Turkish cultured Mamluks.

[.Me]

I have a suggest, actually in the game the Mamluk Sultanate is of egyptian culture, imho I believe that this is wrong, really wrong.
The Mamluk sultanate was not an arabic state ruled by a turkish dinasty, it was actually a sort of "apartheid" where a relatively big elitè of turkish and circassian warriors ruled a big majority of egyptian arabs, and in time many Arab uprisings are evidence that the Arabs saw the Mamluk Sultanate as a foreign domination.
The sultanate, furthermore, was also called "ed-Devletü't-Türkiyye" that mean in fact "Nation of the Turks".

So I believe that make the Mamluks of turkish culture would be more correct, and actually the Mamluks ideas are a mix of egyptian and properly Mamluks things, I think that maybe "separate" them will be a good thing, and make an idea set for the arabic Egypt and one for the Mamluk Sultanate. And in this case, clearly Egypt will become the primary nation of the Egyptian Culture, that, perhaps, may appear in case of revolt.
... Also because the egyptian people revolting to recreate the mamluk state has never really convinced me

 

[Incompetent]

Given how strongly the Mamluks enforced the cultural separation between themselves and the Egyptians, they should definitely have some other primary culture and not benefit from Egyptian cultural rebels. It's also worth noting that the Mamluks weren't just of non-Egyptian ancestry, each generation was recruited afresh from abroad, typically Crimea or the Caucasus. (The son of a Mamluk is not himself a Mamluk, although he could sometimes become Sultan.) So nevermind apartheid South Africa, picture a country being run by the Légion étrangère. You can make a case for Turkish or Circassian primary culture. Also, the Mamluk Sultanate was not a hereditary monarchy and ought to have some sort of elective government type (but with rulers typically ruling for life instead of having elections on a regular schedule).

On a similar note, it would be cool to have the possibility of the Janissaries taking over the Ottoman Empire and forming their own Mamluk-style regime, with say Serbian primary culture.

As for the Egyptians themselves, I gather that Muslim Egyptians generally identity as Arabs *and* as descendants/heirs of the ancient Egyptians. Like Persia, the country has a long and proud cultural tradition from before the Islamic conquest (although unlike Persia, the indigenous language became marginalised). So probably the locals would also regard a ruler from the Arabian Peninsula as foreign.

 

[Trin Tragula]

This is a complicated issue. You absolutely have a point.
At the same time Mamluk nobility is pretty well entrenched in the entire region and it makes good sense for separatists to be Mamluk. Separatists are not necessarily driven by nationalism after all. Even under Ottoman occupation the Mamluks remained quite powerful, and the source of any rebellions as far as I know, up until Mohamed Ali (who dealt with them quite harshly, among other things through his own version of a red wedding* precisely because they where so entrenched in Egyptian society).
Basically unlike other states that start with a minority culture in the game it would be far from unthinkable for an annexed Mamluk state to be recreated (and arguably this could've happened a few times). This is more or less why the setup is the way it is right now.
The idea with the form Egypt decision is that you deal with the Mamluks and instead create an Egyptian nation.

If we make separatists Egyptian from the start then this link to how things kind of happened historically is lost.
In a way this is not so different from how separatists in India can form new sultanates in the Deccan.

*not actually a wedding.

Edit: also, this is more for the suggestions forum

 

[Grand Historian]

This is a complicated issue. You absolutely have a point.
At the same time Mamluk nobility is pretty well entrenched in the entire region and it makes good sense for separatists to be Mamluk. Separatists are not necessarily driven by nationalism after all. Even under Ottoman occupation the Mamluks remained quite powerful, and the source of any rebellions as far as I know, up until Mohamed Ali (who dealt with them quite harshly, among other things through his own version of a red wedding* precisely because they where so entrenched in Egyptian society).
Basically unlike other states that start with a minority culture in the game it would be far from unthinkable for an annexed Mamluk state to be recreated (and arguably this could've happened a few times). This is more or less why the setup is the way it is right now.
The idea with the form Egypt decision is that you deal with the Mamluks and instead create an Egyptian nation.

If we make separatists Egyptian from the start then this link to how things kind of happened historically is lost.
In a way this is not so different from how separatists in India can form new sultanates in the Deccan.

*not actually a wedding.

Edit: also, this is more for the suggestions forum

Speaking of this, would it be possible to make Athens Greek culture at start? Though the nobility certainly was Italian, Nerio II spoke Greek naturally and was one of the largest proponents for a revived philhellenism in Italy, and overall the ruling class had begun to view themselves as being locals as well. It would also mean that Athens could be released. (A similar situation to this arose on Cyprus, where not only the French rulers viewed themselves as being locals - and the locals for the most part were quite accommodating to them - but the Greeks on Cyprus became so influenced by Latin styles that had Cypriot emerged as a distinct culture).

 

[Pellucid]

I think Circassian would make more sense than Turkish. If they had Turkish culture, it could result in weird situations like Mamluks revolting from former Ottoman provinces.

 

[victimizer]

The idea with the form Egypt decision is that you deal with the Mamluks and instead create an Egyptian nation.

Mohammed Ali was an Albanian Ottoman state official and doubtless his lack of loyalty to the Mamluks was the result of his background. He didn't only undermine the Mamluks, he also did away with the power of the Waqfs (another thing which should be a Muslim estate btw). Getting rid of the Mamluks was part of a broader policy of centralization.

An independent Mamluk ruler, born and bred into his class and culture, wouldn't do the same, even if he centralized the state.

Perhaps the Mamluks could have a two estates, the Mamluks and native nobility?

 

[Chamboozer]

Even under Ottoman occupation the Mamluks remained quite powerful, and the source of any rebellions as far as I know, up until Mohamed Ali (who dealt with them quite harshly, among other things through his own version of a red wedding* precisely because they where so entrenched in Egyptian society).

Kind of - the idea that the mamluks continued to maintain the same role in Ottoman Egypt as they had previously is a bit of an outdated historical theory. More recent research, particularly by Jane Hathaway, makes the case that the "mamluks" we see in Ottoman times weren't the same as those from previous centuries; they shifted in origin, organization, and ethos under the new system of rule. This is just the logical result of the Ottoman conquest: the mamluks were not a self-replicating class, as the son of a mamluk could not himself become a mamluk. They had relied on continually importing Circassian slaves to bolster their manpower, but this method of recruitment was heavily blurred after the Ottoman conquest as future generations of mamluks came from increasingly varied origins. They were, in effect, Ottomanized. Despite sharing the same name, the mamluks of the late eighteenth century were fundamentally different from those of the early sixteenth.

 

[.Me]

This is a complicated issue. You absolutely have a point.
At the same time Mamluk nobility is pretty well entrenched in the entire region and it makes good sense for separatists to be Mamluk. Separatists are not necessarily driven by nationalism after all. Even under Ottoman occupation the Mamluks remained quite powerful, and the source of any rebellions as far as I know, up until Mohamed Ali (who dealt with them quite harshly, among other things through his own version of a red wedding* precisely because they where so entrenched in Egyptian society).
Basically unlike other states that start with a minority culture in the game it would be far from unthinkable for an annexed Mamluk state to be recreated (and arguably this could've happened a few times). This is more or less why the setup is the way it is right now.
The idea with the form Egypt decision is that you deal with the Mamluks and instead create an Egyptian nation.

If we make separatists Egyptian from the start then this link to how things kind of happened historically is lost.
In a way this is not so different from how separatists in India can form new sultanates in the Deccan.

*not actually a wedding.

Edit: also, this is more for the suggestions forum

Uhm... This is true. I agree, this is a quite complicated issue indeed...
But in fact, if you think about this, I believe this is only due to the fact that the Ottomans left a great power in the hand of the Mamluks (despite they were Ottomanized) itself in that particular circumstance. If for example I play as Hejaz, an arab cultured state, and if I conquer Egypt, another country of Arabic culture, I think there is no reason for a probable Mamluk revolt because in this case the ruling class would have been completely replaced by a nobility culturally much closer to the arabized Egyptians.

Maybe this can be solved making the Mamluks an estate available by event for the Ottomans after taking Cairo, and, like the dhimmi that can own only territories with different religions, the Mamluks could own only territories in the region "Egypt". So if the Mamluks estate rebels against you, you will have a great stack Mamluks separatists somewhere in Egypt. And in this way you can also interact with them, for example "placate Mamluks --> all the egyptian provinces gain +10% autonomy".
And maybe, why not, the Mamluk Sultanate can still have the decision to form Egypt, as long as the capital is in Cairo, and doing so the culture would shift to Egyptian.

In this way we will have the rare possibility that the Mamluks will lose Egypt to a native uprising, in this case the tag Egypt will represent a proper arabic speaking sultanate in Egypt, like the Fatimids, the Ayyubid, etc... And also the possibility of a historical Mamluk uprising during the Ottoman rule, and also for a Mamluk player to modernize the country like Mohamed Ali.

Clearly this is just speculation, but if this idea could help to improve the game, I'd be happy

PS: lol, you are right, I posted in the wrong section of the forum, I apologize.

 

[Kozak101]

Do cultures work in such a way as to allow Egypt to be ruled by a culture with no Turkish/Circassian provinces?

On the other side, mamlukes often rebelled against the Ottomans (Ottomanised or not) so local egyptian rebels representing a mamluke revolt fits in well enough. The Ottomans even perpetuated the class using Georgians. Also only recently have native Egyptians actually controlled Egypt according to a dictator anyway.

As for the Hejaz example, the Ottomans left Mamlukes in charge for a reason so it doesn't stretch the imagination too far to think that another nation of the same religion would do the same. Consider also slave soldiers were a common theme in the Islamic sphere. Of course I know this doesn't help if it isn't to your taste.

 

[Chamboozer]

I believe this is only due to the fact that the Ottomans left a great power in the hand of the Mamluks (despite they were Ottomanized)

It's hard to say that the Ottomans "left a great power in the hand of the Mamluks" when the "Mamluks" weren't really the same group as they had been before the conquest. The Ottomans didn't just leave power in hands of the local military class either. Egypt was centralized under a governor appointed from Istanbul and the groups called "mamluks" were either the members of, or slaves of the members of the various reorganized military corps in the province, subject to the governor.

Basically, so long as there was a system of military slavery in Egypt, there were people called mamluks. Doesn't mean that the mamluks of the eighteenth century had much to do with the mamluks of the sixteenth.

On the other side, mamlukes often rebelled against the Ottomans

No, local forces in Egypt didn't rebel against Ottoman rule until the 1760s under Ali Bey, a "mamluk" whose household was originally formed by a janissary officer.

 

[Incompetent]

Maybe this can be solved making the Mamluks an estate available by event for the Ottomans after taking Cairo, and, like the dhimmi that can own only territories with different religions, the Mamluks could own only territories in the region "Egypt". So if the Mamluks estate rebels against you, you will have a great stack Mamluks separatists somewhere in Egypt. And in this way you can also interact with them, for example "placate Mamluks --> all the egyptian provinces gain +10% autonomy".
And maybe, why not, the Mamluk Sultanate can still have the decision to form Egypt, as long as the capital is in Cairo, and doing so the culture would shift to Egyptian.

Egypt-based Mamluks are probably a bit too localised to be an Ottoman estate. Janissaries, on the other hand...

What I would maybe do is design a Janissary/Mamluk estate (name depending on tag etc), which certain Muslim countries receive. Conceptually, Janissaries are more or less a special case of the broader Mamluk phenomenon, so they could use the same mechanics. In the case of Ottomans the estate would appear by decision/event (maybe other Muslim countries could also have a decision to recruit Mamluks), but the estate would also appear automatically with some bonus influence for any Muslim country with its capital in Egypt or Syria (because the Mamluks were already deeply entrenched there). In either case, there's a chance that the slave-soldiers will overthrow the government if they become too influential, installing a 'Mamluk Sultanate' government, plus some penalties for the disaster. The starting Mamluks in 1444 would also have the Mamluk Sultanate government, but without the penalties as it was a long-established regime. (Arguably, the 'Mamluk takeover disaster' happened to the Ayyubid Sultanate in real life, only it happened a couple of centuries before the EU4 start date.) If your capital is in Egypt/Syria and the Mamluks take over, you have the option of capitulating entirely, resulting in a tag switch to MAM. This way, MAM can come back from the dead without being specifically tied to Egyptian culture.

Alternatively, everyone has a way of destroying the Mamluks, as both Mahmud II of the Ottoman Empire and Muhammad Ali of Egypt did. You face some revolts and take some penalties for a while, but after you have destroyed the Mamluks, the estate ceases to exist.

 

[Grand Historian]

Egypt-based Mamluks are probably a bit too localised to be an Ottoman estate. Janissaries, on the other hand...

What I would maybe do is design a Janissary/Mamluk estate (name depending on tag etc), which certain Muslim countries receive. Conceptually, Janissaries are more or less a special case of the broader Mamluk phenomenon, so they could use the same mechanics. In the case of Ottomans the estate would appear by decision/event (maybe other Muslim countries could also have a decision to recruit Mamluks), but the estate would also appear automatically with some bonus influence for any Muslim country with its capital in Egypt or Syria (because the Mamluks were already deeply entrenched there). In either case, there's a chance that the slave-soldiers will overthrow the government if they become too influential, installing a 'Mamluk Sultanate' government, plus some penalties for the disaster. The starting Mamluks in 1444 would also have the Mamluk Sultanate government, but without the penalties as it was a long-established regime. (Arguably, the 'Mamluk takeover disaster' happened to the Ayyubid Sultanate in real life, only it happened a couple of centuries before the EU4 start date.) If your capital is in Egypt/Syria and the Mamluks take over, you have the option of capitulating entirely, resulting in a tag switch to MAM. This way, MAM can come back from the dead without being specifically tied to Egyptian culture.

Alternatively, everyone has a way of destroying the Mamluks, as both Mahmud II of the Ottoman Empire and Muhammad Ali of Egypt did. You face some revolts and take some penalties for a while, but after you have destroyed the Mamluks, the estate ceases to exist.

Mamluks - or their local variant thereof - would be a plausible estate for any nation with the Iqta government, really.

 

[DEEPGAME]

Actually power of Mamluks during Ottoman rule was very limited and localized. They were not even strong in southern egypt. Also they didnt revolt by themselves, never. They just supported strong officials I mean Walis of egypt during unsuccesful revolts.

Therefore before Mamluks there are stronger powers that deserves to be an estate like Vaqifs

 

[.Me]

It's hard to say that the Ottomans "left a great power in the hand of the Mamluks" when the "Mamluks" weren't really the same group as they had been before the conquest. The Ottomans didn't just leave power in hands of the local military class. Egypt was centralized under a governor appointed from Istanbul and the groups called "mamluks" were either the members of, or slaves of the members of the various reorganized military corps in the province, subject to the governor.

Basically, so long as there was a system of military slavery in Egypt, there were people called mamluks. Doesn't mean that the mamluks of the eighteenth century had much to do with the mamluks of the sixteenth.



No, local forces in Egypt didn't rebel against Ottoman rule until the 1760s under Ali Bey, a "mamluk" whose household was originally formed by a janissary officer.

I remembered that the mamluks also during the ottoman rule were in many cases parts of the same clans, with same names, of their predecessors of the Mamluk sultanate, despite the fact that under the ottomans the provincial governors of Egypt was appointed by the central government in Constantinople. I also thought that despite the recruit regions were in fact changed (now mostly Georgia) and the clans had changed their "ethics", (and in doing so they were ottomanized), the new recruits were going to integrate in the old-established clans, clans with power in a regional level. But under the Porte also Iraq was governed by Mamluk elitès, and I went to inform me about this and I need to say that probably I was wrong, also because often the names of the clans were the same with the names of regiments.

But this strengthens my opinion that the Mamluks Sultanate can actually have the turkish or circassian culture (but the turkish culture is better I believe, because they for what I know identify themselves as Turks, also during the circassian dynasty). In this case, objectively, I don't see how a Mamluk separatist revolt in Egypt can make sense if they actually are even not the same.

Egypt-based Mamluks are probably a bit too localised to be an Ottoman estate. Janissaries, on the other hand...

What I would maybe do is design a Janissary/Mamluk estate (name depending on tag etc), which certain Muslim countries receive. Conceptually, Janissaries are more or less a special case of the broader Mamluk phenomenon, so they could use the same mechanics. In the case of Ottomans the estate would appear by decision/event (maybe other Muslim countries could also have a decision to recruit Mamluks), but the estate would also appear automatically with some bonus influence for any Muslim country with its capital in Egypt or Syria (because the Mamluks were already deeply entrenched there). In either case, there's a chance that the slave-soldiers will overthrow the government if they become too influential, installing a 'Mamluk Sultanate' government, plus some penalties for the disaster. The starting Mamluks in 1444 would also have the Mamluk Sultanate government, but without the penalties as it was a long-established regime. (Arguably, the 'Mamluk takeover disaster' happened to the Ayyubid Sultanate in real life, only it happened a couple of centuries before the EU4 start date.) If your capital is in Egypt/Syria and the Mamluks take over, you have the option of capitulating entirely, resulting in a tag switch to MAM. This way, MAM can come back from the dead without being specifically tied to Egyptian culture.

Alternatively, everyone has a way of destroying the Mamluks, as both Mahmud II of the Ottoman Empire and Muhammad Ali of Egypt did. You face some revolts and take some penalties for a while, but after you have destroyed the Mamluks, the estate ceases to exist.

This is very interesting, more or less an adaptation of the Cossack's mechanics in the Middle East. It would be very, very interesting.

 

[SignedName]

If we don't want to use an existing tag's culture, why not make Mamluks Cuman culture?

 

[DanubianCossak]

Every culture in non empty (colonizable) provinces needs to have a tag (so it can rebel).

If you change the culture of Mamlukes, what would be the primary tag of Arabs in the region?

(edit: nvm i missed that part of first post XD)

 

[reivaj89]

Why not a specific Mamluk culture, which is the primary culture of MAM? Otherwise we may end up with weird situations, like Circassian separatists in Egypt.

 

[.Me]

Why not a specific Mamluk culture, which is the primary culture of MAM? Otherwise we may end up with weird situations, like Circassian separatists in Egypt.

Why circassian separatists in Egypt? If the primary culture of Mamluks is Turkish and they accept Egyptian and maybe Syrian culture, at least we will have Egyptian separatists in Egypt

 

[reivaj89]

Why circassian separatists in Egypt? If the primary culture of Mamluks is Turkish and they accept Egyptian and maybe Syrian culture, at least we will have Egyptian separatists in Egypt

Suppose Mamluks culture-convert a province to Turkish. Then that province gets conquered by a third country which is not the Mamluks nor the Ottomans. Years later, since it's Turkish and Ottomans are the primary nation of Turkish, that province gets Ottoman separatists when it shouldn't. The same would happen if Mamluks had Circassian as their primary culture.

I think Mamluks should have Mamluk as their primary culture, but all of their starting provinces should be Egyptian and Syrian (and both should be accepted cultures).

 

[ketolar]

Turkish family is very big so its true it can be happen and Oguz cultur group should`t delete.