View Full Version : Now Just Why Is The Mongel Horde Muslem?
Fisherking
12-06-2006, 18:43
I was just at the end of finishing off a campaign with Sicily when a jihad showed up outside Jerusalem. Now this was no ordinary jihad as I had killed maybe a dozen before. This belonged to the Mongols and what is more it had "Elephants"… now don't ask me where they came by them but they were impossible to kill. They wiped out two stacks "full stacks with generals" that attacked them. Thinking it better to auto resolve than actually fight these monsters I did that with four more stacks…and my city was empty…totally empty! There were still 76 men left in the jihad when it took my city. I counter attacked the next turn with the same cannon and gunpowder units I had used in the first 5 attempts to kill them and finally destroyed them…but all the same it cost me several thousand men to kill 600 and I lost the faction leader and three generals doing it.
So what gives? Why are the Mongols Moslems in the first place, where did they get the elephants and why are they like fighting a battalion of Abrams tanks using sticks?
There were only two elepant units and one was only about half...they did all the killing...It was almost funny...except it was ME they were killing!!! lol...oh well
I don't really have an answer but I cannot help it, I have to copy this from the manual:
Page 5: "...Medieval II, Total War offers the complete warfare experience, with realistic battle mechanics and historical accuracy..."
I guess it doesn't fit very well with your questions. Just wait for a mod, it doesn't make sense so it will be changed in quite a lot of them.
Lord Condormanius
12-06-2006, 19:08
The Mongols converted to Islam sometime in the 1250s.
Fisherking
12-06-2006, 19:13
You know I was using pikes and fire armes along with cannon...it just didn't help. Me thinks they be a might over powered...:charge: :knight: :oops: :surrender: :jawdrop:
I was just at the end of finishing off a campaign with Sicily when a jihad showed up outside Jerusalem. Now this was no ordinary jihad as I had killed maybe a dozen before. This belonged to the Mongols and what is more it had "Elephants"… now don't ask me where they came by them but they were impossible to kill. They wiped out two stacks "full stacks with generals" that attacked them. Thinking it better to auto resolve than actually fight these monsters I did that with four more stacks…and my city was empty…totally empty! There were still 76 men left in the jihad when it took my city. I counter attacked the next turn with the same cannon and gunpowder units I had used in the first 5 attempts to kill them and finally destroyed them…but all the same it cost me several thousand men to kill 600 and I lost the faction leader and three generals doing it.
So what gives? Why are the Mongols Moslems in the first place, where did they get the elephants and why are they like fighting a battalion of Abrams tanks using sticks?
There were only two elepant units and one was only about half...they did all the killing...It was almost funny...except it was ME they were killing!!! lol...oh well
It sounds like you are talking about the Timurids.
The Mongols have elephants in M2:TW ?
Fisherking
12-06-2006, 20:09
Indeed it was the Mongols!!! Now just where and how they got elephants is beyond me....they just showed up with a very ´small but powerful jihad. When I went to attack it I noticed that despite me having a very heavy duty army with lots of powerful unit types the blue/red bar was way in their favor. I backed off to examen the stack and saw two elephants a decent general and a few other so so units. I brought in another stack that was just behind the city and attacked...needless to say it was still a bloody route...:skull:
They could possibly be a rare mercanary unit. Also the best way to take care of elephants is missiles especially artillary. If you are short on missile troops, its best to send 1 melee unit at a time in lose formation until they run amok.
It was the part of the Mongols (not the mainland ones), which later came to be known the "Golden Horde" that converted to Islam. And the conversion happened already after they had conquered big part of Russia and Iran. So, Mongols arriving on the map as Muslim is not historically accurate.
The Mongols converted to Islam sometime in the 1250s.
"Despite Russian efforts at proselytizing in Sarai, the Mongols clung to their traditional animist beliefs until Uzbeg Khan (1312-41) adopted Islam as a state religion. Several Russian rulers - Mikhail of Chernigov and Mikhail of Tver among them - were reportedly assassinated in Sarai for their refusal to worship pagan idols, but the khans were generally tolerant and even freed the Russian Orthodox Church of taxes."
Correcting myself: It was also Il-Khanate that converted to Islam, but again - it happened after the relenvat part of the Mongols had settled in a conquered area. www.wikipedia.org - "After a battle agianst Turks in 1243, Mongols occupied Anatolia. Sultanate of Rum became a vassal of Ilkhanate Mongols. These occupation lead Turkmens to move towards west to escape from Mongolian tribes. These gave birth to Ottomans.
After the battle, Hulagu returned to the Persian heartland and established his dynasty. The succession thereafter continued through his family line. The term il-Khan means "subordinate khan" and refers to their initial deference to Mongke as grand khan and ultimate sovereign of the entire empire. Hulagu's descendents ruled Persia for the next eighty years, beginning as shamanists, then Buddhists and ultimately converting to Islam under Ghazan. " (www.wikipedia.org)
And even more precise:
"Mahmud Ghazan (November 5, 1271 – May 11, 1304) was the seventh ruler of the Ilkhanate in Iran from 1295 to 1304.
He was born in 1271 to Arghun and a Christian mother as a Christian. As a youth, together with his brother Oljeitu, they both converted to Buddhism. He annexed power from Baydu in 1295.
In 1292, under the advice of the Rashid al-Din[citation needed], he converted to Sunni Islam. After that, he mercilessly destroyed Buddhist temples and chased Buddhists out of his country or converted them to Islam. The Christians were affected too. Despite his conversion, he encouraged the original archaic Mongol culture to flourish. He tolerated the Shiites as well.
Ghazan died in 1304 and was succeeded by his brother Oljeitu, and later by his nephew Abu Sa'id and niece Sati Beg. His principal wife is Kökechin." (www.wikipedia.org)
Lord Condormanius
12-06-2006, 21:18
Wikipedia is a useless piece of garbage. Baraka Khan converted long before that (1250s).
King Azzole
12-06-2006, 21:22
Sad part is they even have a pagan religion element in the game and didnt take advantage of it (Lithuanians, mongols, etc). I also miss seeing the Jewish religion come up in some of the regions.
Would be cool if you could build uber Jewish merchants in the middle east and other specific areas, having a "downside" of having a portion of your population convert (or move in) to Judaism. The downside being of course religious unrest due to the state having a different religion.
The state conversion yes, which was necessary because the Horde was essentially Turkic and no longer Mongol in majority. The Horde had become an assimilation of Turkic and Mongol identity. It had become a conferderation of Turkic tribes. Sultan Ozbeg used the religion to subdue unrest and unite the Turkic tribes as this was their religion. By proclaiming Islam the state religion he was able to count on a majority support, although there were still other religions, Islam had become the majority religion. This would allow him to consolidate his power over the tribes and to be able to draft them into the army more readily.
The actual spread of Islam into the Horde can be debated because had already spread into the Golden Horde's empire from Persia and the Caucaus prior to their forays into the Middle East. The Horde's various Turkics, slowly converted to Islam, long before the state religion was adopted (the people convert before the state, the state has followed).
The paragraph you quote is referring to the administration of the state. The Khanate was still administered by ethnic Mongols, and they would have been the last to convert. Sultan Ozbeg issued the decree for conversion to ensure that he could hold onto the empire, as religious discord was threatening to break it from within. Of course he may also have had other personal reasons for doing so.
Well, according to some tests ran recently, on average, that "useless piece of garbage" (Wikipedia) is more precise than encyclopedia Britannica. (http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/12/15/1352207.shtml?tid=95&tid=14)
Wikipedia is a useless piece of garbage. Baraka Khan converted long before that (1250s).
Anyway, Berke Khan did convert to Islam in 1250-ies, but that still happened AFTER the initial invasion and mongol settlement in Central Asia and Russia. Berke Khan was a ruler of the Blue Horde and White Horde, which later became the Golden Horde. Whereas Il-Khanate was a separate political entity. Conversion of the Blue/White horde did not imply conversion of Il-Khanate. I see no contradiction with what I said earlier.
Well, if we read the material from Mongol Chronicles (Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, by Jack Weatherford), it seems that during Gengiz Khan's conquest his Turkic subjects were a mix of Muslim, Christian, Budhist and various Pagan faiths. From what you are saying, I still do not see why Mongols at the time of Ogodai's conquest would be considered Islamic.
The state conversion yes, which was necessary because the Horde was essentially Turkic and no longer Mongol in majority. The Horde had become an assimilation of Turkic and Mongol identity. It had become a conferderation of Turkic tribes. Sultan Ozbeg used the religion to subdue unrest and unite the Turkic tribes as this was their religion. By proclaiming Islam the state religion he was able to count on a majority support, although there were still other religions, Islam had become the majority religion. This would allow him to consolidate his power over the tribes and to be able to draft them into the army more readily.
The actual spread of Islam into the Horde can be debated because had already spread into the Golden Horde's empire from Persia and the Caucaus prior to their forays into the Middle East. The Horde's various Turkics, slowly converted to Islam, long before the state religion was adopted
(the people convert before the state, the state has followed).
On a side note. The above is not necessarily always true. Examples: the only King of Lithuania Mindaugas converted to Catholicism while majority of this subjects were still pagan (and remained pagan for good 150 or so years after their King's conversion). Similarily, Khazar's religion became Jewish due to ruling elite's decision, not due to majority of the state's subjects being Jewish and the State adopting majority's religion. One can argue, that similar was the "top-down" conversion to Christianity of Kievan Rus.
Lord Condormanius
12-06-2006, 21:54
Well, according to some tests ran recently, on average, that "useless piece of garbage" is more precise than encyclopedia Britannica.
Although I wouldn't call Britannica uselss...am I supposed to be surprised by this?
Anyway, Berke Khan did convert to Islam in 1250-ies, but that still happened AFTER the initial invasion and mongol settlement in Central Asia and Russia.
This is true, but not by very long after Russia.
Berke Khan was a ruler of the Blue Horde and White Horde, which later became the Golden Horde. Whereas Il-Khanate was a separate political entity. Conversion of the Blue/White horde did not imply conversion of Il-Khanate. Do you mean the Ulus of Juchi?
The original poster is correct on all counts. These particular Mongols would
not have been Muslims, they have no business riding elephants, and elephants
in Total War are ridiculously unrealistic.
Elephants should be smaller, less scary and much more vulnerable. My
instincts also tell me 'slower because of all the armour', but I may be wrong.
On a side note. The above is not necessarily always true. Examples: the only King of Lithuania Mindaugas converted to Catholicism while majority of this subjects were still pagan (and remained pagan for good 150 or so years after their King's conversion). Similarily, Khazar's religion became Jewish due to ruling elite's decision, not due to majority of the state's subjects being Jewish and the State adopting majority's religion. One can argue, that similar was the "top-down" conversion to Christianity of Kievan Rus.
Bulgaria is another example. In 864 Boris the First adopted Christianity as
a state religion, and slaughtered, in the time honored fashion for resolving
regilious differences, more than half of the rulling Bulgar families.
Points taken.
In my example I was referring to the conversion of the Horde from a Khanate to a Sultanate, to an Islamic state. This happened as it did, by the state adopting the majority religion of it's subjects, not vice versa. It's true that it does not always happen, and did'nt always happen.
There is no reason why the Horde should be majority Muslim in 1210, or by the reasoning and religion split of the game be considered Muslim. That was not what I wanted to convey. And actually I did'nt say that even once. Nope. I wanted to shed some light on the conversion...errr... conversation between you and Condor. I wanted to point out what I saw as a misinterpertation of that particular para which was first quoted, as that was clearly referring to the administration of the state.
I have'nt seen the Mongols in game yet, but IIRC they have Kipchaks as part of the Horde. This minor representation is sufficient, as it represents at one tribe.
I would also like to see Judaism as a religion in M2:TW. Although it would be much more spread around than what people would imagine.
Lastly, everything you see, particularly on the net, anyone can write it, with or without credentials. But don't worry I get your point.
Do you mean the Ulus of Juchi?
I meant, Berke (son of Juchi) converted in Blue Khanate. The rulers of Il-Khanate (which included Persia) converted separately and later.
Lord Condormanius
12-06-2006, 22:08
The above is not necessarily always true. Examples: the only King of Lithuania Mindaugas converted to Catholicism while majority of this subjects were still pagan (and remained pagan for good 150 or so years after their King's conversion). Similarily, Khazar's religion became Jewish due to ruling elite's decision, not due to majority of the state's subjects being Jewish and the State adopting majority's religion. One can argue, that similar was the "top-down" conversion to Christianity of Kievan Rus.
I think this is largely true. Generally speaking, state religious conversions tend to be for political reasons and happen in a "top down" manner. This is the case with Christianity, which was a metropolitan religion in its beginnings. In fact the word "pagan" comes from th latin paganus, which basically refers to someone living outside the city. Those people tended to follow the old beliefs, which were good enough for them, their concerns being things like a good harvest, children, etc. It wasn't until Christianity came about that "pagan" came to mean someone who followed the old religious beliefs (of wherever they happened to be from).
Lord Condormanius
12-06-2006, 22:13
Judaism would be a great addition to this game and I am surprised that it had not bee included. Especially in later years of the game, There was a big Jewish influenct in the Levant, Spain*, Macedonia, Greece.
*flushed out by the Inquisition in 1492.
... and some (a lot even) of it transferred to the Ottomans.
Lord Condormanius
12-06-2006, 22:18
...you might even say a whole lot of it.
The Mongols are Muslim in the game as factions cannot change their religion in the campaign. So CA either made the Mongols always Pagan, or make them Muslim taking into account the Golden Horde did become Muslim later on.
Probably better this way. In MTW they stayed pagan throughout. You sure factions can't change religion ?
Zenicetus
12-06-2006, 22:45
The original poster is correct on all counts. These particular Mongols would
not have been Muslims,
Well, it's probably just a question of streamlined game design (as in, "do you want the game now, or six months from now?"). Having them arrive as Muslim avoids having to program an additional game mechanic that flips their religion at some point. It would have to reset religious unrest, change building types, suddenly enable creating Imams... all sorts of follow-on consequences. Much simpler (even if a bit a-historical) to just have them come into the game as Muslim, since they were Muslim through most of the period covered by the game.
It would have been nice to see them blocked from joining Jihads too early though. That doesn't seem like it would be hard to program.
they have no business riding elephants, and elephants
in Total War are ridiculously unrealistic.
Elephants should be smaller, less scary and much more vulnerable. My
instincts also tell me 'slower because of all the armour', but I may be wrong.
They do seem a bit extreme. Best way I've found to deal with them is javelins, preferably a mounted jav unit if you have them. Aim to rout the 'phants, not kill them, and just expect to take a lot of losses. Combine with flaming arrows if you have archers. Artillery can work, but javelin units are cheaper, faster-firing, and don't miss as often.
Probably better this way. In MTW they stayed pagan throughout. You sure factions can't change religion ?
Yup, i've had a look through the text files CA Oz released and its a set value in the descr_sm_factions.txt file.
Probably better this way. In MTW they stayed pagan throughout. You sure factions can't change religion ?
I don't know about it being better. It isn't a dead fact that they would convert in real life, and seems to only have done so when the circumstances forced them to do it.
So if they just got a sort of Priest and a religious building, they should have been perfectly fine as Pagans.
True. Easy to implement too.
Hey but factions cannot change religion ? So what happens if 100% Catholic faction becomes 90% Muslim ? That must be in there .... one faction wide trigger and smack... everyone starts talking Arabic ! INFEEDEEELS !!!
ROFLMFAO !!!!!
(joke)
If anyone has not yet played Turks, you should ! The dialogues are freakin HI-larious.
Yup, i've had a look through the text files CA Oz released and its a set value in the descr_sm_factions.txt file.
Ahh yes thanks I was up late last night. That's what I must have seen.
:oops:
Probably better this way. In MTW they stayed pagan throughout. You sure factions can't change religion ?
I suspect, the MTW 2 engine does not allow factions to switch religion in the middle of the game. Would be a nice addition to the gameplay though. CIV IV has it: a ruler can choose from any religion present in the empire's cities.
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 00:06
RTW:BI had it too. I wonder why they would leave it out?
It's certainly arguable that Elephants should be weaker in this game than in RTW, since the elephants the Timurids would be fielding would be the smaller Asian elephant, whereas Carthage's elephants were the bigger, nastier African elephants.
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 01:50
Wikipedia is a useless piece of garbage. Baraka Khan converted long before that (1250s).
What's your source on that? :/
It's courteous to state your counter-example when criticising someone else's citations.
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 01:54
Judaism would be a great addition to this game and I am surprised that it had not bee included. Especially in later years of the game, There was a big Jewish influenct in the Levant, Spain*, Macedonia, Greece.
*flushed out by the Inquisition in 1492.
It's non-evangelical nature, presumably. It was not closely associated with politics during this period either (with one exception, already noted in this thread).
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 01:55
About Wikipedia? I thought that was common knowledge.
Quote from the book Battle by R.G. Grant, the Mongols, in the siege of Baghdad, didn't massacre Christians, who were seen as allies to the Mongols. The sacking of Baghdad was from Jan. 11 to Feb. 10 in 1258.
The good news is that we will have several modifiable options for religions, as long as we keep Catholic, Moslem, and Heretic because of their hardcoded use for jihads, inquisitors and crusades. That gives us a lot of leeway when it comes to making the Horde pagan and adding in Judaism. We just have to wait for the patch and the very much needed unpacker before we can begin, sadly.
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 02:26
About Wikipedia? I thought that was common knowledge.
No comment about the status of internet "common knowledge". I was referring to your factual statement, not your hyperbole.
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 02:28
That gives us a lot of leeway when it comes to making the Horde pagan and adding in Judaism.
What would be the advantage of making the hordes pagan? Except it would make it harder for them to hold territory due to the religious unrest?
I also am not sure what Judaism would add to the game. Another religion to slowly get eroded?
What would be the advantage of making the hordes pagan? Except it would make it harder for them to hold territory due to the religious unrest?
I also am not sure what Judaism would add to the game. Another religion to slowly get eroded?
Modding in Paganism and Judaism would make the game more realistic, plus it would add some of the religiously cosmopolitan flavor many cites of the Middle East possessed. The Muslim of medieval Egypt and Outremer were known for their religious tolerance, and the populations of the people they ruled reflected this.
Yeah that would be awesome, specially Moors, Egyptians (in the beginning) should have all major monotheistic faiths represented in their government, and military (and later the Ottomans). You should see Johns, Yitzaks, and Abduls.
If we went further I'd LOVE to see Coptics in Egypt and Sudan. That would be fine detail.
Just for flavor basically.
Later with the Inquisition there could be specific missions for certain factions like go save some Jews from Iberia for the Ottomans, you have to send a fleet to southern Spain, and the back to Constantinople, which will increase your population, trade, and give you 2 new merchants.
(WOW! KEWL!!!)
There's a lot more important things to change naturally, but you know, we want it ALL ! and we want it NOW !!!! ~;) (joke)
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 03:17
Modding in Paganism and Judaism would make the game more realistic, plus it would add some of the religiously cosmopolitan flavor many cites of the Middle East possessed. The Muslim of medieval Egypt and Outremer were known for their religious tolerance, and the populations of the people they ruled reflected this.
Realistic in what way?
Paganism already exists as a religious affiliation in the game. However it cannot be espoused by any of the factions and acts as a penalty until territories are forcibly converted.
Judaism did not have a major impact on the level of the other religions modelled in the M2TW system. If it was not regularly "boosted" it would atrophy and disappear entirely, however it is is boosted to remain in the game then it would act as constant penalty to Public Order. I don't see how any additions to either of these religions enhances "realism" at all.
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 03:20
Yeah that would be awesome, specially Moors, Egyptians (in the beginning) should have all major monotheistic faiths represented in their government, and military (and later the Ottomans). You should see Johns, Yitzaks, and Abduls.
Now I like this idea. But isn't this achieved by editing the lists of names. Or does name selection really take into account the "culture" of structures and the religious affiliation percentages in each settlement.
Perhaps if it was possible to incorporate Judaism as a religion that does not, somehow, cause unrest it might be useful but I don't really believe this. All my Turkish provinces are well on the way to 100% Islam (provided I kill all the priests I see...) and this was with minor administration by me. I don't see what is realistic about attempting to model Judaism, only to have it eradicated by mid-game.
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 03:22
I don't have a paricular source, per se. I took a class on medieval Russia. So, I guess if you need a footnote, you will have to come look at my notes.
I don't think that I need to provide a source because I said that Wikipedia is worthless. It is the same body of information that once proclaimed that my brother was John Kerry's running mate. I don't think I need to explain any further about Wikipedia.
As for sources...I don't think I need to go and do a bunch of research, citing sources, to counter what somebody copies and pastes from a Web site.
Well yeah it could be done without adding new religions, simply by adding names and avatars I suppose.
Any faction can get any unit... All you have to do is bribe a stack of troops to join your squad. Maybe this is what the mongols did.
Kobal2fr
12-07-2006, 04:06
I agree with Trithemius there. The way the game is, it is not possible to allow for polyculturalism.
If you take say Jerusalem, and let it be 50% Christian 50% Muslim like it starts as (and like it pretty much was back then most of the time, no matter who held political/military power there), it will simply end up revolting all the time. Medieval mechanics don't allow you to be an oecumenist, heterodox, tolerant ruler, you *have* to convert your regions to your religion if you want them to "work".
Besides, I'd say Judaism is included in the global "Heresy" religion, which encompasses pretty much every kind of faith that's not strictly orthodox/muslim/catholic. Heresy is a very wide concept in M2TW, much wider than it was historically... If you ask me, paganism was only set apart from heresy in the first place because it's used as a specific trigger for the Teutonics, and nothing else.
IrishArmenian
12-07-2006, 07:34
Correct me if I'm wrong (Cue, Orda) but I thought that the Mongols never had an official relgion when Temujin took over.
Trithemius
12-07-2006, 08:45
I don't have a paricular source, per se. I took a class on medieval Russia. So, I guess if you need a footnote, you will have to come look at my notes.
I don't think that I need to provide a source because I said that Wikipedia is worthless. It is the same body of information that once proclaimed that my brother was John Kerry's running mate. I don't think I need to explain any further about Wikipedia.
As for sources...I don't think I need to go and do a bunch of research, citing sources, to counter what somebody copies and pastes from a Web site.
That's a tragic story...
A wikipedia article is as good as the people that wrote it. If its been well-researched and written and referenced then it is quite useful. If it has been tossed off idly by undergrad pseudo-scholars then its less so. It's just like any source, you need to critically evaluate it before you take it seriously.
Daveybaby
12-07-2006, 09:49
A wikipedia article is as good as the people that wrote it. If its been well-researched and written and referenced then it is quite useful. If it has been tossed off idly by undergrad pseudo-scholars then its less so.
The trouble is, you have no idea which was the case for any particular piece of information, which makes it utterly useless as a reliable source of information. Quoting wikipedia is as reliable as saying "it must be true, a bloke down the pub said so".
As for the whole muslim horde thing, i think that given a choice it would be more entertaining if the horde were pagan, just for a bit of variety. I suspect that changing religions was left out on purpose to stop the player from immediately changing every catholic faction they played into othodox or something, so they could ignore the pope - which would be kinda unbalancing.
Beefeater
12-07-2006, 10:52
The better Wikipedia articles quote their sources extensively. The less good articles are generally notable for their lack of attributed sources.
That said, we once had the other side try to argue a point of law with us based on an article they'd found on Wikipedia. That was entertaining.
Nebuchadnezzar
12-07-2006, 10:54
I don't have a paricular source, per se. I took a class on medieval Russia. So, I guess if you need a footnote, you will have to come look at my notes.
I don't think that I need to provide a source because I said that Wikipedia is worthless. It is the same body of information that once proclaimed that my brother was John Kerry's running mate. I don't think I need to explain any further about Wikipedia.
As for sources...I don't think I need to go and do a bunch of research, citing sources, to counter what somebody copies and pastes from a Web site.
Quoting sources adds weight to an argument, even if only listing the text book used in a class. Much better than any links anyway.
As for Wikipedia I must agree that this has to be one of the worst sources. As with all internet sources it is extremely difficult to substantiate its origin. Wikipedia is usually put together by volunteers who could be anyone from a 12 year old to political extremists. A written reference at least has an author usually with a relevant qualification and usually with extensive experience on the subject.
It's certainly arguable that Elephants should be weaker in this game than in RTW, since the elephants the Timurids would be fielding would be the smaller Asian elephant, whereas Carthage's elephants were the bigger, nastier African elephants.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't African bush elephants traditionally considered too large and unruly to be used in battle? Carthage was supposed to have used a much smaller (some now say extinct) breed of forest elephant that inhabited North Africa and even parts of Southern Europe. Those would be the very small, one-man elephants you could get in RTW. The Indian ones were the war elephants (which even Carthage could recruit) and the armored ones were African bush elephants (which were the only ones the Selecuids could have).
Quote from the book Battle by R.G. Grant, the Mongols, in the siege of Baghdad, didn't massacre Christians, who were seen as allies to the Mongols. The sacking of Baghdad was from Jan. 11 to Feb. 10 in 1258.
At first the catholics were happy to hear about the Mongols dealing out punishment. For to them it seemed like they were God's fury on the Earth gainst the eeeeviiiill muslims. And further to the point, a few monks had traveled to Karakorum (I believe) and found that the Mongols were partly shamanistic but also nestorian christians.
The catholics jumped at this, and began calling the Khan Prestor John and all that crazy stuff, while deftly avoiding he issue that nestorianism had left the west because it was prosecuted as herecy rather heavily.
In any case, the point is that the Mongols had a connection to nestorianism. But in gameterms I would just prefer them as pagans, as that seems to have been their main religious connection. While the christianity they had taken was, as in many other pagan societies, just another part of the pagan world. Just like Christ was considered first just another god, then the top god among the old Norse before finally becoming what is close to what he is today.
I'm not positive about this, but it's looking in my current game like the Mongols behave as though they are pagan up until they settle. In my current game, they've spent the last 70 or so turns in the mountains of Armenia, moving back and forth continuously sacking Tbilisi and Yerevan. They are at war with the Turks and the Russians, though they have yet to meet a Russian unit in battle as far as I know. A Turkish imam has called for a jihad against Iconium, which had been held by the Turks but revolted a few turns back. Egypt is confined to Jedda only, so they probably can't spare an army, the Moors are gone, and the Turks are too busy with the Mongols. However, the Mongols have 10+ stacks in the region, and none have joined the jihad.
I don't know for certain, but it could be that they don't get the option until they settle, which could simulate them adopting Islam after conquering the area.
derfinsterling
12-07-2006, 17:20
Would be cool if you could build uber Jewish merchants in the middle east and other specific areas,
It would also be pretty anti-semitic if that was indeed possible.
It would also be pretty anti-semitic if that was indeed possible.
Not really if I remember my history right. The Jews WHERE good traders and such like. It was because they got so wealthy from this that they became so hated. Thus it would be simpile historical accurracy.
Orda Khan
12-07-2006, 18:17
Regardless of Berke (first Chingisid to convert to Islam) the Qipchaq Khanate did not become officially Islamic until Uzbeg.
There were other members of the Mongol ruling class that converted though Pagan beliefs, Nestorianism and even Buddhism were practiced. Turkic took over as the official language and was used on coins etc and as has already been stated, Islam became their faith.
It has been argued (and I tend to agree) that Berke's conversion was more out of convenience than any new found faith. The southern Caucasus area was a disputed area with many Qipchaq Khanate/IlKhanate clashes. It was part of the original Ulus of Jochi and its annexation by Hulegu threatened a particularly rich source of trade for Berke. This dispute continued with brief periods of peace until the end of the IlKhanate.
It was this dispute more so than the Mameluks that prevented Hulegu from advancing further and it was not helped when Princes from the Ulus of Orda, commanding their tanma troops in the IlKhanate army were executed.
I suppose CA had the choice to go with Pagan or Islam, I expect they went with Islam due to what happened historically (though many years after)
Personally I would have preferred Paganism since by the time they eventually converted, most players would have seen them off anyway.
A Mongol Jihad? It may prove challenging or fun but it sounds silly.
On the Wikipaedia argument, I think it is not bad for general information but for in depth research there is no substitute for books and historical journals. Unfortunately such books are very expensive
........Orda
It would also be pretty anti-semitic if that was indeed possible.
Considering there are more muslim semites than jewish ones, I would say that would be wrong.
I personally do recognize drawbacks of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. However, the information found there can be good and it can be quite bad (same as any published encyclopedias) Recognizing that, in this particular instance, what Wikipedia said, related well to what I had read and it was the quickest source I had at hand sparing me running home and looking up the books on history of Mongol invasion in my library.
As for sources...I don't think I need to go and do a bunch of research, citing sources, to counter what somebody copies and pastes from a Web site.
And... in this particular case, besides just generically denouncing Wikipedia, no one really has countered the Mongol related facts I had quoted from this source. As to Lord Condormanius, sorry, I was not quoting Wikipedia information about your brother being referred to as John Kerrry's running mate, I was quoting timeline information about Mongol horde leaders converting to Islam.
derfinsterling
12-07-2006, 18:54
Not really if I remember my history right. The Jews WHERE good traders and such like. It was because they got so wealthy from this that they became so hated. Thus it would be simpile historical accurracy.
It's serving to a cliche that's derogative of a whole religion.
The original statement implied that jews should be better merchants simply because they are jews - when in fact the reason, as you state yourself, for many jews to become involved in the money loaning and trade business was simply that there were little other venues open to them. Didn't mean they were "better" by default.
Mind you, I'm not trying to imply that the poster is anti-semitic or intended his comment to be taken this way; however, I doubt that there'd be an official patch or add-on adding such a trait to a character because CA or Sega would have to deal with possible ramifications.
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 18:54
It gets very frustrating when you are having a conversation that turns into a research debate because someone decided to pull out the Wikipedia card. That is, "prove me wrong, Wikipedia says I'm right." Although published encyclopedias tend be broadly generalized and sometimes unreliable, they at least must go through an editorial process. Wikipedia does not have such checks. And as such, difficult to take seriously.
Well, your source frustrations aside, are you disputing that what I quoted from Wikipedia, that the rulers of the combined Blue Horde and White Horde (which later came to be known as Golden Horde) converted to Islam in 1250'ies while Il-Khanate converted in early 1300'ies.?
It gets very frustrating when you are having a conversation that turns into a research debate because someone decided to pull out the Wikipedia card. That is, "prove me wrong, Wikipedia says I'm right." Although published encyclopedias tend be broadly generalized and sometimes unreliable, they at least must go through an editorial process. Wikipedia does not have such checks. And as such, difficult to take seriously.
there could be many reasons for jews to be better merchants. the fact that supposedly there were no many other venues for them being one. another - jews were a geographically widely spread (not their free will frequently) but still numerically - a rather small social group.
in trade, who and where you know is very important. imho, jews were a unique social group in a sense that they were polyglot and were likely to personally know "someone" in many trading cities of the medieval age: a mercantile advantage right there. nothing to do with religion, besides having something to relate with that "someone who you know" in the other trading city.
The original statement implied that jews should be better merchants simply because they are jews - when in fact the reason, as you state yourself, for many jews to become involved in the money loaning and trade business was simply that there were little other venues open to them. Didn't mean they were "better" by default.
My understanding was that Jew where hated because they where good traders (much as in nazi germany with bankers in more recent times). Not that they chose trading becuase they where hated. they could have done anything, they just seem to have concantrated on trading and got wealthy through it.
Slaists give possible reasons why they where good traders. I wouldn't know myself.
PROMETHEUS
12-07-2006, 19:43
And why The Aztecs too are muslim according to CA?
What would be the advantage of making the hordes pagan? Except it would make it harder for them to hold territory due to the religious unrest?
I also am not sure what Judaism would add to the game. Another religion to slowly get eroded?
Historical realism, perhaps? There are some of us who play this game who prefer to have more realism than CA initially provides.
I was under the impression that the Jews were forced into being moneylenders during the Middle Ages because usury was forbidden by the Christian faith. They needed moneylenders, Christians couldn't be moneylenders, so "Here! You, Jew! You're now a moneylender!" Of course, moneylending done correctly makes a lot of money for the lender, so they then proceed to hate the lender for being successful.
For the whole "Golden Horde to Islam" debate.
http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/states3.html
Batu died in 1255, and the next significant ruler was his brother Berke (1255-1267) who had converted to Islam and focused most of his energies against the Il-Khans of Persia. His conversion marked the first time an important leader among the Mongols abandoned the traditional shamanistic religion. Hulegu, the founder of the Mongol Il-Khanate, had sacked Baghdad in 1258 and killed the Caliph of Islam. Berke forged an alliance with the Mamluks of Egypt who were also enemies of the Il-Khans. The war with the Il-Khans lasted until the final collapse of the Il-Khanate in 1334.
The third ruler was Mongke Temur (1266-1279), who continued much as his predecessors did: warring against the Il-Khans. In addition, the Golden Horde increasingly dominated trade and was the most powerful state in Europe, often exerting its influence with threats of invasion into Poland and Hungary, or through its vassal, Bulgaria. After Mongke Temur's death, many of the khans became puppets controlled by generals, such as Nogai (d. 1299).
Between 1313 and 1341 during the rule of Uzbek Khan, the Golden Horde reached its pinnacle in terms of wealth, trade, influence, and military might. Uzbek Khan also forced the conversion of the Golden Horde to Islam, thus the cities of Sarai and New Sarai emerged as major Muslim centers. During the middle of the fourteenth century, however, the Golden Horde weakened as it suffered-like much of the world-from bubonic plague, civil wars, and ineffectual rulers (between 1357 and 1370, eight khans ruled). It is even thought that bubonic plague spread to Europe after the Mongols laid siege to the port of Kaffa on the Crimean peninsula in 1346. After their own forces were stricken with plague, the Mongols catapulted their corpses over the walls into Kaffa. The ships that left Kaffa and returned to Italy carried the disease.
Not the most note-worthy of academics, but a good source I thought.
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 20:10
A little something about the "Golden Horde":
"Batu's ulus, to which the lands of Rus' were to be subordinated, has been referred to by many names. All of Juchi's ulus, the western sector of the Mongol empire, was designated the White Horde. This term has also been used for Batu's ulus. When referring to Batu's and Orda's portions seperately, the terms White Horde and Blue Horde have both been used. There is some confusion regarding which term should properly be applied to which half of the ulus, but most scholars consider the White Horde to refer to the western half or Batu's ulus. His realm, however, has also been referred to by a variety of other names: Desht-i-Kipchak, the Kipchak Khanate, and most commonly although least accurately, the Golden Horde."
--from Medieval Russia: 980-1584 by Janet Martin (p.135)
The way I understand it is that it wasn't until the reign of Uzbek (1313-41)that the entire horde converted to Islam. However, prior to that point, several Khans personally converted (i.e. Berke (1258-66), Tuda-Mengu (1282-87)). *Martin, 155.
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 20:14
Very interesting read.
Any source which is replete with emotive adjectives is dubious, britannica or universal turth foundation or whateve they may call it. Any source which does not quote their sources is dubious.
The only credible one, for me, is one who does not use emotive adjectives (to encourage an emotional judgement by the reader which favors the author's view), and proves his sources. One that is impartial, as much as is humanly possible.
Then of course there is the question of logic. Some stuff you read is so freakin ridiculous it defies logic, and the author still expects you to believe it.
This is not a statement to judge quotations in this thread, just a statement in general.
It's funny how the term "semite" and "anti-semetic" has become misconstrued to mean exclusively anti-jew... when it really encompasses a lot more than that... I've heard people accuse certain muslims of being anti-semetic... and little do they know that the person they are accusing is a semite... so it wouldn't make much sense for them to be anti-semetic... unless they were some sort of self-hating semite... which wouldn't make sense.
It's weird how language changes ><
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 20:32
If I am not mistaken. "Semetic" actually refers to a linguistic group.
i know wikipedia sucks but this is fairly accurate
The concept of a "Semitic" peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. Those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their forefather Shem. Enemies were often said to be descendants of his cursed brother Ham. In Genesis 10:21-31 Shem is described as the father of Aram, Asshur, and others: the Biblical ancestors of the Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc., all of whose languages are closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named Semitic by linguists. However, the Canaanites and Amorites also spoke a language belonging to this family, and are therefore also termed Semitic in linguistics despite being described in Genesis as sons of Ham (See Sons of Noah). Shem is also described in Genesis as the father of the Elamites and the descendants of Lud, whose languages were not Semitic.
The following is a list of ancient peoples generally characterised as "Semitic" by modern authors (including some stated in Genesis to be descendents of Ham):
* Akkadians — appear ca. 2500 BC and amalgamate with Mesopotamian populations into the Assyrians of the late Bronze Age
* Eblaites — 23rd century BC
* Aramaeans — from the 14th century BC, evolve into the Syriacs of the early centuries AD
* Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
* Canaanite nations of the early Iron Age:
o Amorites (Amurru, Sumerian MAR.TU) — invade Sumer in the 20th century BC
o Ammonites
o Edomites
o Eberites ( Hebrews ) — founded the kingdom of Israel and Judah, the remnants of which became the Jews of Late Antiquity.
o Moabites
o Phoenicians
* Sabaeans of Yemen and Ethiopia, from ca. the 9th century BC, evolving into Semitic Ethiopian peoples from the 5th century BC
* Arabs — appearing from the 5th century BC as Nabataeans
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 21:01
o Phoenicians
Then I guess we could consider the Carthaginians a "semetic" people, couldn't we?
You can consider a lot of people semites... Jews, Muslims & Christians alike. It's more to do with language though, you're right.
It's just weird how in modern times when people think of a semite they automatically associate it exclusively to judaism.
Lord Condormanius
12-07-2006, 21:32
There are a lot of things like that. Language goes through changes just like anything else. Tracing the etymology of words can be fun (and easy, thanks to online etymological dictionaries). Some of my favorites are: trivia, noon, grog(gy), decimate, farm. Sometimes the meanings of words are altered by things that have nothing to do with the root of the word at all.
"Noon," for instance, comes from the Latin Novem (nine). It used to refer to the prayers during the ninth hour of daylight, or 3 p.m. (the day being split into hours of darkness and hours of daylight). At some point (I can't remember when exactly) the Church moved the prayer hour to the sixth hour (12 p.m.) but the name stuck.
Those other ones I listed are pretty interesting too. Check them out if you're into these types of nerdy endeavors.
Kobal2fr
12-07-2006, 21:39
so it wouldn't make much sense for them to be anti-semetic... unless they were some sort of self-hating semite... which wouldn't make sense.
Doesn't it ? Seems to me many, if not most individuals hate themselves :sweatdrop:.
But I'm just mindscrewin' around here, I know what you mean, and it is true that antisemitism is one of those words that's been thrown around for so long that it has lost almost all of both its litteral and original meanings.
There is a lot of those words flying around (there always was, too), and the linguistic "solution" is always to forget the original meaning and "go with the flow". A word has no meaning in and of itself, it's just a mean to communicate a notion, so when all is said and done it means what the linguistic majority think/believe it means, or the concept they associate the word with.
I know it's irritating to purists, to people who know what the original meaning was and how it now seems devaluated (my personnal pet-peeve is "romantic". How it came all the way from suicidal poets standing on cliff edges, their faces bitten by the bitter winds of self-love, history and weldschmertz to meaning "buying some broad a bunch of flowers", I just can't understand), but it's not. There's merely two different concepts sharing the same word nowadays, that's all.
Etymology is fine and dandy, but usage trumps it, always, even though etymology can say a lot. I've always been fascinated by the fact that the French verb for work, "travail", comes from the latin tripalium, a torture method close to crucifixion.
I was under the impression that the Jews were forced into being moneylenders during the Middle Ages because usury was forbidden by the Christian faith. They needed moneylenders, Christians couldn't be moneylenders, so "Here! You, Jew! You're now a moneylender!" Of course, moneylending done correctly makes a lot of money for the lender, so they then proceed to hate the lender for being successful.
That is a good impression... though it might be a little wrong in the reasons.
It seems rather unlikely that jews were forced to become moneylenders, but because they were not allowed to own land, and christians weren't allowed usury, it must have been terribly tempting for those who were suddenly without land to become moneylenders.
Also, these moneylenders would then treat their own kind a bit kinder (normal) and as such, the jewish merchants tended to have a small advantage as they could easier make use of good deals when out of funds. Christians would of course see this rather negatively and the rest we know.
a bit funny... how a discussion about whether Mongols should be portrayed as Islamic or Pagan in the game has drifted into a discussion of anti-semitism and whether online popular information are a rubbish or not.
:juggle2:
there could be many reasons for jews to be better merchants. the fact that supposedly there were no many other venues for them being one. another - jews were a geographically widely spread (not their free will frequently) but still numerically - a rather small social group.
in trade, who and where you know is very important. imho, jews were a unique social group in a sense that they were polyglot and were likely to personally know "someone" in many trading cities of the medieval age: a mercantile advantage right there. nothing to do with religion, besides having something to relate with that "someone who you know" in the other trading city.
Could be culture as well. I'm Chinese and there's something in our culture that makes a lot of entrepreneurs. Lots of Chinese and their descendants who fled China around WW2 now own the biggest businesses and dominate business in Southeast Asia.
It seems rather unlikely that Jews were forced to become moneylenders, but because they were not allowed to own land, and Christians weren't allowed usury, it must have been terribly tempting for those who were suddenly without land to become moneylenders.
Also, these moneylenders would then treat their own kind a bit kinder (normal) and as such, the Jewish merchants tended to have a small advantage as they could easier make use of good deals when out of funds. Christians would of course see this rather negatively and the rest we know.
That’s actually what I meant, forced into it by circumstances.
I was under the impression that the Jews were forced into being moneylenders during the Middle Ages because usury was forbidden by the Christian faith. They needed moneylenders, Christians couldn't be moneylenders, so "Here! You, Jew! You're now a moneylender!" Of course, moneylending done correctly makes a lot of money for the lender, so they then proceed to hate the lender for being successful.
It should be noted that most of my info here comes from a small history piece that was at the start of a video on Nazi Germany I had to watch back when doing history at school. It was a 5 minute piece explaining why Jews where heavily hated even prior to Hitler, and then went on to explain how he used this hatred to get into power.
Since it's a small 5 minute piece and isn't the main subject of the video, It's quite possible the video was wrong.
Could be culture as well. I'm Chinese and there's something in our culture that makes a lot of entrepreneurs. Lots of Chinese and their descendants who fled China around WW2 now own the biggest businesses and dominate business in Southeast Asia.
Let me guess... people flee from first the Japanese (makes sense, they are rather dangerous), those with fund have a better chance of making it to somewhere safe. Some return after the war, others have begun to like to travel or have seen opportunities elsewhere. Then Mao pops up, and again people flee, however this time it is mainly those with money. Generally speaking two types of people had money. Landowners (nobility and greatly hated by the communists) and merchants/industrialists (capitalist pig-dogs).
So I find it rather logical that outland chinese are rather industrious, and often own stores ect. Many of them come from a tradition, and in some cases a successful line of people in the same business.
Kobal2fr
12-07-2006, 23:17
Let me guess... people flee from first the Japanese (makes sense, they are rather dangerous), those with fund have a better chance of making it to somewhere safe. Some return after the war, others have begun to like to travel or have seen opportunities elsewhere. Then Mao pops up, and again people flee, however this time it is mainly those with money. Generally speaking two types of people had money. Landowners (nobility and greatly hated by the communists) and merchants/industrialists (capitalist pig-dogs).
So I find it rather logical that outland chinese are rather industrious, and often own stores ect. Many of them come from a tradition, and in some cases a successful line of people in the same business.
Your notion of social Darwinism rings very true, but you omit one thing. Probably because it is by nature somewhat irrational. The fact is that ethnic, social, religious, any kind of group really, they all tend to operate on the "us and them" basis. That is to say, a Chinese immigrant-turned-successful-banker will be more sympathetic to the plight of a Chinese immigrant fresh from Back Home.
On top of the logical, sensible thing, there's a kind of inbred snowball effect going on there : Jews were being barred from other places of influence out of irrational/religious/racist reasons (and, for the record, I don't believe that "Christianity wouldn't allow for moneylending" crap. Money's money, has always been, and has always trumped every other human consideration. I do believe it was more along the lines of "You lot killed Christ !" "But... Christ was a Jew, wasn't he ?" "SHADDAP ! NO LAND FOR YOU, MURDERER ! (and more for us... )"), so they turned to moneylending.
Those of them who succeed in that field in turn helped their community to succeed in it, and kept the other, non-Jewish moneylenders down, not so much out of vengeance or hatred or bigotry or anti-goyism, but because it was the only way to help their own friends out, the most efficient way, whatever. In turn, the non-Jewish moneylenders felt harmed, attacked etc... and striked back. Cue centuries.
Overtime, the logical, rational reasons turned into an irrational "We hate them because they're filthy <insert racial expletive> unlike us !" on both sides, because it's easier to understand/accept, or because thinking that way makes it easier to justify breaches of morality I guess...
Daveybaby
12-08-2006, 00:01
The best thing to do when having a troll argument on the internet is to create a completely new wikipedia page on the topic (usually you will have to think up a slightly different name to the real page) fill it with crap, and then link to it.
Look, this page PROVES that russians invented the internet!
Well, many of those Chinese (at least the ones I have experienced here in Denmark and Jamaica) tend to be single families living among locals, or perhaps more but being very very sublte about it (so it isn't obvious).
Of course they are more likely to help each other, but these people tend to haev 'grown' up together in the new place. So there aren't that many in first place to help the newcomers.
For the jews however, well that is much more true.
But no, christians really didn't dabble with that, unless you went deep into the social mud (akin to modern loansharks), but down there you wouldn't find the good clients. Christians were like the muslims today... no interest and no loans (yeah I know muslims can loan out money at no interest). If muslims can do that now, then christians could certainly do it back then. Only with time have the christians abandoned that practice for... well practicality.
We seem to have drifted off topic from Muslim Mongols to Jewish traders and Wikipedia. :closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.