Tinto Talks #66 - 4th of June 2025

[Fallen Comet]

Hi @Pavía , thanks for the DD, very interesting.

1. A feedback on the point below:

This is the kinda of current EU4 system that I personally do not like and to me it goes against the direction EU5 is going, which is not to have Mana and not to have "click button for immediate benefits". I would very much like to see this reformed into something else, i.e. if you would like to keep the type of reward change it to something like a 2 year "monthly stability investment" and "monthly manpower increase".

I think EU5 would be much better if we are not in a loop of "event -> -5k manpower" then "click religious button -> +5k manpower" or "event -> -50 stability hit" then "click religious button -> +50 stability". These types of instant benefit actions remove a bit the value of the actual currency they provide instantly and feel gamey imo.

2. Question:
Is there currently implemented or a plan to have some sort of "muslim decadence" over the centuries?

This could be controversial, but we do see on the timespan of the game the Muslim world going from innovative and advanced tech wise to lagging behind the Christian world. Do we have any mechanic or maybe age related thing that would nudge the Muslim world into decadance? Maybe a situation or disaster.

The Muslim world lagged behind industrialization. That’s a thing already.

This doesn't make any sense, Egypt before Ottomans was firmly Shafi'i and Ashari, producing some of the most important Ashari figures of the time. After Ottomans conquered it the legal system mostly used Ottoman norms, which is just Hanafi and Maturidi. Ibn Taymiyyah became important to revivalists much later in the period. He had some pull in some of the fundamentalist movements in Ottoman Empire too like Kadizadeli movement but that itself was a populist movement of public discontent and not one from the Ulema itself. In general Salafi-type creeds were something that was either fringe or populist in nature, never something that became influential at a state level until modern era.

Quite frankly, he was incredibly influential.

 

[Fallen Comet]

As a scholar? Absolutely not! He was a rabble-rouser who kept getting thrown in prison. I'm struggling to understand how you could possibly consider him "influential."

He was incredibly influential enough to be slandered that he was thrown into prison 4 times. He was popular. He was influential.

 

[Froonk]

The Muslim world lagged behind industrialization. That’s a thing already.


View attachment 1317093
View attachment 1317095
View attachment 1317096
View attachment 1317097

Quite frankly, he was incredibly influential.

He was influential as a dissident figure, as you can see from just this text he had no purchase in government (I.E Mamluk Sultans) or in ulema (which collectively opposed his populist and fundamentalist rhetoric). Saying that he was influential in Egypt or Mamluks implies he had influence in state policy or conduct, or jurisprudence or theology of the clergy. He had no influence whatsoever in this regard, even Kadizadeli movement in Ottoman Empire was more influential (at least for a time) because it lead to some appeasement by the Ottoman government albeit temporarily.

 

[Fallen Comet]

He was influential as a dissident figure, as you can see from just this text he had no purchase in government (I.E Mamluk Sultans) or in ulema (which collectively opposed his populist and fundamentalist rhetoric). Saying that he was influential in Egypt or Mamluks implies he had influence in state policy or conduct, or jurisprudence or theology of the clergy. He had no influence whatsoever in this regard, even Kadizadeli movement in Ottoman Empire was more influential (at least for a time) because it lead to some appeasement by the Ottoman government albeit temporarily.

Perhaps if you read the text more carefully:

“
Muhammad bin Qaläwin was restored to the throne on 4 March, 1310, he recalled Ibn Taimiyah and received him in audience at Cairo. 24


On his return to Cairo Ibn Taimiyah resumed his reformist activities, remaining there for about three years. Sultan Muhammad bin Qaläwün often consulted him. Ibn Taimiyah also advised the Sultan privately.25”


And once again, respectfully, imprisoning someone 4 times throughout a span of multiple years because of their teachings must mean that you’re afraid of his influence.

 

[Abu Ahmar]

Perhaps if you read the text more carefully:

“
Muhammad bin Qaläwin was restored to the throne on 4 March, 1310, he recalled Ibn Taimiyah and received him in audience at Cairo. 24


On his return to Cairo Ibn Taimiyah resumed his reformist activities, remaining there for about three years. Sultan Muhammad bin Qaläwün often consulted him. Ibn Taimiyah also advised the Sultan privately.25”


And once again, respectfully, imprisoning someone 4 times throughout a span of multiple years because of their teachings must mean that you’re afraid of his influence.

This is "influential" in the sense that it might be fun to have a "rowdy scholar Ibn Taymiyya - should we listen to him or kill him?" event chain for the Mamluks, not "influential" in the sense that literally any major polity in the game was taking Athari theology seriously throughout this entire timeframe.

 

[Froonk]

Perhaps if you read the text more carefully:

“
Muhammad bin Qaläwin was restored to the throne on 4 March, 1310, he recalled Ibn Taimiyah and received him in audience at Cairo. 24


On his return to Cairo Ibn Taimiyah resumed his reformist activities, remaining there for about three years. Sultan Muhammad bin Qaläwün often consulted him. Ibn Taimiyah also advised the Sultan privately.25”


And once again, respectfully, imprisoning someone 4 times throughout a span of multiple years because of their teachings must mean that you’re afraid of his influence.

He was influential in the sense that he was a known, controversial public figure that caught a lot of attention for his impassioned rhetoric and erratic behavior. He wasn't influential in the sense of having influence on fiqh or kalam in Egypt or anywhere else. He is best known for his role in motivating the Mamluk Sultan against Mongol army which is probably which vindicated him in popular view as well but again this isn't an influence on policy or laws which basically didn't change in any way in Egypt.

Compare this to Ibn Hajar for example, who lived few decades after. He has been the Chief Qadi several times and his works on Hadith and Tafsir became chief works of legal corpus or his rival al-Ayni who was a legal advisor to sultan and held many legal posts overseeing matters of Sharia disputes and jurisprudence alike. There is just no comparison in terms of influence in policy, jurisprudence and theology.

 

[GeneralNoob]

No it’s not.

Salafism is a sunni movement, wahhabism is part of (as in being part of salafism). It is still under the umbrella of sunni Islam. It isnt an entirely new branch. So I dont know what you want to disagree with here.

 

[Fallen Comet]

Salafism is a sunni movement, wahhabism is part of (as in being part of salafism). It is still under the umbrella of sunni Islam. It isnt an entirely new branch. So I dont know what you want to disagree with here.

What exactly is mysticist about the Salafi movement?

 

[NosgothKingdom]

The Muslim world lagged behind industrialization. That’s a thing already.

What do you mean by "that's a thing already"? Does the game model Muslims lagging behind somehow already? I am not aware of it.

 

[Lazlo93]

The mihna is well before the timeframe of the game, and Ibn Taymiyya was not a particularly influential figure during his lifetime as a scholar (as opposed to a hero of anti-Mongol resistance). He was one of the peripheral figures you mention. Atharism was nothing more than the house creed of the Hanbali madhhab and the Hanbali madhhab was by far the least influential and relevant of the four madhhabs. So I'm just not seeing where you're deriving this supposed impact of creedal differences from.

Not only are the schools of theology politically irrelevant, they coincide with the madhhabs on an almost one-to-one basis. Why model them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

model them all?
nope, i'm saying to scrap the madhab from Sunni 'schools' and model them in the law or something since madhab doesn't influence state relationship like creed.
you don't read my comment at all do you?
IT was influential, he actually put Hanbalis on the map despite his works being suppressed by the ruling Ashari in the following centuries.
i mentioned Mihna because creedal schools IS significant. just because most Muslim states at this time period were either Asharis or Maturidis, doesn't dispute the fact that differences in creed are much more significant than differences in fiqh

 

[GeneralNoob]

What exactly is mysticist about the Salafi movement?

Call it a legalistic understanding for all I care. The point is about wahabism being part of sunni Islam.

 

[MoorishBro]

This is "influential" in the sense that it might be fun to have a "rowdy scholar Ibn Taymiyya - should we listen to him or kill him?" event chain for the Mamluks, not "influential" in the sense that literally any major polity in the game was taking Athari theology seriously throughout this entire timeframe.

Sorry but if you say IT was not influential, go take a nap. Some of the stuff you read sometimes is better left ignored!

 

[Fallen Comet]

Call it a legalistic understanding for all I care. The point is about wahabism being part of sunni Islam.

You’re all over the place

 

[GeneralNoob]

You’re all over the place

At this point, you just want to fight.

1. I asked you what you disagree with, you did not answer me back.

2. I told you what my point was, you dont seem to care about it. Wether you want to label wahabism as legalistic or mysticistic, is entirely besides the point. OP asked wether it should be a branch of its own, rather than being considered part of sunni Islam, specifically as a "sunni school of thought".

It is beyond me why you want to make this into a pissing content. At some point the game has to make abstractions and it is perfectly fine to represent wahabism as such with the way they did it. If you think otherwise, then you just press disagree and we both move on. There is absolutely 0 reason to turn this into an argument.

If you want to start an argument over the origins of wahabism, take it to OP. Hanbalis are sunnis. Mind you, we are having this discussion over a nieche religious belief that appeared in the 18th century, towards the end of the game and as a result of the socio-economic culture and laws of the Ottoman Empire. If you think this absolutely requires a fully fleshed out system akin to let's say shia Islam: Be my guest, but I am not the tree you should be taking one out.

 

[a_canadian_spy]

As you see, Safavid already starts the game as a school. Around the 1400s, if an Islamic country owns Ardabil, and has Safavid as its Main School, an event will trigger, creating a new country in that location, Ardabil, and allowing the player to change to it.

This seems like a bad system. The Safavid Order was an international organization in real life and while it was centered in Ardabil, it was decentralized with Turcoman followers throughout Iran, Azerbaijan, and Anatolia. Ismail Shah was forced into exile from Ardabil by the Aq Qoyunlu for several years but continued to lead the Qizilbash from exile in Gilan. I think the Safavids should be represented as a BBC.

And, not to mention, what happens if the AI country that owns Ardabil does not choose Safavid as its main school? I think the Safavid rise should be independent of other actors. In EU4 it is already so rare to see a historical Safavid rise. I'm not saying it should be railroaded but it should happen sometimes. The Safavids built power independent of whichever rulers or groups were dominant in Iran at the time and struck hard and conquered all of Iran very quickly. There should be some content to model this like with Timur. The rise of the Safavids is a major event in world history in this period. Ardabil almost never forms Persia in EU4 so I think this is an opportunity to add more historicity and flavor.

 

[Froonk]

This seems like a bad system. The Safavid Order was an international organization in real life and while it was centered in Ardabil, it was decentralized with Turcoman followers throughout Iran, Azerbaijan, and Anatolia. Ismail Shah was forced into exile from Ardabil by the Aq Qoyunlu for several years but continued to lead the Qizilbash from exile in Gilan. I think the Safavids should be represented as a BBC.

And, not to mention, what happens if the AI country that owns Ardabil does not choose Safavid as its main school? I think the Safavid rise should be independent of other actors. In EU4 it is already so rare to see a historical Safavid rise. I'm not saying it should be railroaded but it should happen sometimes. The Safavids built power independent of whichever rulers or groups were dominant in Iran at the time and struck hard and conquered all of Iran very quickly. There should be some content to model this like with Timur. The rise of the Safavids is a major event in world history in this period. Ardabil almost never forms Persia in EU4 so I think this is an opportunity to add more historicity and flavor.

That has more to do with nature of Nomadic tribes in general and Turcoman tribes in Anatolia during this period in particular and isn't something about Safavids to be honest, Aqqoyunlu and Qaraqoyunlu also formed naturally around leadership figures. This is not to say Safavid order didn't matter, since meteoric rise of Shah Ismail also had to do with the messianic following he gained because of his personage but a Safavid Order in absence of the conditions of nomadic tribes following a leader wouldn't necessarily coalesce to become anything else that way, I mean there are plenty of Sufi lodges in the region and it was only Safavids that became a state formation that way. Basically I think this would be better represented sort of with army states without territory, rather than an organization of Safavids in particular and in that way a leader of such groups could have much more legitimacy and support if they are backed by the Sufi lodges.

I am not against making all Sufi tariqahs organizations by the way, I just don't think we should put the cart before the horse with the patterns of state formation and destruction in the era, which clearly have more to do with how nomadic tribes acted than anything else and which have similar conditions with Aqqoyunlu, Qaraqoyunlu and even Ottomans themselves who had connections to Ahi lodges.

 

[Turk Pasha]

Sadly, this is one of the weaker developer diaries, lacking the depth found in previous religion-focused entries. Considering the vital role Islam plays in the time period covered by EU5, it definitely needs more attention and rework.

First and foremost, the concept of religious schools needs refinement. Imami belongs to Jafari Shiism, while Nizari is part of Ismaili Shiism. I hope the game includes prerequisites before allowing these schools to be selected—such as requiring a nation to be Ismaili before choosing the Nizari piety-school. I don't want to see a Zaydi Shia nation adopting Nizari teachings without first having ties with Ismaili Shiism.

Secondly, some religious schools themselves need a rework as well. For example, Athari and Wahhabi schools should lock out any mystic piety path; especially for Wahhabism since they considered many Sufi practices as shirk. Likewise, some Sufi schools should reduce the maximum legalism a nation can achieve. Perhaps, staying at neutral piety can even have some benefits...

Likewise, more flavor for mystic vs legalism can go a long way, legalism for Umayyad and Ottoman Empires is very different from Salafi Legalism. Like why does Sharia Law give -1 heathen penalty? Sharia Law changed massively depending on Islamic Empires.

For instance, the Umayyad Caliphate was known for its tolerance toward non-Muslims (except Zoroastrians), sometimes even discouraging conversions to Islam. Some Umayyad princesses didn’t wear veils, and in addition, women generally held a higher status in society compared to what happened after the Abbasid Revolution.

Lastly, a minor rant: why is it "Farsi" for Persian but "Turkic" and not Türk? I hope the vocabulary choices remain consistent. Either localize equally across the board, or use standardized English-Latin transliterations. Please don’t cherry-pick.

 

[Abu Ahmar]

model them all?
nope, i'm saying to scrap the madhab from Sunni 'schools' and model them in the law or something since madhab doesn't influence state relationship like creed.
you don't read my comment at all do you?
IT was influential, he actually put Hanbalis on the map despite his works being suppressed by the ruling Ashari in the following centuries.
i mentioned Mihna because creedal schools IS significant. just because most Muslim states at this time period were either Asharis or Maturidis, doesn't dispute the fact that differences in creed are much more significant than differences in fiqh

Creed has much less influence on society during this time period than madhhab. Creed was basically irrelevant throughout this entire period, and in any event all credal distinctions had been folded into the madhhab system (Hanafis = Maturidis, Malikis and Shafi‘is = Ash‘aris, Hanbalis = Atharis).

IT was not influential during his lifetime. The Hanbali madhhab was not "on the map" during this timeframe outside of some scattered Arabian tribes.

Madhhab determines the literal legal system of your country, as well as the training of all of your scholars and judges. Creed doesn't. During this period someone is a Maturidi because he's a Hanafi, not the other way around.

 

[a_canadian_spy]

That has more to do with nature of Nomadic tribes in general and Turcoman tribes in Anatolia during this period in particular and isn't something about Safavids to be honest, Aqqoyunlu and Qaraqoyunlu also formed naturally around leadership figures. This is not to say Safavid order didn't matter, since meteoric rise of Shah Ismail also had to do with the messianic following he gained because of his personage but a Safavid Order in absence of the conditions of nomadic tribes following a leader wouldn't necessarily coalesce to become anything else that way, I mean there are plenty of Sufi lodges in the region and it was only Safavids that became a state formation that way. Basically I think this would be better represented sort of with army states without territory, rather than an organization of Safavids in particular and in that way a leader of such groups could have much more legitimacy and support if they are backed by the Sufi lodges.

I am not against making all Sufi tariqahs organizations by the way, I just don't think we should put the cart before the horse with the patterns of state formation and destruction in the era, which clearly have more to do with how nomadic tribes acted than anything else and which have similar conditions with Aqqoyunlu, Qaraqoyunlu and even Ottomans themselves who had connections to Ahi lodges.

I just want the devs to make it so a historical Safavid Persia actually happens in this game. It never happens in EU4, unless the player takes control. I'm not saying it should be railroaded but there should be some mechanism whereby an AI Safavid Order/Ardabil can form Persia

 

[Turk Pasha]

Mysticism and Legalism represent Sufism and Salafism, if I am not mistaken.
Won't it be better to use these terms since EU5 is going to be more historically accurate?

It is not, Umayyads and Ottomans (especially under Suleyman) were also legalist, they had very different ideas from Salafis. Legalism is used to represent a centralized and lawful religious authority, while mysticism represents a decentralized or syncretic form of Islam. Sufism as a name can work, but some Sufi organizations in theory can be legalistic as well, it is complicated, so better saying as mysticism. Just compare Rumi with Safavids or Chechen Sufism, massive difference...

During EU3 and old days of EU4, Islam was also represented by weak versus fanatic piety, to show how some nations were more tolerant and others more strict, sadly this mechanic is gone.

My entire issue is that, they did so much work for Christianity, and Islam feels like a copy-pasted version from EU4 with some marriage mechanics... Islam played a critical role in this period, yet it got less attention than other religions.