I was hoping you'd arrive to save the day, but I dared not be the one to summon you.
- 9
- 1
Why is the Fatimid Caliphate so small in the CK series?
- Thread starter Dan the cynical barbarian
- 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.
Ouch! Do I really have such a terrible reputation here?
- 9
- 4
- 1
Hundred percent agree with this proposal. Plus it would make for different gameplay in different regions which is always win-win in my mind.
- 2
- 2
I actually just wanted to see what you had to say ... I mean I enjoy seeing what everyone has to contribute, that's the fun of it
- 4
We need more of your posts, i love reading about the Amazigh/Berber/Mauri peoples.
- 2
- 2
It's more like not wanting to call the village wiseman to come settle all our little disputes. Plus it makes it all the more exciting when he shows up unbidden.
- 7
- 2
That and
...is basically all I know of Fatimid control west of Egypt. Not sure if this helps but I thought I'd post it here anyways since the discussion was a little too Zirid-y for me.
Last edited:
- 1
There's not much to say. The Fatimids had no political control over the region in question by 1066. They had religious influence (as Caliphs, and thus potential sources of legitimacy as rivals to the Abbasids), but no authority. If they wanted to restore that control, they'd have to send an army to do so and conquer it anew.
- 4
- 3
due to another user deleting his post which I quoted, I will re-post something
This whole issue is based on misunderstanding of several maps which show maximal extent of Fatimid caliphate without taking into account the territories lost during 11th century. Using the same approach of the OP towards the Seljuks, we could ask for Anatolia and Syria to be part of Seljuk sultanate, because there are maps showing Seljuk empire at its greatest extent but dating it 1040-1120:
As for the Fatimids, the maps shown by the OP are extremely simplistic and schematic. Even the simplistic and very basic map shown on Wikipedia shows clearer image of how the Fatimid empire evolved:
To be honest I have no idea how this can be causing a controversy to anyone.
It's elementary knowledge, really and what strikes me is how people who consider this a controversy are even so bold to accuse somebody else beinf historically illiterate.
In the muslim world most smaller kingdoms or emirates, or sometimes even sultanates were formally subjects to caliphs, but were de facto independent rulers.
In 867 bookmark the Tulunids of Egypt are independent, although IRL they formally were subjects of Abbasids. The same goes for Samanids, Tahirids of Khorasan and Saffarids of Makran.
Later, in the 10th century, the Buyids were de-facto rulers of Baghdad, yet they were formally accepting titles being given by Abbasid caliphs, who were in reality puppets of Buyids.
When Mahmud of Ghazni and his successors declared independence from Samanids and started fighting Buyid shiite overlords of Abbasid calips, they were also formally submited to the caliph. All these rulers and kingdoms are, however, considered as independent rulers, both by academic and popular history and by Crusader kings devs.
The same approach is given to the Aghlabids, who ruled Ifrikiya in Abbasid name before being conquered by Fatimids. When Fatimids moved their capital to Cairo, their former power-base was administered by the Zirids. But already before the Zirids oficially declared their independence (or rather switched their alleigance to the Abbasids), the power of Fatimids over Ifriqiya was de facto zero.
Then in the 1050's, Fatimids gave Ifrikiya to the Hilalian Arabs, but the fact is that those very tribes were in fact already independently harassing Fatimid lands of Egypt.
If the game would follow the official claims by the caliphs and the Fatimids would be considered as sovereigns of 1066 Ifriqiya, the same should apply to the Seljuks and Abbasids as well as all other states of Islamic world. By the same approach the Almoravids farther west should be vasals of Abbasids etc. This would go against how history is understood by pretty much everybody who deals with Islamic medieval history.
Let me add that even the religious influence (as caliphs) was also very dubious to say it lightly. Both Zirids and Hammadids, who played the card of recognizing Fatimids and/or Abbasids as caliphs, were sunni. Hence their move to recognize one or the other caliph was rather a political proclamation delimiting formal political influence of either caliphate.
When Zirids chose formal recognition of Abbasids, the Hammadids, who were at the time breakaway state from Zirids, proclaimed their alleigance to the Fatimids. When Zirids in 446AH (1054/55) recognized Fatimids again (most probably hoping it could mean military aid) it meant no real improvement of Fatimid power or influence in the region. It was part of Zirid attempted diplomatic counter-offensive or rather atempted stabilization of their already weakened position.
Interesting fact is that neither this, nor marriages of their princesses to Hilalian princes prevented sack of Qayrawan (Kairouan) in 1057 and subsequent relocation of Zirid court/capital from Qayrawan to Mahdia.
Both Zirids and Hammadids were trying to ally with various Arab tribes of the Hilalian group. Neither helped them stabilize or strenghten their position, although from various diplomatic moves we can see that Hilalians somehow respected their kingship.
This whole issue is based on misunderstanding of several maps which show maximal extent of Fatimid caliphate without taking into account the territories lost during 11th century. Using the same approach of the OP towards the Seljuks, we could ask for Anatolia and Syria to be part of Seljuk sultanate, because there are maps showing Seljuk empire at its greatest extent but dating it 1040-1120:
As for the Fatimids, the maps shown by the OP are extremely simplistic and schematic. Even the simplistic and very basic map shown on Wikipedia shows clearer image of how the Fatimid empire evolved:
To be honest I have no idea how this can be causing a controversy to anyone.
It's elementary knowledge, really and what strikes me is how people who consider this a controversy are even so bold to accuse somebody else beinf historically illiterate.
Would be, but I don't think it's necessary. There already is quite clear approach to deal with this issue.
In the muslim world most smaller kingdoms or emirates, or sometimes even sultanates were formally subjects to caliphs, but were de facto independent rulers.
In 867 bookmark the Tulunids of Egypt are independent, although IRL they formally were subjects of Abbasids. The same goes for Samanids, Tahirids of Khorasan and Saffarids of Makran.
Later, in the 10th century, the Buyids were de-facto rulers of Baghdad, yet they were formally accepting titles being given by Abbasid caliphs, who were in reality puppets of Buyids.
When Mahmud of Ghazni and his successors declared independence from Samanids and started fighting Buyid shiite overlords of Abbasid calips, they were also formally submited to the caliph. All these rulers and kingdoms are, however, considered as independent rulers, both by academic and popular history and by Crusader kings devs.
The same approach is given to the Aghlabids, who ruled Ifrikiya in Abbasid name before being conquered by Fatimids. When Fatimids moved their capital to Cairo, their former power-base was administered by the Zirids. But already before the Zirids oficially declared their independence (or rather switched their alleigance to the Abbasids), the power of Fatimids over Ifriqiya was de facto zero.
Then in the 1050's, Fatimids gave Ifrikiya to the Hilalian Arabs, but the fact is that those very tribes were in fact already independently harassing Fatimid lands of Egypt.
If the game would follow the official claims by the caliphs and the Fatimids would be considered as sovereigns of 1066 Ifriqiya, the same should apply to the Seljuks and Abbasids as well as all other states of Islamic world. By the same approach the Almoravids farther west should be vasals of Abbasids etc. This would go against how history is understood by pretty much everybody who deals with Islamic medieval history.
You're right about no political control.
Let me add that even the religious influence (as caliphs) was also very dubious to say it lightly. Both Zirids and Hammadids, who played the card of recognizing Fatimids and/or Abbasids as caliphs, were sunni. Hence their move to recognize one or the other caliph was rather a political proclamation delimiting formal political influence of either caliphate.
When Zirids chose formal recognition of Abbasids, the Hammadids, who were at the time breakaway state from Zirids, proclaimed their alleigance to the Fatimids. When Zirids in 446AH (1054/55) recognized Fatimids again (most probably hoping it could mean military aid) it meant no real improvement of Fatimid power or influence in the region. It was part of Zirid attempted diplomatic counter-offensive or rather atempted stabilization of their already weakened position.
Interesting fact is that neither this, nor marriages of their princesses to Hilalian princes prevented sack of Qayrawan (Kairouan) in 1057 and subsequent relocation of Zirid court/capital from Qayrawan to Mahdia.
Both Zirids and Hammadids were trying to ally with various Arab tribes of the Hilalian group. Neither helped them stabilize or strenghten their position, although from various diplomatic moves we can see that Hilalians somehow respected their kingship.
- 11
- 5
I certainly didn't mean to imply that they had religious influence at the level of say, the Pope in Catholicism (even in the 11th century).
But the Fatimids did derive some internal legitimacy from being able to say "people in XYZ lands recognize me as Caliph," and various local leaders got some benefit out of saying "I have been recognized by the Caliph" for their own legitimacy. Now, if the Caliph asked said local leader to actually do anything, he would be told to buzz off, but they both gained some political capital from the nominal relationship (and the Fatimids had a dual-role as both a normal kingdom and a religious movement with messianic overtones, which led to various schisms in its own right, so being able to point to these claims as a justification for their continued position as leaders of the faithful was useful). It might not involve anything more than just having your name included in the Friday prayers, but that's still an advantage to both ruler and nominal religious head.
Which, admittedly has nothing to do with how things go in the OP (as we both noted, the Fatimids shouldn't control those regions in 1066), but it would be nice to have the inevitable religious expansion have some representation of the role of religion as a source of legitimacy for rulers and religions, rather than mostly being relevant for holy wars, excommunications, and who/how many people your are allowed to marry. Things like the competition between Rome and Constantinople to convert various Eastern European pagans to their own branches of Christianity (something that was largely irrelevant in CK2, but which mattered deeply to actual medieval rulers of the time), or the Umayyad Caliphate in Spain (as opposed to the Emirate) being formed chiefly to provide legitimacy to Umaryyad attempts to compete with the Fatimids in North Africa. Or from the rulers' perspective, things like King John of England's interactions with the Pope (swearing fealty to the Pope to avoid excommunication, and then using that fealty to justify canceling the Magna Carta with papal approval).
But the Fatimids did derive some internal legitimacy from being able to say "people in XYZ lands recognize me as Caliph," and various local leaders got some benefit out of saying "I have been recognized by the Caliph" for their own legitimacy. Now, if the Caliph asked said local leader to actually do anything, he would be told to buzz off, but they both gained some political capital from the nominal relationship (and the Fatimids had a dual-role as both a normal kingdom and a religious movement with messianic overtones, which led to various schisms in its own right, so being able to point to these claims as a justification for their continued position as leaders of the faithful was useful). It might not involve anything more than just having your name included in the Friday prayers, but that's still an advantage to both ruler and nominal religious head.
Which, admittedly has nothing to do with how things go in the OP (as we both noted, the Fatimids shouldn't control those regions in 1066), but it would be nice to have the inevitable religious expansion have some representation of the role of religion as a source of legitimacy for rulers and religions, rather than mostly being relevant for holy wars, excommunications, and who/how many people your are allowed to marry. Things like the competition between Rome and Constantinople to convert various Eastern European pagans to their own branches of Christianity (something that was largely irrelevant in CK2, but which mattered deeply to actual medieval rulers of the time), or the Umayyad Caliphate in Spain (as opposed to the Emirate) being formed chiefly to provide legitimacy to Umaryyad attempts to compete with the Fatimids in North Africa. Or from the rulers' perspective, things like King John of England's interactions with the Pope (swearing fealty to the Pope to avoid excommunication, and then using that fealty to justify canceling the Magna Carta with papal approval).
- 2
Papal fiefdoms would be awesome mechanically as well as with mods allow you to be dual vassals.
Some character modifier could do it, as well as allow it to change when you get the next monarch. E. G. As the sins of ck2 gave monthly piety malus, being a papal vassal could give a monthly gold malus.
Being invested by a robe from the caliph, or the Pope recognising your new crown could give a vassals relations buff at the cost of one time fame cost perhaps. The latter would also make anti popes more important as you might back them in exchange for your new kingdom being recognised (like sicily did) against the reigning Pope rather than just let it be