by russians, ukrainans or others. In these cases some half or more of this nation dies in process of deportation (and killing - just a genicide) or in awful conditions in Siberia. Later most or some of this nation returned when Hruschow allowed to return. But their houses was already is populated by russians or others. This is case of Crimean tatars, chechens, turks in russia and anothers.
3) Refugies from their land after ocupation by hostile power, after change of political situation. This is case from Palestine, Chams, Turks and local muslims refugies from balkans, crete, sicily and so on.
When state under which lives muslims turn against them. No counting previous exemples there is some parts of india, byrma, fall of colonial system in some cases.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Well, the thing is, not all Mongols were 'pagans' in Christian mindset; there were a great deal of Christian Mongols (mostly Nestorians). So, if they had a Christian leader (which would be wholely possible at times earlier; if the Khanate hasn't changed TOO much, a Nestorian leader would not be impossible), their relations would go fine, could be a series of events in itself; a Nestorian comes to power (Orthodox for simplicity's sake), improving relations with Jerusalem and some other Christians. There'd be, at the same time, a choice for a Buddhist, and perhaps a Muslim.

On a related note, kings DID get off their backsides; treasure was sent, troops were prepared, etc. Just, no date was set. If a date had been selected, the 'extra-Christian pilgrimage' (as in, 'more than Christians', since Jews, Buddhists, and some Hindus were involved) probably would've occured.

The KoJ allying with the Il-Khanate would not be reliant on a Christian leader in the Khanate; I mean, Arghun was a Buddhist. He just had numerous Christians in key positions, and was decidely pro-Christian and pro-Jewish (he was quite enamored with Judeo-Christian belief; his best friend was a Nestorian priest and one of his key influences). So, if you want to run a 'KoJ allies with the Il-Khanate' line, unless the Il-Khanate was purely filled out by Muslims, I find it unlikely that the Christians of Jerusalem would worry (with the exception of medieval Japan, Christianity has had a fairly 'alright' track record with Buddhists; for example, Korean Buddhists and Catholics are unusually unified because of certain theological agreements, even if there are also theological problems; none of those problems are so major that it tends to come to violence though {Understand that in much Catholic theology of the period, Islam is technically a heresy, which is reacted rather more apprehensively; Buddhism is just heathen, which really isn't considered that bad, so long as they leave Christians alone, and the Mongol Buddhists were fairly good to the Christians}).

If there was a possible 'Nestorian Khanate' event, after the war with the Caliphate, relations would be fine. If not, KoJ could have a few events about paranoia, and eventual war, with the Khanate either earning that paranoia (by making moves to take Jerusalem for itself), or by relaxing and holding to their agreement. If they 'revive' the agreements Arghun planned, they may even turn over some territories (the entirety of the Holy Land, if they possess any of it) to the KoJ (thus cancelling any of the 'paranoia' events, even if the Khanate isn't Christian; I mean, that's a pretty solid way of ensuring there isn't ill will; likewise, the KoJ would turn over provinces outside the scope of the Crusade).

The Khanate could always send some emissaries to 'key' kingdoms; the Byzantines, the KoJ (which would have the bulk of events tied together), and the Papacy, not necessarily to get them to go to war themselves, but to see if they'll preach the crusade; could give an event to the Papacy that would allow them to issue the call for it, giving Catholic kingdoms an option to join it; would be more dynamic then the Khanate just trying to establish allies; it wouldn't necessarily mean there were any allies then at all, just to get interest in sending soldiers into the east (incidentally, a similar event could occur with Eire asking for help to take Iberia; as noted above, reconversion of formerly Christian territories was a big part of traditional Irish church thought; unimpeded by the Normans, and with Iberian influences, it seems likely they'd ask for assistance in invading Iberia {if they elect to invade Iberia to begin with}).

And the west doesn't need to have maps of the east right away; it can come with events, like, a Nestorian priest from China comes to the west to establish relations with western Christians for whatever reason (local repression, outside threats to China, etc.), tied to events within China itself perhaps. Or the aforementioned 'Society of Jesus'-esque order being founded; one of their goals was to map the east and establish relations with the Nestorians, and convert new Christians. It could all actually be tied together, but it'd be insane to code probably, so no concern over that, but there were some things that occured out there (Nestorian repression in India; some places expelled them for fear that the regions would convert; that ran a number off into Europe, China, or eventually into the Phillipines).

Sorry if that's all confusing, a bit tired at the moment.

 

[MattyG]

This is really strong stuff, Ranika, soundly grounded in historical realities.

I think that we can pull it off and make it interesting, but there needs to be some balance it it too.

I am always concerned about a balance (perceived or real) between the various religious 'worlds'. If we propose an alliance between a Christian-led Il-Khanate ( or expanded Quarluk ?!) and the KoJ upon war with the Caliphate, then I'd suggest we need also to offer a prize to the Caliphate for enduring this gang-up.

My proposal is that the war with the Caliphate is not popular in all part of the Il-Khanate. Victory over the Caliphate would silence the critics, as victory always does. But a loss to the Caliphate (or even a stalemate) would result in an civil war within the Khanate, spilt perhaps on racial lies, which are likely also to be religious lines. A the largest part breaks away at war with the Chrstian/mongol dominated northern section. The south allies with the Caliphate. Eventually, the northern Khanate would integrate with Qarluk, but would be the poorer, landlocked rump, while an Islamic-dominated southern Khanate would be the wealther of the two and closely alligned with the Caliphate. The Caliphate's prize? An ally at its back, no need to conquer Persia, and this new ally would send troops in times of war (specialized events).

Thoughts all?

 

[unmerged(51398)]

This is really strong stuff, Ranika, soundly grounded in historical realities.

I think that we can pull it off and make it interesting, but there needs to be some balance it it too.

I am always concerned about a balance (perceived or real) between the various religious 'worlds'. If we propose an alliance between a Christian-led Il-Khanate ( or expanded Quarluk ?!) and the KoJ upon war with the Caliphate, then I'd suggest we need also to offer a prize to the Caliphate for enduring this gang-up.

My proposal is that the war with the Caliphate is not popular in all part of the Il-Khanate. Victory over the Caliphate would silence the critics, as victory always does. But a loss to the Caliphate (or even a stalemate) would result in an civil war within the Khanate, spilt perhaps on racial lies, which are likely also to be religious lines. A the largest part breaks away at war with the Chrstian/mongol dominated northern section. The south allies with the Caliphate. Eventually, the northern Khanate would integrate with Qarluk, but would be the poorer, landlocked rump, while an Islamic-dominated southern Khanate would be the wealther of the two and closely alligned with the Caliphate. The Caliphate's prize? An ally at its back, no need to conquer Persia, and this new ally would send troops in times of war (specialized events).

Thoughts all?

Sounds about right to me. Christian Mongols and maybe some of the more liberal Buddhists (a la Arghun), and a few Jews would likely be the main proponents. More conservative Buddhists, animists, any Muslim subjects (obviously), would not be so willing to support the movement, though any critics would, as you mentioned, probably shut up if it was successful, and a civil war seems fairly probable if it fails. I don't mean to imply the Il-Khanate would be all excited about it, but mind that Nestorian Christians and quite a few sympathizers made up a lot of Mongols at the time (though not necessarily a majority even; however, it's not reliant on a majority, but on having them in the right places). However, even those who aren't sympathizing with the Christian cause probably could see some value in using it to strong arm the Caliphate, and thus, would be willing to at least ride it out.

In the civil war, Buddhists might split from both groups (not joining the Caliphate but also fighting the Christians), depending. They'd probably be safer with the Christians (who, as mentioned, were socially fairly well integrated with the Buddhists, in Mongol societies anyway), but Buddhists might also blame Christians for the failed war (since the premise is largely based on helping a Christian ally), and ally with the Muslim Caliphate simply to have the strength to thump on the Nestorians, though that might be an option for the Caliphate (perhaps paying some amount of treasure to have agents incite tensions between the Christians and Buddhists, causing, if nothing else, rebellions in the remainder of the Il-Khanate, and flatly absorbing a few additional provinces).

I like the angle though; could offer a kind of unexpected war of religion in the period; instead of different denominations of Christianity and Islam fighting it out, it'd be an actual, possibly protracted conflict involving Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists, which is pretty unique I think.

 

[MattyG]

Then I hope Calipah likes the storyline because we have the potential for an exciting series of events.

I actually think it fits really well into his revised 14th century event cycle/storyline that he has sent me (some exciting new stuff!). The Caliphate begins the game with a weak Caliphs but by 1440 you get a choice between a great reforming vizier who alienates Turkish guards and a Turkish general who is a better military commander for the caliphate but doesn't 'medernize' the Caliphate in the same way.

I can see this working well into the above scenario, with the ai choice being switched depending on the success of a coflict with the KoJ/Mongols. If its a military success, then the Turkish general is action_a, ortherwise he's action_b (plyers can always chose either one, of course.

But we can also make it that the caliphate is really unlikely to DoW the KoJ or the Il-Khanate at this time, while the monarchs remain weak, to slow things down and prevent the standard 1420 'end game' in the region.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

You are aware however matty that were changing the whole file and upping it?the 14th century bit is just the begining...

Anyway, Ranika, I scripted some new events for the Ill-Khanate in the Uzbek and everyone thread, check it out if you have time and give us your opinions.

Edit : Since Im graduating this thursday, and I will be studying for the next two weeks for my exams, I dont think I can do much - however, if you finish the Caliphate 14th century Matty, I can begin working on the 15th and 16th century to continue the storyline and update the texts.

Almost done?