Incorrect Kashmiri history

[Sozialist]

The Ladakh post reminded me of an important historical error regarding Kashmir.

The ruler of Kashmir in 1540 should be Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat of Yarkand. Just saying!

 

[Sozialist]

I mean, he ruled Kashmir the way shoguns ruled Japan and Timur ruled the West Chagatai Khanate. Shouldn't he be a monarch, or, at least a modifier or an event?

The Chagatai/Yarkand invasion of Ladakh and U-Tsang (that lead to Doghlat seizing power of Kashmir) is also not presented in game. It should be a event that gives a "conquest" casus belli.

Also Chagatai desperately need more flavored events, maybe centered around Mahmud Khan and his brother. Now its like THE dullest nation to play in 1444.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Any chagatai flavor in particular on your mind?

 

[JKiller96]

Any chagatai flavor in particular on your mind?

Rename them Moghulistan.. please?

And also from the start, similar to what the OP said, give them a mission to conquer Ladakh and one to conquer U-Tsang.
A mission chain to reclaim the Western Khanate (Timurid Territory) might also be interesting

 

[SantoshKashyap]

The ruler of Kashmir in 1530 should be Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat of Yarkand. Just saying!

Lets not have over-simplistic misleading facts. A little history lesson:

In October/November 1531 Kamran, second son of Babur attacked Kashmir but was defeated by Kashmir under current Kashmiri ruler Muhammad Shah (it was his fourth reign 1530-37). Hardly when Kashmir recovered from it, Sultan Said Khan of Kashghar attacked Kashmir under leadership of Mirza Haider Daughlat in autumn of 1932 and brought under him - 28th Feb 1533.

Mirza Ali Tighai (another military leader of Said Khan who accompanied Mirza Haider in Kashmir) jealous of Mirza Haider's success revolted against him and Mirza Haider had to make peace with Maliks of Kashmir. Left Kashmir on 15th May 1533 in utter disappointment.

The utter massacre caused by Kashgharis on Kashmiris population followed by famine in Kashmir in 1534 breaks it into utter chaos. Worse after death of Muhammad Shah in 1537. Kashmiri civil war lasting till 1540.

After Mirza Ali Tighai's rebel against Mirza Haider and following death of Sultan Said Khan of Kashghar in 1533, his relation with Abdurashid Khan, son of Said Khan (whom he had dedicated his work "Tarikish-i-Rashisi) bittered and had to flee Kashghar forever and took shelter under Humayun, son of Babur, the Mughals.

When Humayun was defeated in 1540 by forces of Sher-Shah he too was on the defeated side. Seeing vacuum in Kashmir asked for some men from Humayun, attacked Kashmir and won over it.

Haidar installed Nazuk Shah, son of Fath Shah (Rein over Kashmir 1487-99 and again 1505-16) as sultan from the Sayyid faction.

In 1546 when Humayun recovered Kabul, Mirza removed Nazuk Shah and started ruling over Kashmir in the name of Mughal Emperor. Had coins minted in the name of Humayun - Mughal emperor.

In 1550 he was killed along with other Mughals by the hand of Kashmiri rebels. His lineage ended.



It is true that Sultan of Kashghar attached Kashmir and won over it, but could not hold it for more than 3 months.

Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat was from Kashghar (Yarkand) and did rule Kashmir between 1540-50 but had authorities obtained from Humayun and not Chaghatai.

 

[Sozialist]

Lets not have over-simplistic misleading facts. A little history lesson:

In October/November 1531 Kamran, second son of Babur attacked Kashmir but was defeated by Kashmir under current Kashmiri ruler Muhammad Shah (it was his fourth reign 1530-37). Hardly when Kashmir recovered from it, Sultan Said Khan of Kashghar attacked Kashmir under leadership of Mirza Haider Daughlat in autumn of 1932 and brought under him - 28th Feb 1533.

Mirza Ali Tighai (another military leader of Said Khan who accompanied Mirza Haider in Kashmir) jealous of Mirza Haider's success revolted against him and Mirza Haider had to make peace with Maliks of Kashmir. Left Kashmir on 15th May 1533 in utter disappointment.

The utter massacre caused by Kashgharis on Kashmiris population followed by famine in Kashmir in 1534 breaks it into utter chaos. Worse after death of Muhammad Shah in 1537. Kashmiri civil war lasting till 1540.

After Mirza Ali Tighai's rebel against Mirza Haider and following death of Sultan Said Khan of Kashghar in 1533, his relation with Abdurashid Khan, son of Said Khan (whom he had dedicated his work "Tarikish-i-Rashisi) bittered and had to flee Kashghar forever and took shelter under Humayun, son of Babur, the Mughals.

When Humayun was defeated in 1540 by forces of Sher-Shah he too was on the defeated side. Seeing vacuum in Kashmir asked for some men from Humayun, attacked Kashmir and won over it.

Haidar installed Nazuk Shah, son of Fath Shah (Rein over Kashmir 1487-99 and again 1505-16) as sultan from the Sayyid faction.

In 1546 when Humayun recovered Kabul, Mirza removed Nazuk Shah and started ruling over Kashmir in the name of Mughal Emperor. Had coins minted in the name of Humayun - Mughal emperor.

In 1550 he was killed along with other Mughals by the hand of Kashmiri rebels. His lineage ended.



It is true that Sultan of Kashghar attached Kashmir and won over it, but could not hold it for more than 3 months.

Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat was from Kashghar (Yarkand) and did rule Kashmir between 1540-50 but had authorities obtained from Humayun and not Chaghatai.

I only said that because the game itself is over-simplifying and pretty inaccurate when comes to Central Asian history. There was NO centralized government or any central rulers in Monghulistan as presented in-game after the death of Mahmud Khan. Said Khan himself only had a few cities under his direct control. In other words, a unified "Chagatai Khanate" doesn't exist.

Mirza Haidar Doghlat and family served (or allied with, doesn't really matter) Babur and Humayun for many years despite his father's betrayal, but still maintained a humble, vassal-ish position towards Abdulrashid Khan, so either a Mughal, Chagatai or Yarkand invasion would do just fine.

(I still don't get why you *disagreed* my post. After all, he did rule Kashmir.)

 

[Sozialist]

Any chagatai flavor in particular on your mind?

0. Change its name into Moghulistan like what you guys did with Golden Horde.

1. Mission to reclaim the western part of the Khanate and decision to reform into Chagatai.

2. Power struggles between Mahmud Khan and his brother Ahmad Khan.

3. Events about the great Yunus Khan, like those with Ethiopia or Cusco.

4. Eligible for the Great Khan achievement.

 

[Sozialist]

Any chagatai flavor in particular on your mind?

And please change the monarch names of Kara Del... (who were also Chagatayids instead of simply "Borjigin")

The correct version should be:

History:
Gunashiri Chagatayid
Enke Temur Chagatayid
Toqtoa Chagatayid
Tör Temur Chagatayid

Game:
1. Budshir Chagatayid (1425-1439)
2. Hal Sultan Chagatayid (1439-1457)
3. Buriga Chagatayid (1457-1460)
4. Nugandashir Chagatayid (1460-1472)
5. Khan Shen Chagatayid (1472-1488)
6. Enkhbor Chagatayid (1488-1492) (Second Reign: 1493-1497)
7. Shanba Chagatayid (1492-1493) (Second Reign: 1497-1505)
8. Bai Yaji Chagatayid (1505-1513)

The pinyin version on Wikipedia... sucks.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

(I still don't get why you *disagreed* my post. After all, he did rule Kashmir.)

I disagreed because of some inconstancies regarding Mirza Haidar Doghlat and Kashmir.

Please read my earlier post on Kashmir & Mirza Haider Doghlat's rule carefully.

Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat was from Kashghar (Yarkand) and did rule Kashmir between 1540-50 but had authorities obtained from Humayun and not Chaghatai.

Paradoxically quoting, though a line of Timurids became Mughals but a difference line needs to be maintained that Mughals were no longer Timurids. (A culture change event is captured in the game as well where culture of Timurids changes to an Indian one). This essence must be maintained after Mughal is formed. (Even Afghan can form Mughals in the game - In Indian History Afghans & Mughals are two separate poles - Sur Dynasty (Afghan) routed Mughals for sometime)

When brothers of Humayun refused to come to his support in his dire times, the Mughals and Timurids were on separate ways to their very end.

There is a difference where Kashmir is ruled from Kashghar and when it is ruled from Delhi.

So there has to be a clarity on Mughal, Chaghatai or Yarkand attacking Kashmir.

When Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1532, it was Yarkand and failed.

When Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1540, it was Mughals, and he could establish himself for some 10 years when he was finally killed by Kashmiri rebels. Mirza never ruled in the capacity of a Monarch but had erstwhile Kashmiri Saiyyad Prince on the throne.

 

[Sozialist]

I disagreed because of some inconstancies regarding Mirza Haidar Doghlat and Kashmir.

Please read my earlier post on Kashmir & Mirza Haider Doghlat's rule carefully.

Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat was from Kashghar (Yarkand) and did rule Kashmir between 1540-50 but had authorities obtained from Humayun and not Chaghatai.

Paradoxically quoting, though a line of Timurids became Mughals but a difference line needs to be maintained that Mughals were no longer Timurids. (A culture change event is captured in the game as well where culture of Timurids changes to an Indian one). This essence must be maintained after Mughal is formed. (Even Afghan can form Mughals in the game - In Indian History Afghans & Mughals are two separate poles - Sur Dynasty (Afghan) routed Mughals for sometime)

When brothers of Humayun refused to come to his support in his dire times, the Mughals and Timurids were on separate ways to their very end.

There is a difference where Kashmir is ruled from Kashghar and when it is ruled from Delhi.

So there has to be a clarity on Mughal, Chaghatai or Yarkand attacking Kashmir.

When Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1532, it was Yarkand and failed.

When Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1540, it was Mughals, and he could establish himself for some 10 years when he was finally killed by Kashmiri rebels. Mirza never ruled in the capacity of a Monarch but had erstwhile Kashmiri Saiyyad Prince on the throne.

Please read my response carefully. A centralized Chagatai authority didn't exist by 1532 and Mirza Haidar was one of the many Moghul warlords allied themselves to the Timurids.

 

[Sozialist]

Please read my response carefully. A centralized Chagatai authority didn't exist by 1532 and Mirza Haidar was one of the many Moghul warlords allied themselves to the Timurids.

I disagreed because of some inconstancies regarding Mirza Haidar Doghlat and Kashmir.

Please read my earlier post on Kashmir & Mirza Haider Doghlat's rule carefully.

Mirza Muhammad Haidar Doghlat was from Kashghar (Yarkand) and did rule Kashmir between 1540-50 but had authorities obtained from Humayun and not Chaghatai.

Paradoxically quoting, though a line of Timurids became Mughals but a difference line needs to be maintained that Mughals were no longer Timurids. (A culture change event is captured in the game as well where culture of Timurids changes to an Indian one). This essence must be maintained after Mughal is formed. (Even Afghan can form Mughals in the game - In Indian History Afghans & Mughals are two separate poles - Sur Dynasty (Afghan) routed Mughals for sometime)

When brothers of Humayun refused to come to his support in his dire times, the Mughals and Timurids were on separate ways to their very end.

There is a difference where Kashmir is ruled from Kashghar and when it is ruled from Delhi.

So there has to be a clarity on Mughal, Chaghatai or Yarkand attacking Kashmir.

When Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1532, it was Yarkand and failed.

When Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1540, it was Mughals, and he could establish himself for some 10 years when he was finally killed by Kashmiri rebels. Mirza never ruled in the capacity of a Monarch but had erstwhile Kashmiri Saiyyad Prince on the throne.

Ohh now I see why you are all "teaching history" on me... Made a typo in the original post. It should be 1540 instead of 1530. Either way, I was suggesting since Yarkand was a single centralized state in EU4 maybe we should give it a cb to conquer Kashmir.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Ohh now I see why you are all "teaching history" on me... Made a typo in the original post. It should be 1540 instead of 1530. Either way, I was suggesting since Yarkand was a single centralized state in EU4 maybe we should give it a cb to conquer Kashmir.

Yes, I was sensitive to these dates because Mirza attacked Kashmir in 1532 and as well in 1540 in two completely different scenarios, with completely different set of military and from completely different direction getting completely different results.

In 1532, when the attack is on behalf of Yarkand, a CB on Kashmir alone won't work for a northern attack on Kashmir means having Ladakh-Baltistan as core first, Yarkand cannot core Kashmir without it as per game design. (unless Yarkand gets CB on entire Kashmir region or Kashmir has Ladakh or Baltistan as well). (ironically speaking having a correct history about the attack on Kashmir in 1532 will be at the cost of having an incorrect history about Ladakh.)

I suggest for an event where a refugee general (Mirza Haider Doghlat) from Yarkand visits the court of Timurids (in case Mughals are not formed else otherwise) and persuades the Khan to win over Kashmir. When Kashmir is won, It is "vassalized" to Timurids with an event, changing the ruler to Doghlat. (But When Mughal is formed, it already gets CB on entire India region.)

Most of the time I see (in current version) Timurids vassaling Multan and Kashmir quite early in the game.