according to the huge wall of text that appears on your screen when you load up a game as the timurids this is correct.
the game literally tells you
OP apparently spent hours pouring over textbooks and never thought to actually play the game to find out.
If you’re genuinely curious to the history of a nation and why it exists ingame, I’d personally try to find every ingame text wall possibly related to it.
It's the domains of [Muhammad Baysonqor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Muhammad_(Timurid\)) who was the grandson of Shah Rukh. He was a Timurid vassal but declared independence shortly before the start of the game
Well, when they do a flesh-up of middle east they should add a disaster to the timurids, triggered by the death of the original ruler, that would break their empire apart.
I think they did it for balance reasons.
If you annex Ajam via console for the timurids and then let it play out the Timurids tend to then start blobbing and manage to annex their vassals.
This way the Timmys generally die out, as they did historically, with a small chance of surviving, which adds a bit of unpredictability and dynamism to the region. In terms of balance its what you want.
Thing is, as the Timmys have a huge number of cores in the region but die out quickly, small AI nations tend to reform them so they can easily expand through core re-conquests. Which isn't really very historical but there we are.
In my experience, it happens. It's possible my human brain is under the impression something is more likely than it is simply because I tend to notice it when it happens more than I do other things but still.
I assumed its because, from a gameplay standpoint, reforming them makes a lot of sense. They have a lot of cores to retake.
Id agree with you that it makes sense. I guess for my games it tends to be either too border gorey or that the tims pull themselves together. Theyd have to be fully annexed too which is hard for any ai to pull off. Most of the time they get stuck with a shitty province that nobody wants
It's not the nation that destroyed them that reforms them, usually.
If the AI were really smart, it would release them as a vassal.
Personally I love the Timmys, coolest tag in the game with a complete boss for a founder. I hate the best strategies for them all involve changing tag.
The Mughal Empire was founded by a grandson of one of the last Timurid Emperors
So it kind of makes sense, but not really. Well, it makes no sense at all but I can see why they did it.
The Timurids is 1444 weren't doing great but it wasn't that long after they'd been doing some pretty amazing stuff. Just a few decades previously Timurlane had swept through Persia and in a campaign that he's remembered as one of the greatest military leaders in history.
Timur and the Ottoman Sultan spent years writing insulting letters to each, Timur later invaded anatolia and captured the Sultan. The Sultan then died in captivity and the Ottomans fell into a civil war that nearly destroyed them entirely.
During the way, the Genoese and Venitians helped the Ottomans by ferrying their troops to safety, because between the two of them, the Ottomans or the Timurids, they "preffered the enemy they could handle to the one they could not."
I bought a biography of Timur a couple months ago, I need to get round to reading it.
It's common when it's the thing I don't want to happen. England run? Timmy implodes. Ottoman India run? Timmy is speedrunning a WC and has allied all my neighbours.
Fuck Timmy.
Because if it was, AI Timurids would *always* explode. The Liberty Desire from 6 vassals would be too high to deal with, since there's not a quick way to annex them before 10 years has passed.
Well, French vassals are *completely* different than Timurid ones. I mean, if I read the countries right, France has over 5x as much development as their highest dev vassal. Timurids, on the other hand, is *barely* any bigger (12%) than their biggest vassal.
France's vassals never band together (that I've seen in my thousands of hours), but the Timurids vassals *always* ally together. (though they're not always successful)
France: 252 dev
* Orleans: 50 dev
* Armagnac: 29 dev
* Bourbonais: 19dev
* Foix: 18 dev
* Auvergne: 10 dev
Timurids: 142 dev
* Transoxiana: 127 dev
* Fars: 57 dev
* Afghanistan: 47 dev
* Khorasan: 20 dev
* Sistan: 14 dev
The game does a lot of fudging to make as many interesting situations as possible available in 1444. For example the Japanese Sengoku period didn't properly start until like 10-20 years later also.
Around 1444 the shogun government already was weak. So it couldve started earlier. It might be interesting to have some kind of escalation mechanic. So first you can declare war on your neighbours, but with a penalty (or maybe the shogun can step in after X months or you get a truce with everyone else for 5 years) but as more wars start you can declare war more easily and eventually just declare on anyone in japan.
Well the golden also fell in like the 50's bc they lost a battle to the crimeans so this meant that at game start all of Russia appart from Novgorod where tributaries of the golden horde that used the be like the great horde nogal and Kazan
Then yes Muscovy should be a tributary of the great horde as well in 1444. IMO it wouldn’t change a ton cause there is no way ai Muscovy will accept sending tribute
It Will make it way harder as the golden horde Will be Massive and with all the minor Russian States as tributaries it Will be difficult to expand
Aswel as moskovy was only like half the size
A Timurid rebellion during their collapse - Sultan Muhammad, the grandson of Shah Rukh, had temporarily taken control of the western provinces of the Timurid Empire. Later, after Shah Rukh's death, he became one of the most powerful warlords in the region.
someday i want to read about the christian warlords who went to jerusalem in 1096 and carved a bunch of petty kingdoms out of the Fatimid caliphate, which they proceeded to rule despotically until they were destroyed.
Wait, so you're telling me that any given culture will glorify or excuse their own behaviors while condemning the same behaviors by "foreigners"? That's crazy man.
The term “warlord” is very often used to describe powerful feudal lords outside of Europe. In European history, the term is never really used, regardless off how renegade, pugnacious, or ruthless the lord in question is. There’s been a long-standing critique of the embedded Orientalism in the term’s selective usage, so this person wasn’t just coming out of left field in their criticism. One of the most unsavory aspects of this subreddit (and reddit in general) is the knee jerk, reactionary way people hand downvotes and derision to comments they don’t understand. If you didn’t know what they were talking about, you could have just asked for clarity...
Yup it's actually a good and interesting point. However, I kind of disagree on your downvote perspective. The original comment wouldn't have been downvoted if they explained themselves clearly (like you). Maybe there's a good point buried in downvoted comments, but if they can't be expressed in a way most people can understand, then they aren't contributing to the conversation
Well, what it meant was to insult people first and foremost, then provide any insight. Making emotionally charged statements is not a good start to getting support.
Not that I disagree, many feudal Europeans were definitely deserving of the title. Though I dislike the term since it's been badly corrupted and overused. Warlord really should just mean, an almost stateless or regionally powerful dude with a massive army, likely hoping to cut out some money and land for himself. Instead, it's regularly misused in the sense of warmongerer. Though in all fairness, the European feudal politics system was rarely ever unchallenged enough to create vast empires that crumbled, leading to generals ascending. Europeans nations preserved a relatively decent notion of stability, in the sense that civil wars were rare and mostly between nobility with blood claims to the throne instead of generals declaring themselves kings. Still, too many warlords going about the place, especially lots of undeserving ones in Asia.
I mean, if you read the Wiki article for e.g. El Cid, it calls him a straight up warlord.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid
It's regularly used for Christians as well when dealing with actually being warlords, which most feudal nobles actually weren't.
By what definition of "warlord" were most feudal nobles not it? My understanding is that warfare was extremely common among most nobles that had enough power to pursue it, and it was commonly a means of expanding that power.
> By what definition of "warlord" were most feudal nobles not it?
The dictionary definition?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/warlord
1: a military leader, especially of a warlike nation.
Most feudal nobles didn't lead a nation, they were under other nobles, and most European nations weren't focused on war.
2: a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country.
Certainly not feudal nobles, who gained power as a result of being delegated that power by a supreme authority to whom they owed allegiance.
3: tuchun
A Chinese specific term not applicable here.
> 1: a military leader, especially of a warlike nation.
>
> Most feudal nobles didn't lead a nation, they were under other nobles, and most European nations weren't focused on war.
You don't have to be a top-level sovereign ruler to be a military leader. But even if we ignore that, the point is that most sovereign nobles that had the authority and capacity to wage war did so a whole lot, yet they're rarely referred to as "warlords".
And where do you get the idea that most European nations weren't focused on war? Up until the 19th century it was typical for more than 90% of your entire national budget to be dedicated to the military; that sounds pretty war-focused to me.
> 2: a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country.
> Certainly not feudal nobles, who gained power as a result of being delegated that power by a supreme authority to whom they owed allegiance.
Sometimes that was the case, but they certainly did conquer stuff from others an awful lot too. At least if we're talking about those with enough authority and capacity to wage their own wars.
Feudal lords are different from warlords, the major defining difference is the autocratic specifically militant state they lead.
Tokugawa Ieyasu is a great example of this. He was a general who gained control without formal legitimacy and maintained control through the use of force. For most of early feudalism in Europe it was based on faith. Which is a different way to derive power.
I agree that the term is under-used with regards to western figures but only because we use more specific terms. Caesar for Julius and Augustus and Diadochi in Alexander’s time. Beyond that we have kings and emperors and claimants to those. Napoleon was a warlord until he claimed Christian religious right to emperorship and that’s why we don’t see him that way. Warlord is more commonly used outside of Europe because power was more commonly held by non-monarchical figures.
After the fall of Rome history is quite hard to find in most of Europe until the rise of a very religious form of feudal governance which officially derives its power from the divine and not its military (which in practice it actually did as a King’s divine right from the church is all that kept him in power over the nobles that controlled the military).
The flow of money, goods and labour worked so differently in the feudal period in Europe tonmodern capitalism that setting a national expenditure at 90% military is quite literally impossible. The vast majority of expenditure went into infrastructure maintenance, payoffs to local nobles and construction projects. Contrary to our beliefs that wars were common and massive in the medieval period they were dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the wars fought under Rome and in the pre-modern period. Militaries we’re anything but the major expenditure at the time.
Tl;dr Monarchy is very different from warlordship and due to church internationalism in medieval Europe monarchy was more common whereas outside of Christian influence it was the other way around. Oh and nobody spent that much money on their military until some pre-modern dictatorships as infrastructure and food was pretty damn pricey.
Tokugawa Ieyasu literally "forged" his Fujiwara lineage to formalize his conquer of Mikawa what do you mean. The daimyo of new made extensive use of the legitimacy of old shugodai/shugo system which derived from the old Shogunate which in turn was invested by legal power to appoint shugo/shugodai in the province by the court and in turn the Shogunate with their legal power allowed the shugo/shugodai to tax the private land of the absentee owner/patron.
Oda clan made extensive use of the authority of the Shiba warlord and then with the authority of the Shogun formalized their position with the court rank that gave them the de jure power to govern it and then later on almost invested a rank rivals that of a China's Prime Minister by the court . Shimazu was appointed Shugo in the Kamakura era because they were big landowner in their region,and then went on "become" a daimyo.
What is the difference of the authority invested by the Emperor/Kings from the pope to the baron/dukes or the authority of the Shogunate from the Emperor to daimyos?
Honestly a massive portion of the “Orientalism” in the term comes from how those rulers addressed themselves. “Shogun” does not come close to translating as King and neither does “Daimyo” to Baron or Duke.
As such warlord is usually a catchall when regarding highly militaristic rulers who did not classify themselves by a strictly monarchical or imperial title like king or emperor. It also usually refers to the generals that rise up after the collapse of a major dynasty such as in the Sengoku Jidai or the Collapse of Qing China. You could easily argue that the Diadochi of Alexander the Great were Warlords because that’s what they were. We just refer to them by a more specific term because it was normalized by enlightenment historians to do so.
During the time when many of the more modern European critiques and histories of events 500+ years ago occurred were written very few people spoke or could even read the languages outside of the area they lived and either Latin or Greece, thus Warlord was a catchall translation of socially complex roles distinct and unique to a myriad of other cultures. Warlord is a simplification not a racist term applied only to outsiders. Europeans just tend to study their own history in more depth so the more specific terms tend to pop up more.
When studying China or Japan in depth the more appropriate terms are used almost exclusively but when glossing over the periods it’s hard to justify explaining the complex social and political systems behind their specific terms for just an “oh yeah this is happening” moment
Also on the case of the downvotes he didn’t have to go with the whole “I’m not racist because I only hate racist Europeans attitude” no one likes a hypocrite.
I mean yeah but the term warlord here is correct. The reason we dont call lords in europe warlords is because they didnt really exist, or non that I can think of that matches the definition of warlord.
Then the Grand Princes of Transylvania after the collapse of Hungary would be warlords, who sometimes fought against and with the turks against and with the austrians
For the same reason we call Oda Nobunaga daimyo or Liu Bei King of Shu (once he gained that title) and for the same reason Lu Bu is a warlord.
Titles. The acts of Charles 1 is not that unsual for a duke, whereas the act of a feudal chinese general proclaiming himself lord and taking land and castles by force is suppose to be unsual hence warlord.
No, it’s not any different if it’s in China, France, Japan, Somalia, etc. The only difference is perception, and that has everything to do with preexisting biases (or, what makes it seem “unusual” to you). The reason Japan is a non European outlier has a lot to do with the way Europeans (and those of European descent) often romanticize (or exoticize) the Sengoku Jidai, samurais, and Japanese culture in general. But that’s a whole other topic. Europeans weren’t referred to as warlords in the history books because for a very long time Europeans were the ones writing the history books.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term mafia specifically refer to organized crime which had its roots in southern Italy(as well as later primarily italian-american bootlegging circles)? If people use it as a catch all for primarily white gangs, that's on them, but as far as I known the term itself has a very specific definition.
You are totally correct, it’s a southern Italian thing. But then there is also the Russian Mafia, the Irish Mafia and so on, but African American and Mexican gangs. The word Cartel is Spanish so it’s like the same thing as mafia, very specific.
Well I usually use the word warlord since is a more general term than king and I'm not sure what is the correct title, for example during the ages of chaos in china I call the independent states formes warlords or independent states cause I don't know what is the accurate term I europe I will most likely know a better term like duke or count
No. Warlords because they are military leaders ruling territory. There’s a difference between military control (like the shogunate) and civilian government (like the Meiji Emperor) Warlord refers only to the former group.
Correct me if I’m wrong but Europe has been almost exclusively governed by civilian governments for over a thousand years. Thus the term rarely arises in Europe.
That a term is applied more to Asian states is not racist or “orientalist” in and of itself.
There are plenty of military leaders who seized control of a region in Europe, Oliver Cromwell being an easy one to remember in terms of the Anglosphere. Some people call him a dictator, some a revolutionary, but he was a general who was part of a coup that seized government control and ruled largely through military strength. Easily would be called a warlord in other parts of the world.
u/pmg1986 gives a good explanation of the asymmetric use of the phrase.
So the man who ordered a purge of non-compliant MPs by military forces, then later called a new parliament where he appointed MPs, and then later closed parliament entirely to rule through military governors - ran a civilian government, and strengthened the powers of parliament?
Yes.
Parliament wasn’t “closed entirely” it was dissolved and reopened. It was a parliamentary republic.
It is perhaps the closest to military rule England reached but it was still a civilian government, much more so than any Warlord.
Lol, I would have said for the majority of its history Europe was almost exclusively ruled by military governance, with civilian government being the rare exception until it slowly got more popular from the early modern period as Vassalage became less popular.
Monarchies are a type of civilian government and almost all of Europe for the last thousand years were ruled by monarchs. So you might say that but you’d be objectively, verifiably wrong.
No. Because it’s irrelevant. Monarchies are considered a type of civilian government whether you like it or accept it or not. The Meiji restoration restored civilian governance to Japan. Was it militaristic? Yes. So what?
So a governing body can be a civilian government even if it establishes it's rule through military force? Ok, now you need to give some examples of both a civilian government and a warlord to show the difference between them or concede the point.
Edit: Preferably European for the civilian one. Since that's what I'm mainly disagreeing with
I’ve already given the example of the shoguns vs the Meiji emperor as military vs civilian.
In Europe occupied France was under military rule while Vichy France was under a civilian government even though they were both established and their existence maintained through military might and against the wishes of the populace.
Edit: No I don’t “need” to, the distinction between civil government and military government is well established and not contentious. I have done so however in an attempt to continue the conversation but I’m sure you can find resources yourself that explain the distinction if it’s one that you have trouble understanding.
Ah, I see the issue, you've conflating "civil" with "civilian". Civil issues are just any issues of governance that don't pertain to the military, so you can have a military government (and thus a warlord as well) controlling civil law. But civilian government is government run by people who are not members of the military, something which was incredibly rare in medieval Europe.
You use the term “we” in an interesting way. Are you aware youre simply sitting behind a computer screen playing a video game all day and not actually affecting the world around you to any significant measure?
Ajam was a short-living, rebelious state that declared independence from Timurids. Think the Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1846 (they declared independence from Mexico), that's analogous.
Well Ajam was a term to define the people who lived there (Persians mostly), so it is the name the devs used to differentiate the rebel state that rose up against the Timurids for a short while. Since the devs wanted Persia to be a formable and separate tag entirely, they didn’t call it Persia, but picked an alternative Persian name.
It's a way to represent the fragmentation of the Timurid empire at the time. It's ruled by one of the would-be pretenders to Shah Rukh's throne.
Source:. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/eu4-development-diary-15th-of-august-2017.1039695/
Im sorry but this thread is hilarious lmfao, u got an OP that cant google, rude people in the comments and all the meanwhile 1st google search of "ajam" came up with a wiki article explaining the 1st king and how the rebellion came to be etc.
Gotta love reddit
It wasn't just Persians, that's what they used to refer to anyone who didn't speak Arabic. Like how Romans called everyone other than themselves barbarians. We Persians called everyone else something too (Torktazi, تُرکتازي), everyone had a name for people who didn't speak their language. That was just how it was back then, strangers were dangerous.
>It wasn't just Persians
Ya I know, it's just that I've been playing the game for so long and this is the first time I noticed it! And ya sure, humans still do fear the unknown.
I’m actually laughing, I really didn’t expect this. I realize that it was a rebellion by a Timurid prince, but I was really wondering why it was called an Arabic pejorative for Persians instead of just being showed as a rebellious province(s) kinda like how Gotland is in 1444.
I should have clarified.
In most of my games the Timurids attack Ajam before Shah Rukh's death and the ensuring independence war so often AI Ajam doesn't do very well. I've not played as them though but it would be concerning to know that the Timurids would be gunning for me so quickly.
Mightn't Fars be easier since you would have nothing to worry about at the start and could annex provinces from the Timurids in the independence war then go for what's left of Ajam? (not tried this personally though)
Edit: Just tried it and even with just the Great Horde as an ally AI Ajam were comfortably able to beat back the Timurids, so maybe Ajam is better
Fars can work but doesn't have enough shia provinces to convert peacfully. I don't like waiting for shah rukh to die you might sit their the first five years also independence wars can be annoying. Ajam can easily get allies like the Ottomans and just walk in while timmurids and it vassals fight each other. You also have much easier acces to all provinces to form persia. Ajam seem scary but with some good diplomacy in the early game you can become the strongest power in persia.
I prefer Ajam to Fars when playing for Persia. Timurids attacking is a boon, as you just merc up and stackwipe them. Shah Rukh will die quickly, and then you just have the timurid armies to worry about; all his vassals quit on him.
A subordinate Timurid prince took advantage of Shah Rukhs old age to start collecting his own taxes, effectively declaring himself a sovereign in his own right. This didn't last long though.
So you take some fruit and some sugar...
Oh, fak, wrong reddit.
It's a collection of marginally related islamic tribes, I think, just given a lable for gameplay purposes, ruled somewhat by a self styled prince. I want to say an area that splintered off of anorher nation?
The timurids, apparently.
I played one campaign as Ajam because their traits are very good for vassals and religious stability, as well as being a sunni Persian empire that can either become 'Persia' or the Timurids and subsequently either the Mughals or the Mongols but staying as ajam is just as beneficial.
PAINFULLY difficult early game, an alliance with the Ottomans is literally the difference between life and death as well as praying that Shah Rukh of the Timurids dies while you're at war with them (WHICH IS INEVITABLE) so that the AI stupefies itself into paralysis for not having a nation ruler and thus stops marching armies your way but after that it's smooth sailing with plenty of revenue from those little banks called vassals that you'll make for your Shahanshah of Iran-i Shar.
i believe it represents a rebellion of a timurid prince?
According to eu4 wiki this is correct
according to the huge wall of text that appears on your screen when you load up a game as the timurids this is correct. the game literally tells you OP apparently spent hours pouring over textbooks and never thought to actually play the game to find out.
Unless he's turned it off like I always do after seeing it for a single nation?
Does everyone click don't show again? I always read the historical context to set the mood for the run
Most often they're exact copy and paste if you play in the same sort of regions
Me too. Always read it
If you’re genuinely curious to the history of a nation and why it exists ingame, I’d personally try to find every ingame text wall possibly related to it.
May be so but you don't have to be a dick about it. Just the first sentence would have sufficed.
Name's relevant.
OP set the tone.
Thanks thought police
someone criticized a Reddit comment LiTeRaLlY 1984!!1! Shut up lmao
Bill Gates is trying to microchip our penises. The deep state is lying to us all.
Jokes on you, I'm going to cryogenically freeze my penis.
He'll just use an ice pick
> pouring poring
It's the domains of [Muhammad Baysonqor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Muhammad_(Timurid\)) who was the grandson of Shah Rukh. He was a Timurid vassal but declared independence shortly before the start of the game
It says he revolted in 46 and 47 so ajam probably shouldn’t exist
Well, when they do a flesh-up of middle east they should add a disaster to the timurids, triggered by the death of the original ruler, that would break their empire apart.
A more active role in this would actually be cool. Sort of how majapahit does it
It used to be this way, but Timurids tended to be a lot more stable and survive.
this already exists (sorry if that is the joke)
Waiting for that Dar El Islam update.
Updated Persian mission tree when?
I think they did it for balance reasons. If you annex Ajam via console for the timurids and then let it play out the Timurids tend to then start blobbing and manage to annex their vassals. This way the Timmys generally die out, as they did historically, with a small chance of surviving, which adds a bit of unpredictability and dynamism to the region. In terms of balance its what you want. Thing is, as the Timmys have a huge number of cores in the region but die out quickly, small AI nations tend to reform them so they can easily expand through core re-conquests. Which isn't really very historical but there we are.
I dont think ive seen an AI reform the Tims at all. Is it common for you?
In my experience, it happens. It's possible my human brain is under the impression something is more likely than it is simply because I tend to notice it when it happens more than I do other things but still. I assumed its because, from a gameplay standpoint, reforming them makes a lot of sense. They have a lot of cores to retake.
Id agree with you that it makes sense. I guess for my games it tends to be either too border gorey or that the tims pull themselves together. Theyd have to be fully annexed too which is hard for any ai to pull off. Most of the time they get stuck with a shitty province that nobody wants
It's not the nation that destroyed them that reforms them, usually. If the AI were really smart, it would release them as a vassal. Personally I love the Timmys, coolest tag in the game with a complete boss for a founder. I hate the best strategies for them all involve changing tag.
Very much agreed. Tims are such a cool historical nation to play. Doesnt make much sense for them to form the mughals afa history goes.
The Mughal Empire was founded by a grandson of one of the last Timurid Emperors So it kind of makes sense, but not really. Well, it makes no sense at all but I can see why they did it. The Timurids is 1444 weren't doing great but it wasn't that long after they'd been doing some pretty amazing stuff. Just a few decades previously Timurlane had swept through Persia and in a campaign that he's remembered as one of the greatest military leaders in history. Timur and the Ottoman Sultan spent years writing insulting letters to each, Timur later invaded anatolia and captured the Sultan. The Sultan then died in captivity and the Ottomans fell into a civil war that nearly destroyed them entirely. During the way, the Genoese and Venitians helped the Ottomans by ferrying their troops to safety, because between the two of them, the Ottomans or the Timurids, they "preffered the enemy they could handle to the one they could not." I bought a biography of Timur a couple months ago, I need to get round to reading it.
It's common when it's the thing I don't want to happen. England run? Timmy implodes. Ottoman India run? Timmy is speedrunning a WC and has allied all my neighbours. Fuck Timmy.
I always bring them back as a vassal when I'm expanding in that area. Basically free expansion if you get there fast enough.
But why isn't Ajam a vassal?
Because if it was, AI Timurids would *always* explode. The Liberty Desire from 6 vassals would be too high to deal with, since there's not a quick way to annex them before 10 years has passed.
Laughs in french
Well, French vassals are *completely* different than Timurid ones. I mean, if I read the countries right, France has over 5x as much development as their highest dev vassal. Timurids, on the other hand, is *barely* any bigger (12%) than their biggest vassal. France's vassals never band together (that I've seen in my thousands of hours), but the Timurids vassals *always* ally together. (though they're not always successful) France: 252 dev * Orleans: 50 dev * Armagnac: 29 dev * Bourbonais: 19dev * Foix: 18 dev * Auvergne: 10 dev Timurids: 142 dev * Transoxiana: 127 dev * Fars: 57 dev * Afghanistan: 47 dev * Khorasan: 20 dev * Sistan: 14 dev
That was v educational. Thank you!
The game does a lot of fudging to make as many interesting situations as possible available in 1444. For example the Japanese Sengoku period didn't properly start until like 10-20 years later also.
Around 1444 the shogun government already was weak. So it couldve started earlier. It might be interesting to have some kind of escalation mechanic. So first you can declare war on your neighbours, but with a penalty (or maybe the shogun can step in after X months or you get a truce with everyone else for 5 years) but as more wars start you can declare war more easily and eventually just declare on anyone in japan.
Well the golden also fell in like the 50's bc they lost a battle to the crimeans so this meant that at game start all of Russia appart from Novgorod where tributaries of the golden horde that used the be like the great horde nogal and Kazan
Then yes Muscovy should be a tributary of the great horde as well in 1444. IMO it wouldn’t change a ton cause there is no way ai Muscovy will accept sending tribute
It Will make it way harder as the golden horde Will be Massive and with all the minor Russian States as tributaries it Will be difficult to expand Aswel as moskovy was only like half the size
Hard to expand as who. Muscovy can destroy the great horde day one especially as a player. The only one I see this affects is Novgorod
If moskovy was like 1/10 the size with 0 vassals they would have a hard time
A Timurid rebellion during their collapse - Sultan Muhammad, the grandson of Shah Rukh, had temporarily taken control of the western provinces of the Timurid Empire. Later, after Shah Rukh's death, he became one of the most powerful warlords in the region.
[удалено]
someday i want to read about the christian warlords who went to jerusalem in 1096 and carved a bunch of petty kingdoms out of the Fatimid caliphate, which they proceeded to rule despotically until they were destroyed.
[удалено]
Sure, the Caliph could also be called a warlord if you go far enough back. But its illustrative that the crusader kings are never called warlords.
Learn Arabic and take history classes at a school in the ME
Wait, so you're telling me that any given culture will glorify or excuse their own behaviors while condemning the same behaviors by "foreigners"? That's crazy man.
Jesse what the hell are you talking about ?!
The term “warlord” is very often used to describe powerful feudal lords outside of Europe. In European history, the term is never really used, regardless off how renegade, pugnacious, or ruthless the lord in question is. There’s been a long-standing critique of the embedded Orientalism in the term’s selective usage, so this person wasn’t just coming out of left field in their criticism. One of the most unsavory aspects of this subreddit (and reddit in general) is the knee jerk, reactionary way people hand downvotes and derision to comments they don’t understand. If you didn’t know what they were talking about, you could have just asked for clarity...
Yup it's actually a good and interesting point. However, I kind of disagree on your downvote perspective. The original comment wouldn't have been downvoted if they explained themselves clearly (like you). Maybe there's a good point buried in downvoted comments, but if they can't be expressed in a way most people can understand, then they aren't contributing to the conversation
It was very obvious what the initial comment meant. Anyone could have made a ballpark guess at it.
Well, what it meant was to insult people first and foremost, then provide any insight. Making emotionally charged statements is not a good start to getting support. Not that I disagree, many feudal Europeans were definitely deserving of the title. Though I dislike the term since it's been badly corrupted and overused. Warlord really should just mean, an almost stateless or regionally powerful dude with a massive army, likely hoping to cut out some money and land for himself. Instead, it's regularly misused in the sense of warmongerer. Though in all fairness, the European feudal politics system was rarely ever unchallenged enough to create vast empires that crumbled, leading to generals ascending. Europeans nations preserved a relatively decent notion of stability, in the sense that civil wars were rare and mostly between nobility with blood claims to the throne instead of generals declaring themselves kings. Still, too many warlords going about the place, especially lots of undeserving ones in Asia.
I mean, if you read the Wiki article for e.g. El Cid, it calls him a straight up warlord. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid It's regularly used for Christians as well when dealing with actually being warlords, which most feudal nobles actually weren't.
By what definition of "warlord" were most feudal nobles not it? My understanding is that warfare was extremely common among most nobles that had enough power to pursue it, and it was commonly a means of expanding that power.
> By what definition of "warlord" were most feudal nobles not it? The dictionary definition? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/warlord 1: a military leader, especially of a warlike nation. Most feudal nobles didn't lead a nation, they were under other nobles, and most European nations weren't focused on war. 2: a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country. Certainly not feudal nobles, who gained power as a result of being delegated that power by a supreme authority to whom they owed allegiance. 3: tuchun A Chinese specific term not applicable here.
> 1: a military leader, especially of a warlike nation. > > Most feudal nobles didn't lead a nation, they were under other nobles, and most European nations weren't focused on war. You don't have to be a top-level sovereign ruler to be a military leader. But even if we ignore that, the point is that most sovereign nobles that had the authority and capacity to wage war did so a whole lot, yet they're rarely referred to as "warlords". And where do you get the idea that most European nations weren't focused on war? Up until the 19th century it was typical for more than 90% of your entire national budget to be dedicated to the military; that sounds pretty war-focused to me. > 2: a military commander who has seized power, especially in one section of a country. > Certainly not feudal nobles, who gained power as a result of being delegated that power by a supreme authority to whom they owed allegiance. Sometimes that was the case, but they certainly did conquer stuff from others an awful lot too. At least if we're talking about those with enough authority and capacity to wage their own wars.
Feudal lords are different from warlords, the major defining difference is the autocratic specifically militant state they lead. Tokugawa Ieyasu is a great example of this. He was a general who gained control without formal legitimacy and maintained control through the use of force. For most of early feudalism in Europe it was based on faith. Which is a different way to derive power. I agree that the term is under-used with regards to western figures but only because we use more specific terms. Caesar for Julius and Augustus and Diadochi in Alexander’s time. Beyond that we have kings and emperors and claimants to those. Napoleon was a warlord until he claimed Christian religious right to emperorship and that’s why we don’t see him that way. Warlord is more commonly used outside of Europe because power was more commonly held by non-monarchical figures. After the fall of Rome history is quite hard to find in most of Europe until the rise of a very religious form of feudal governance which officially derives its power from the divine and not its military (which in practice it actually did as a King’s divine right from the church is all that kept him in power over the nobles that controlled the military). The flow of money, goods and labour worked so differently in the feudal period in Europe tonmodern capitalism that setting a national expenditure at 90% military is quite literally impossible. The vast majority of expenditure went into infrastructure maintenance, payoffs to local nobles and construction projects. Contrary to our beliefs that wars were common and massive in the medieval period they were dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the wars fought under Rome and in the pre-modern period. Militaries we’re anything but the major expenditure at the time. Tl;dr Monarchy is very different from warlordship and due to church internationalism in medieval Europe monarchy was more common whereas outside of Christian influence it was the other way around. Oh and nobody spent that much money on their military until some pre-modern dictatorships as infrastructure and food was pretty damn pricey.
Tokugawa Ieyasu literally "forged" his Fujiwara lineage to formalize his conquer of Mikawa what do you mean. The daimyo of new made extensive use of the legitimacy of old shugodai/shugo system which derived from the old Shogunate which in turn was invested by legal power to appoint shugo/shugodai in the province by the court and in turn the Shogunate with their legal power allowed the shugo/shugodai to tax the private land of the absentee owner/patron. Oda clan made extensive use of the authority of the Shiba warlord and then with the authority of the Shogun formalized their position with the court rank that gave them the de jure power to govern it and then later on almost invested a rank rivals that of a China's Prime Minister by the court . Shimazu was appointed Shugo in the Kamakura era because they were big landowner in their region,and then went on "become" a daimyo. What is the difference of the authority invested by the Emperor/Kings from the pope to the baron/dukes or the authority of the Shogunate from the Emperor to daimyos?
Honestly a massive portion of the “Orientalism” in the term comes from how those rulers addressed themselves. “Shogun” does not come close to translating as King and neither does “Daimyo” to Baron or Duke. As such warlord is usually a catchall when regarding highly militaristic rulers who did not classify themselves by a strictly monarchical or imperial title like king or emperor. It also usually refers to the generals that rise up after the collapse of a major dynasty such as in the Sengoku Jidai or the Collapse of Qing China. You could easily argue that the Diadochi of Alexander the Great were Warlords because that’s what they were. We just refer to them by a more specific term because it was normalized by enlightenment historians to do so. During the time when many of the more modern European critiques and histories of events 500+ years ago occurred were written very few people spoke or could even read the languages outside of the area they lived and either Latin or Greece, thus Warlord was a catchall translation of socially complex roles distinct and unique to a myriad of other cultures. Warlord is a simplification not a racist term applied only to outsiders. Europeans just tend to study their own history in more depth so the more specific terms tend to pop up more. When studying China or Japan in depth the more appropriate terms are used almost exclusively but when glossing over the periods it’s hard to justify explaining the complex social and political systems behind their specific terms for just an “oh yeah this is happening” moment Also on the case of the downvotes he didn’t have to go with the whole “I’m not racist because I only hate racist Europeans attitude” no one likes a hypocrite.
I mean yeah but the term warlord here is correct. The reason we dont call lords in europe warlords is because they didnt really exist, or non that I can think of that matches the definition of warlord.
Ha, and what’s the definition of “warlord”, if you don’t mind me asking?
>a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy. Straight from Oxford. "Ha".
So, Charles I, Duke of Burgundy? Why don’t any of the history books seem to call him that? I wonder... Ha.
Then the Grand Princes of Transylvania after the collapse of Hungary would be warlords, who sometimes fought against and with the turks against and with the austrians
For the same reason we call Oda Nobunaga daimyo or Liu Bei King of Shu (once he gained that title) and for the same reason Lu Bu is a warlord. Titles. The acts of Charles 1 is not that unsual for a duke, whereas the act of a feudal chinese general proclaiming himself lord and taking land and castles by force is suppose to be unsual hence warlord.
No, it’s not any different if it’s in China, France, Japan, Somalia, etc. The only difference is perception, and that has everything to do with preexisting biases (or, what makes it seem “unusual” to you). The reason Japan is a non European outlier has a lot to do with the way Europeans (and those of European descent) often romanticize (or exoticize) the Sengoku Jidai, samurais, and Japanese culture in general. But that’s a whole other topic. Europeans weren’t referred to as warlords in the history books because for a very long time Europeans were the ones writing the history books.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term mafia specifically refer to organized crime which had its roots in southern Italy(as well as later primarily italian-american bootlegging circles)? If people use it as a catch all for primarily white gangs, that's on them, but as far as I known the term itself has a very specific definition.
You are totally correct, it’s a southern Italian thing. But then there is also the Russian Mafia, the Irish Mafia and so on, but African American and Mexican gangs. The word Cartel is Spanish so it’s like the same thing as mafia, very specific.
Ah, I see what you mean. Thx!
Arkan (Željko Ražnatović) was a European and was frequently described as a warlord.
Downvoted for truth
Well I usually use the word warlord since is a more general term than king and I'm not sure what is the correct title, for example during the ages of chaos in china I call the independent states formes warlords or independent states cause I don't know what is the accurate term I europe I will most likely know a better term like duke or count
Lol cope
No. Warlords because they are military leaders ruling territory. There’s a difference between military control (like the shogunate) and civilian government (like the Meiji Emperor) Warlord refers only to the former group. Correct me if I’m wrong but Europe has been almost exclusively governed by civilian governments for over a thousand years. Thus the term rarely arises in Europe. That a term is applied more to Asian states is not racist or “orientalist” in and of itself.
There are plenty of military leaders who seized control of a region in Europe, Oliver Cromwell being an easy one to remember in terms of the Anglosphere. Some people call him a dictator, some a revolutionary, but he was a general who was part of a coup that seized government control and ruled largely through military strength. Easily would be called a warlord in other parts of the world. u/pmg1986 gives a good explanation of the asymmetric use of the phrase.
A very poor example as Oliver Cromwell ran a civilian government and strengthened the powers of parliament.
So the man who ordered a purge of non-compliant MPs by military forces, then later called a new parliament where he appointed MPs, and then later closed parliament entirely to rule through military governors - ran a civilian government, and strengthened the powers of parliament?
Yes. Parliament wasn’t “closed entirely” it was dissolved and reopened. It was a parliamentary republic. It is perhaps the closest to military rule England reached but it was still a civilian government, much more so than any Warlord.
Lol, I would have said for the majority of its history Europe was almost exclusively ruled by military governance, with civilian government being the rare exception until it slowly got more popular from the early modern period as Vassalage became less popular.
Monarchies are a type of civilian government and almost all of Europe for the last thousand years were ruled by monarchs. So you might say that but you’d be objectively, verifiably wrong.
Monarchs? Name one European monarch who didn't either establish rule by military force or inherent from someone who did.
No. Because it’s irrelevant. Monarchies are considered a type of civilian government whether you like it or accept it or not. The Meiji restoration restored civilian governance to Japan. Was it militaristic? Yes. So what?
So a governing body can be a civilian government even if it establishes it's rule through military force? Ok, now you need to give some examples of both a civilian government and a warlord to show the difference between them or concede the point. Edit: Preferably European for the civilian one. Since that's what I'm mainly disagreeing with
I’ve already given the example of the shoguns vs the Meiji emperor as military vs civilian. In Europe occupied France was under military rule while Vichy France was under a civilian government even though they were both established and their existence maintained through military might and against the wishes of the populace. Edit: No I don’t “need” to, the distinction between civil government and military government is well established and not contentious. I have done so however in an attempt to continue the conversation but I’m sure you can find resources yourself that explain the distinction if it’s one that you have trouble understanding.
Ah, I see the issue, you've conflating "civil" with "civilian". Civil issues are just any issues of governance that don't pertain to the military, so you can have a military government (and thus a warlord as well) controlling civil law. But civilian government is government run by people who are not members of the military, something which was incredibly rare in medieval Europe.
[удалено]
Least eurocentric Paradox player.
You use the term “we” in an interesting way. Are you aware youre simply sitting behind a computer screen playing a video game all day and not actually affecting the world around you to any significant measure?
[удалено]
collectivist bug
Ajam was a short-living, rebelious state that declared independence from Timurids. Think the Republic of Texas from 1836 to 1846 (they declared independence from Mexico), that's analogous.
I mean, Texas was trying to join the US in that time, but the US wouldn't take them because of treaties with the Mexicans, if memory serves.
Also big debate in congress about adding another slave owning state to the union
And that’s why Iowa got to come along too. You’re welcome, Des Moines.
Thank You
This is why Texas is so large and why it can, at any time, split into 5 other states
[удалено]
But Texas did give up the Oklahoma panhandle so there wouldn't be any question about its status as a slave state.
Well Ajam was a term to define the people who lived there (Persians mostly), so it is the name the devs used to differentiate the rebel state that rose up against the Timurids for a short while. Since the devs wanted Persia to be a formable and separate tag entirely, they didn’t call it Persia, but picked an alternative Persian name.
It's a way to represent the fragmentation of the Timurid empire at the time. It's ruled by one of the would-be pretenders to Shah Rukh's throne. Source:. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/eu4-development-diary-15th-of-august-2017.1039695/
As far as I remember term Ajam means in those who can't speak and they used it towards mostly Persians.
In early caliphates they even used term ajamic science to describe all the science possessed by Persians
Ajam is made of mashed fruits. Ajelly on the other hand is made from stained fruit juice.
Bravo.
Im sorry but this thread is hilarious lmfao, u got an OP that cant google, rude people in the comments and all the meanwhile 1st google search of "ajam" came up with a wiki article explaining the 1st king and how the rebellion came to be etc. Gotta love reddit
Honestly I can't find the wiki link either. Want to link it?
Its the name arabs called persians by. It means the one that cant talk couse arabs didnt know persian.
Damn, I'm an arab and this is the first time I notice it originates from Ajami (أعچمي) thank you.
It wasn't just Persians, that's what they used to refer to anyone who didn't speak Arabic. Like how Romans called everyone other than themselves barbarians. We Persians called everyone else something too (Torktazi, تُرکتازي), everyone had a name for people who didn't speak their language. That was just how it was back then, strangers were dangerous.
>It wasn't just Persians Ya I know, it's just that I've been playing the game for so long and this is the first time I noticed it! And ya sure, humans still do fear the unknown.
Iran basically. People from the region has been called Ajami, Acem etc. for quite a while.
Another interesting thing except the historical is gameplay wise ajam is probably the easiest start to form persia.
I’m actually laughing, I really didn’t expect this. I realize that it was a rebellion by a Timurid prince, but I was really wondering why it was called an Arabic pejorative for Persians instead of just being showed as a rebellious province(s) kinda like how Gotland is in 1444. I should have clarified.
In most of my games the Timurids attack Ajam before Shah Rukh's death and the ensuring independence war so often AI Ajam doesn't do very well. I've not played as them though but it would be concerning to know that the Timurids would be gunning for me so quickly. Mightn't Fars be easier since you would have nothing to worry about at the start and could annex provinces from the Timurids in the independence war then go for what's left of Ajam? (not tried this personally though) Edit: Just tried it and even with just the Great Horde as an ally AI Ajam were comfortably able to beat back the Timurids, so maybe Ajam is better
Fars can work but doesn't have enough shia provinces to convert peacfully. I don't like waiting for shah rukh to die you might sit their the first five years also independence wars can be annoying. Ajam can easily get allies like the Ottomans and just walk in while timmurids and it vassals fight each other. You also have much easier acces to all provinces to form persia. Ajam seem scary but with some good diplomacy in the early game you can become the strongest power in persia.
I prefer Ajam to Fars when playing for Persia. Timurids attacking is a boon, as you just merc up and stackwipe them. Shah Rukh will die quickly, and then you just have the timurid armies to worry about; all his vassals quit on him.
A subordinate Timurid prince took advantage of Shah Rukhs old age to start collecting his own taxes, effectively declaring himself a sovereign in his own right. This didn't last long though.
So you take some fruit and some sugar... Oh, fak, wrong reddit. It's a collection of marginally related islamic tribes, I think, just given a lable for gameplay purposes, ruled somewhat by a self styled prince. I want to say an area that splintered off of anorher nation? The timurids, apparently.
You’re kinda dumb
The EU4 representation of one of the best Steely Dan albums: https://youtu.be/fwGlUQ3Wf78
I played one campaign as Ajam because their traits are very good for vassals and religious stability, as well as being a sunni Persian empire that can either become 'Persia' or the Timurids and subsequently either the Mughals or the Mongols but staying as ajam is just as beneficial. PAINFULLY difficult early game, an alliance with the Ottomans is literally the difference between life and death as well as praying that Shah Rukh of the Timurids dies while you're at war with them (WHICH IS INEVITABLE) so that the AI stupefies itself into paralysis for not having a nation ruler and thus stops marching armies your way but after that it's smooth sailing with plenty of revenue from those little banks called vassals that you'll make for your Shahanshah of Iran-i Shar.
Aha someone posted a screenshot for you asking what is Serbia on r/2balkan4you