Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[LUX] That Map Expansion You All Probably Might Not Have Forgotten About

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69940 Bug Reports 19717 User Modifications 10604 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6373 After Action Reports
futuregary said:
Already sort of having an effect. More than once I've seen Neapolis come to the aid of Erythrea Adalia, sometimes they end up in control of it at a later point (I don't even know how that happened, via conquest, reconquest from Azania, or inheritance). This is the only example I've seen so far, but I imagine such links will no doubt provide other alliance opportunities.

While we're discussing this, though, there were countless examples in the timeline of sisters and children being married over to generals of the opposing side during peace talks. While this does add for a unique flavor and creative plot development, I very strongly doubt those were the bounds of his intentions with those references. It's quite likely that he intended to have an intricate web of alliances between certain dynasties based on timeline references. Granted, some of them were so long ago that they're basically null and void, but not all of them have to be; especially if we've got the characters involved already coded in :3


Also, yeah, Ghassanids be good candidates, as long as they don't appear elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Honestly I was planning to add in independent Ghassanids in Ascalon, and one or two smaller county-level vassals (of Antiocheia and Amman, maybe?). The Ghassanids, who are really just a branch of a branch (banu Azd) of a branch(banu Kahlan) of banu Qahtan, arrive in the Levant somewhere around the mid-late 3rd century, and OTL they establish a pretty sizeable client state under the ERE after converting to Christianity (first Chalcedonian, then Monophysite, later Syriac) in the late 5th century. It is worth noting that 'banu Ghassan' or 'Ghassanid' refers not to a particular person but a well the Yemeni tribesmen settled near when they migrated to the Levant, so the 'Ghassanids' of this time could very well be named something else or be of an entirely different tribe.

In Shaytana's TL terms, their religious disposition (following the Eastern Roman Empire) means that they would initially become Solar probably since the Imperium Romanum was Solar around this time, and probably later become Jupiterite along with Justinian II in like 530-ish. Overall, however, they would never really establish the same kind of client state as they did OTL, due to a combination of a lot of things that can basically be boiled down to:
-substantially greater Hellenistic cultural influence in the Levant- much of the Ghassanid's legitimacy came from being phylarchs (rulers of their own people, basically.
-more organized, already existing client states in the area (particularly Antiocheia, Amman, and Nabatea)- the last two in particular serve as a barrier between the ERE and Bedouin tribes which was another big reason the Ghassanids were able to get so much Byzantine support

While the Ghassanid state itself is wiped out by Muslim invasions early on, several different groups (Muslim and Christian) both claimed descent from the Ghassanids in our timeline- with LI's super-fractured religious composition, I could definitely see them becoming really any religion in exchange for land (it is worth noting there is at least one epithet regarding the Ghassanids that suggests they did not convert to Islam in order to retain power in Syria, so their 7th century rulers were fairly pragmatic).

I know at least one vassal county exists for Antiocheia, so I planned to put a branch of the Ghassanids there (one that is either Jupiterite or Alexandros-Ammon), and I wanted to put one other one in another location but was not sure as to where- I really want to flesh out the vassal counties of every realm in addition to the independent rulers, if it's at all permissible/possible.

tl;dr proposal to have the South Arabian tribal migration to the Levant still occur in some fashion; Chalcedonian/Monophysite are replaced with Solar/Jupiterite, the Ghassanids rule in Ascalon independently and branches rule in other, undetermined places as vassals
 
Last edited:
It seems they were a vital component in wars between the Romans and the Sassanids. Shay spares no effort in elaborating the back-and-forthing between the two in the region, and not once does the word "Ghassan" or any derivative show up in the timeline. I call shenanigans; control in the area was widely disputed and difficult to control for both of the empires, and one of the ways the Byzantines were able to get a leg up is by sponsoring the Ghassanids, who would eventually rise to form a tribal confederation in Syria that would be able to manage the land and keep the Sassanids and Lakhmids at bay.

Antiocheia is a good choice, Amman could work too. Osroene and Edessa would be good candidates (those two are even Christian, which could bring those a bit back towards IRL Ghassanids), Palmyra as well.
 
Amman is an excellent choice.

Actually the whole lore of Al-Shams Islam, as a mixure of early Islam and Graeco-Roman heresies, is drawn upon the assumption that Islam emerged in this area rather than where the Muslim tradition puts it, due to Ghassanids becoming more powerful than their Byzantine masters (of course this is only a theory, and I don't want to impose it on LI lore; only Al-Shams Islam reflects it, without making it an explicit certainty, you need to read between the lines. The lore of the religion works even if you don't adhere to it). See Under the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland (it is a contreversial proposition, of course).

When I discussed this particular theory with Shaytana, and the particular fact that a terrible plague had ravaged the sedantarian Byzantine (and probably Persian) empires while leaving alone (very probably) the nomadic Arabs just before the rise of Islam, explaining to a large extent (possibly) the switch of power between the imperial masters and their former arab mercanaries, he confirmed to me that the rise of Islam was limited in LI because this plague did not occur in his timeline: its absence from the timeline is actually a major feature, not an accident.

So making the ruler of Amman Ghassanid fits into this approach where Islam emerged in this area as an ideological mix-match of heresies for the Arab mercenary coalition, where the Ghassanids had a major role, to fight their masters; all this without being "heretical" in any way to the official Muslim storyline, who will accept that Ghassanids were present here and simply converted.
 
Numahr said:
Amman is an excellent choice.

Actually the whole lore of Al-Shams Islam, as a mixure of early Islam and Graeco-Roman heresies, is drawn upon the assumption that Islam emerged in this area rather than where the Muslim tradition puts it, due to Ghassanids becoming more powerful than their Byzantine masters (of course this is only a theory, and I don't want to impose it on LI lore; only Al-Shams Islam reflects it, without making it an explicit certainty, you need to read between the lines. The lore of the religion works even if you don't adhere to it). See Under the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland (it is a contreversial proposition, of course).

When I discussed this particular theory with Shaytana, and the particular fact that a terrible plague had ravaged the sedantarian Byzantine (and probably Persian) empires while leaving alone (very probably) the nomadic Arabs just before the rise of Islam, explaining to a large extent (possibly) the switch of power between the imperial masters and their former arab mercanaries, he confirmed to me that the rise of Islam was limited in LI because this plague did not occur in his timeline: its absence from the timeline is actually a major feature, not an accident.

So making the ruler of Amman Ghassanid fits into this approach where Islam emerged in this area as an ideological mix-match of heresies for the Arab mercenary coalition, where the Ghassanids had a major role, to fight their masters; all this without being "heretical" in any way to the official Muslim storyline, who will accept that Ghassanids were present here and simply converted.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he meant that the ruler of Amman directly would be a Ghassanid; rather, one of his vassals. Changing of any of those rulers dynasties would be encroaching into heresy, methinks.

Zhangku said:
Did not create a checkout version as Richvh said, due to my incompetence with working with the dev version, and I was using the one at the front page of this thread. I...think I'll just wait until this expansion of LI is done.
Click to expand...

As of right now, it pretty much is. Idk when it's actually going to be released on here, though. Riknap, I think this goes without saying, but any future map changes can wait until after the release; it's not super critical and probably not happening soon enough anyway.
 
futuregary said:
I don't know if he meant that the ruler of Amman directly would be a Ghassanid; rather, one of his vassals. Changing of any of those rulers dynasties would be encroaching into heresy, methinks.



As of right now, it pretty much is. Idk when it's actually going to be released on here, though. Riknap, I think this goes without saying, but any future map changes can wait until after the release; it's not super critical and probably not happening soon enough anyway.
Click to expand...

In regards to Amman, I meant one of the county-level vassals would be Ghassanid- the Shamsanids should stay as the ruling dynasty, and are descendants of Muawiyah or Alexandros Helios, but that is a separate discussion. The Ghassanids would basically have a couple branches, descended from one of several kings:

Sethian rulers, descendants of Al-Nu'man VI ibn al-Mundhir (OTL, he is expelled to Sicily for refusing to renounce the Monophysite faith- here, he is expelled from Amman to Sicily for gnostic worship but is able to return in 602, several years before his death, and take control of Ascalon)
al-shams Islamic vassals, descendants of Jabalah VI ibn al-Aiham (OTL, this guy loses control of the Ghassanid realm after the Battle of Yarmouk in 636- here, the TL notes the Muslims 'overrun' Judea, and presumably Amman as well 637. Muawiyah and his descendants keep the Solar rulers around as advisers and petty lords until Muawiyah's descendants establish al-Shams Islam, at which point the Ghassanids here become their petty lords and advisers of choice).
Alexandros-Ammon vassals, descendants of Jabalah IV ibn al-Harith (OTL, this guy is the last independent ruler of the Ghassanids and one of his sons goes on to rule the client kingdom of the Ghassanids; he has another who controls much of ITTL Judea, and one son, Shammir/Shamir, about whom little is known. This guy travels north in around 530 and with his father's example in mind, becomes a client of the Seleucids).
 
Last edited:
Amman is the head of Al-Shams Islamic realm so it fits either way.

- In LI-Muslim tradition, the Ghassanid tribe converted and kept control of that area; because their conversion was shallow, they collaborated with Alexandros XVI during the time of the Muslim splinter and geared towards a graeco-roman influenced version of Islam, close to what they were practicing in private anyway.

- More probably, in the approach respectful of the Muslim tradition, Ghassanids did not convert as IRL, sought refuge North but then conquered the area as client state of the Byzantines later on, under the same circumstances (Alexandros XVI pouring vast sums of money to Muslim splinter groups), therefore developing this particular religious syncretism.

- Actually, my version would be that Muawiyah, well-known by the Muslim tradition for his ability to negociate with the Byzantines, and whom we know that he never mentioned Mohammad and tolerated Manichaeans, Zoroastrians and Christians more or less an an equal basis when he was Caliph, was... in fact the Ghassanid ruler during the time of Mohammad who provided muscle to the army and was following the hellenistic model of kingship based on charisma and direct connection with the Divine (see the description of this religion) - only the emerging Muslim clergy, with many newly converted Jews from the law schools of Cteshiphon, opposed him and codified Islam to create a system opposed to this "tyrannical" rule, thereby creating the "traditional" Islam more familiar to us.

Edit: @ Martellus OK, so in this approach we cannot go as radical as in my verison above and Muawiyah was not, in fact, the Ghassanid chief. Still cool to have them at barony level, and still fits the picture :)
 
Numahr said:
Amman is the head of Al-Shams Islamic realm so it fits either way.

- In LI-Muslim tradition, the Ghassanid tribe converted and kept control of that area; because their conversion was shallow, they collaborated with Alexandros XVI during the time of the Muslim splinter and geared towards a graeco-roman influenced version of Islam, close to what they were practicing in private anyway.

- More probably, in the approach respectful of the Muslim tradition, Ghassanids did not convert as IRL, sought refuge North but then conquered the area as client state of the Byzantines later on, under the same circumstances (Alexandros XVI pouring vast sums of money to Muslim splinter groups), therefore developing this particular religious syncretism.

- Actually, my version would be that Muawiyah, well-known by the Muslim tradition for his ability to negociate with the Byzantines, and whom we know that he never mentioned Mohammad and tolerated Manichaeans, Zoroastrians and Christians more or less an an equal basis when he was Caliph, was... in fact the Ghassanid ruler during the time of Mohammad who provided muscle to the army and was following the hellenistic model of kingship based on charisma and direct connection with the Divine (see the description of this religion) - only the emerging Muslim clergy, with many newly converted Jews from the law schools of Cteshiphon, opposed him and codified Islam to create a system opposed to this "tyrannical" rule, thereby creating the "traditional" Islam more familiar to us.

Edit: @ Martellus OK, so in this approach we cannot go as radical as in my verison above and Muawiyah was not, in fact, the Ghassanid chief. Still cool to have them at barony level, and still fits the picture :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, something like the second approach is probably best- the Ghassanids will be minor vassals of a stronger al-Shams (Shamsanid) realm- the religion in this area developed as a result of both but the decendants of Muawiya are in a ruling position.
 
Actually, IMO, based on the religion's lore it would be more like a light version of #3, as if the ghassanids were invading from North it would break the succession. So in fact Ghassanids, in the early days, sided with the "Hellenistic" version of Islam and staid there, joining the Shamsanid efforts of splintering from mainstrean "codified" Islam with support of the Byzantines.

But all this will remain unwritten, up to each player to reconstitute the missing parts as he sees fit... :D
 
I don't know... "open for interpretation" is fine until it matters. Since those events are unforeseeable, keeping all of this "official lore business" written down might come in handy when it comes to keeping track of the connection of events throughout history.
 
Except that my version is too much for the sensitivity of Muslim players (the character of Muawiya is really important to them), as I experienced a while ago in this very forum... but OK I'll add a mention to the Ghassanids in the Al-Shams Islamic's description (which is already like a book!) :eek:o
 
futuregary said:
As of right now, it pretty much is. Idk when it's actually going to be released on here, though. Riknap, I think this goes without saying, but any future map changes can wait until after the release; it's not super critical and probably not happening soon enough anyway.
Click to expand...

technically, I don't think we can release any time soon since a lot of fixing and tweaking is still happening anyway. priority is getting the main Eastern Expansion up to sniff and removing as many issues we can find before releasing it. the end of August might be a good approximation.
 
Ecnahc said:
Speaking far into the future, and basing this off the fact that the new map expansion is from Umbra Spherae. Can we expect/dream of LI eventually including all of Asia, up to Japan? Shaytana's timeline certainly gives some basis for such an expansion.
Click to expand...
Bump. I know there is way more important talk going on, and that any speculation from this question is almost pointless. I'm just hankering to play a game in South Asia just slightly more East than where the new map ends.
 
Ecnahc said:
Bump. I know there is way more important talk going on, and that any speculation from this question is almost pointless. I'm just hankering to play a game in South Asia just slightly more East than where the new map ends.
Click to expand...

'Twas an idea at first, but there were a couple of reasons we decided against it:

1) We weren't exactly sure how the engine would handle Lux + all the provinces from US, so we decided on a cut-off point.
2) If China was on the map, the "eastern invaders" mechanic probably wouldn't exist (or work too well, but it would be possible, I guess...)

I totally understand the hankering for a bigger map, especially given the added-on timeline, but right now that isn't on the table. In the future, it is possible that such a thing may come about, but for now it remains but a dream in everyone's head.
 
you mean, something we can work on when we work on the CK2 -> EU IV converter? :p
 
riknap said:
you mean, something we can work on when we work on the CK2 -> EU IV converter? :p
Click to expand...
Stop teasing about that :sad:
I would love to do a mega campaign with the Hannolid dynasty in Kambra (Mali), but the thought of converting the save by hand gives me nightmares and there only a few hints what happened in the far east in the timeline and we can only guess how it would evolve until EU starts.

But I really love the map expansion and can not wait until the official release. Great job guys.
 
Karzan said:
I haven't played this yet. Don't understand the SVN instructions. But is there a Kali religion to match the various other 'evil' religions?
Click to expand...

No. The bloodiest Hindu religion is Kartikeyan in Lux.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back