Almujadid: Conquest of Italy or Africa?

[panther-anthro]

So I have a dilemma, I've been doing lots of work on the Brandenburg succession war, at the moment, but I've come into the problem that, I want to take a break, and work on my first project the Almujadids, now I actually have two varying ideas, for what I think should happen with the Almujadids, mainly, they should either try and conquer italy *if moved to sicily* or try and take over more of Africa *Orania*.

Now, these leaves replayability for the player, and I've already made events to the tune of being able to create a north african Almujadid 'empire'. But, I'd like to make events for the time periods that aren't currently covered, and further conquests of Italia/Africa. That is to say, I'm looking for ideas, but I'll post my general timeline for what I think some plausible things in the 16th-17th century Almujadids could/would do.

16th Century ideas: This time period will be very important in that it will have events for converting to mutzalite*Or however you spell it* islam, as well as events for if you chose to go sicily, to try and conquer italy, or if you choose africa, and events to conquer Africa. *places such as Mali/Songhai/etc*

17th Century Ideas: I would like to have several major civil wars, and religious conflicts occur during this time period, as well as an event chain where the Almujadids will try and integrate the peoples they have conquered into their domains, or in the case of an italian conquest, create a kind of mixing pot. I'd also like to code in a kind of 'epochal italian crusade' if Almujadids do end up conquering Italy. I also, need to find out what is going to happen to the papacy if Rome falls, to Islam.

 

[MattyG]

Be very careful with the Mutazelite 'heresy'.

The origin of the Almujadid Empire is essentially a very Traditionalist form of sunni Islam. The simplistic way of looking at this is to look at something like the Taliban, in that the original motivation was for a more pure form of Islam that sought to oust both the corrupt rulers of the cities as well as the invading Christians of Genoa and Sicily.

(Broad strokes here, folks, I know).

It used the militaristic ideas of Jihad, or the struggle for purity, not just the personal notion of jihad, (which many Islamic scholars argue is the only real form of jihad.)

The Almujadids will be on the frontline of opposing the Mutazelite heresy if it arises in Al-Andalus.

Having the empire flirt with taking on Mutazelism is akin to having Bavaria go Reformed: fanciful.

I am not saying that the idea of a heretical movement or a religious schism is not something the Empire can't have, but it will need to be something other than Mutazelism.

I personally think that there needs to be a 1600s crisis that will result in one of two things. The first is its collapse. Militarism can only take you so far. When it tires, there need to be political and administrative structures in place to maintain the empire. The Mongols didn't have it and their empire essentially fell apart (it survived in China because it absorbed the Chinese administrative and political structures). The Romans had it all, so their Empire was relatively long-lived. Timur had nothing but a war machine and great leadership, ergo, it didn't survive. Enough of this short general thesis on empire building.

So, the empire faces its crisis, perhaps event in the mid 1500s, or very soon after it completes the conquest of Italy or North Africa. (Yes, this needs to be the precursor.)

Alternatively, if it fails to do either it also faces collapse, or simply defeat at the hands of Christian states, of course.

This crisis will be about the transition from a militaristic empire to one that can effectively govern an empire with many cultures (and faiths) over a disparate physical space. It will be trickier for the Italian-empire than the North African one for obvious geographical and religious reasons (Mali is already sunni, for example). These idea are already being explored in the file, but need to advance.

Essentially, the empire needs to face a kind of modernity, or to continue as a militaristic empire. Does it flirt with a form of democracy? How does it adminiter? Does it establish regional authorities that are more than simply Sultan-appointed governorships? or does it continue to conquer? If it does the motivation nees to be there, just as every empire has had a motivation, some kind of moral justification for empire (the "white man's burden" of the British Empire, for example; the spread of democracy and laissez-faire economics of the American, to give just two examples).

I pesonally think that the Almujadid Empire is most likely to pick to remain a militaristic empire, trying to unite all of the Maghrebi (from Egypt to Fez), and Mali and then to conquer the Al-Andalusi heretics, as the Almohadi had before them. This path also has in-game significance. Finally Al-Andalus will have a threat from the other side.

We could have it heading for Europe, but the ramifications of this need to be more carefully thought out. It is essentially replacing the Ottomans, but with greater intensity, because it strikes not at the edge of Christendom, but through the middle and (Rome) it's very religious heart. I know that it's conquest of Rome gioves every catholic nation a permanent CB, but this is not enough. We would need to have an event structure for the response and consider how it effects the Reformation.

The third alternative (the first two are the militaristic variations) is that it settles down to internal transformation. This is the only way it will get to orthodox or latin tech. And it is only if it picks this avenue that I think it can have a serious religious schism/heresy.

 

[panther-anthro]

I actually agree with a great deal of that, but we need to make events obviously for conquest of italy/mali/egypt/al-andalusia first. Aren't they technically only able to justify their claim to being the Almujadid Caliphate, once they own Iberia/Morocco? I thought both of those were initial parts of the 'original' Almohad Empire?

 

[Garbon]

Minor side note, but why are the Wattasids more competent in the interregnum storyline?

 

[panther-anthro]

Minor side note, but why are the Wattasids more competent in the interregnum storyline?

Allah powered them up.

 

[Garbon]

Allah powered them up.

Yeah I only ask because the actual Wattasids were quite incompetent...whereas the Interregnum description even states that Morocco was in the hands of the competent Wattasids.

 

[unmerged(49695)]

Yeah I only ask because the actual Wattasids were quite incompetent...whereas the Interregnum description even states that Morocco was in the hands of the competent Wattasids.

its an ahistorical mod

 

[MattyG]

Minor side note, but why are the Wattasids more competent in the interregnum storyline?

They were originally in Interregnum 1 aberrated to be successful and worthy.

Calipah then decided to rework things, but we brought that only into Interregnum 2 (which only awaits the new map ...). In INT2 Morocco is no, more, its really just a semi-independent governorship vassal of Al-Andalus.

 

[Garbon]

its an ahistorical mod

And there are usually reasons given.

@Matty: Gotcha.

 

[Garbon]

Enough of this short general thesis on empire building.

Also, I'd stay away from this general thesis as your meta-narrative is sorely lacking with regards to the specifics of the empires you cited.

 

[MattyG]

Also, I'd stay away from this general thesis as your meta-narrative is sorely lacking with regards to the specifics of the empires you cited.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[Garbon]

Metanarratives ignore the heterogeneity, or variety, of human existence.

 

[MattyG]

Metanarratives ignore the heterogeneity, or variety, of human existence.

Indeed, but they are useful tools, in the way many generalizations can be. They permit you to get a handle on things before you can delve deeper into the mysteries.

At this stage we are preparing only broad stroke pictures. Indeed, given the infinite variety of play styles and outcomes, can we do more without bein too prescriptive for the player?

 

[Garbon]

Sure, you can include other factors such as cultural, religious, geographic. After all the problems that plagued the real life empire of Morocco were different from those of Timur.

 

[unmerged(86600)]

Metanarratives ignore the heterogeneity, or variety, of human existence.

I thought the French killed them off during the 80s

 

[MattyG]

I thought the French killed them off during the 80s

So when the game gets to 1980, we can eliminate those elements.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Might want to consider giving automatic declarations of war from Bavaria, TO, Savoy, Genoa, Savoy, etc etc comparative to the ctd caused by a non-muslim annexation of Medinia/mekka

 

[panther-anthro]

XD that's hilarious Bob, it really is. But we already have the "Iberian Failade" to do that.