Exactly, they don't exist at the start. Shah Ismail wasn't even close to being alive in 1399. Therefore the default Persia shouldn't represent the Safavids, especially since Persia never pops up in Azerbaijan anyways.
Why is Ukraine a Tribal Government?
- Thread starter unmerged(271387)
- 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.
Exactly, they don't exist at the start. Shah Ismail wasn't even close to being alive in 1399. Therefore the default Persia shouldn't represent the Safavids, especially since Persia never pops up in Azerbaijan anyways.
However many of the kings of Islamic nations had lineage back to Muhammad which is why they were able to rule which may also be where they are getting it from
I'd always assumed a good part of the reason Persia is a theocracy is so in the chance that they revolt while still Shiite they can fairly quickly convert most of Persia. Tribal Ukraine is kind of goofy, granted; it'd be nice if Zaprozhie and the other breakaway states appeared a little more often, though I'm always thrilled to see the Qasim Khanate due to the excellent AAR that was done with them.
Personally I disagree here. Persia in the game represents Shiite state which historically ruled the area most of the game's time period. Various Sunni states which ruled geographical area of Persia are already in the game and it its possible to play as Timurids and Ak Koyunlu. However forming Persia as them is as silly as is forming Manchu as Ming, because both decisions represent case where previous dynasty was overthrown and new ruling class was formed.
While history isn't always the same I don't see why Safavids or some other Shiite group couldn't rebel against their overlords and form Persian state or why Ukrainian cossacks should revolt as monarchy instead of tribal government. While game history isn't the same as the real history I think that the rebelling groups should have as historical goverments as possible, unless something very drastic happens. I rather see Mongol Khanate who revolts from Ming or Korea as horde than celestial empire or monarchy etc. and in similar manner I rather see semi-historical version of Shiite Persia than some fantasy kingdom. After all cultural, religious and political building blocks are there and unless something very drastically different happens outcome should resemble historical outcome at least in some level.
The region is Shiite, which means that the spiritual leader should also be the political leader ( and descendant from Mohammed ? )
So it does make sense that they're a theocracy then.
The problem with theocracy is that the game treats it as if it is an elective process for leader, because I think it is based on European Holy Orders. This is completely wrong for Persia.
However they still functioned as a monarchy, so in game they would best be represented by a monarchy with full narrowminded (and/or full theocracy in mods that have an extra slider like that).
And going by the naming conventions of states in the region, Safavid Persia would just be called Safavids rather than Persia. I assume it's called the latter because it held on to the area of Persia far longer than its immediate predecessors, and so historically they became known as a dynasty proper of Persia, rather than a temporary conqueror. If other states can hold onto the region and have their center of power there, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to "form" Persia, and as such, on top of other reasons, I don't see why Persia should by default appear as a theocracy.
And going by the naming conventions of states in the region, Safavid Persia would just be called Safavids rather than Persia. I assume it's called the latter because it held on to the area of Persia far longer than its immediate predecessors, and so historically they became known as a dynasty proper of Persia, rather than a temporary conqueror. If other states can hold onto the region and have their center of power there, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to "form" Persia, and as such, on top of other reasons, I don't see why Persia should by default appear as a theocracy.
I think it's mostly meant to represent bishoprics, rather than the crusading orders. So, it's succession would technically be by appointment by an external power, which is even less appropriate for Persia.
But the tag 'Persia' should be versatile enough to represent any Persian state, not just a Safavid equivalent.
This was not the case with (most) Safavid rulers.
Exactly.
It does. If you look history files Persia tag also represents Afsharid, Zand and Qajar dynasties. Other dynasties which ruled parts of Persia have their own tags, so to me seems that the tag Persia represents anyone who controls the shahdom. I don't see why other Persian states should use this tag instead of their own tags, unless you want to turn their ruler into shah of Persia.
But I agree with many posters that the current system is bit stupid and there should be theocratic monarchy government, just like there is in EU: Rome, because current theocracy works well with archbishoprics and with Tibetan lamas, but it doesn't work that well with shahdoms. Ruler of Persian theocracy shouldn't be called ayatollah but shah, it's a stupid mistake and I don't know if they were thinking Khomeini or something when they made the decision that Safavid rulers should be ayatollahs in EUIII.
I mean when it first appears in the game, from a revolt or however. It'll always be a theocracy instead of something generic and widely applicable like monarchy.
What would be more correct form of government for Persia? There hadn't been independent Persian state for centuries, but it had been under the rule of various successor states of the Mongol Empire, so there isn't anything else which would be better default form of government than the one which was used most of the game's time period. This isn't something which is applied only to Persia or Ukraine, but states in the game have default form of government based on their historical forms of government, therefore if you release Papal States it will be papacy instead of monarchy etc.
By generic I mean that it was more likely for whatever tribal power that established control over Iran to set up a hereditary monarchy than anything resembling a theocracy, even Sufis like the Safaviyyah.