as i said delhi should have mamluk goverment too they are just same states from different regions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate
Upvote
0
-
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.
But...why? They are same states from different regions...what? And what is punctuation? Did the sultans of Delhi recruit leaders from other cultures?
EDIT: I went and read the article, and while they did have the Mamluk dynasty at first, they had a hereditary kingship, and this would be like saying that if Brittany got the York dynasty, they get the English parliamentary system.
EDIT: I went and read the article, and while they did have the Mamluk dynasty at first, they had a hereditary kingship, and this would be like saying that if Brittany got the York dynasty, they get the English parliamentary system.
All Sultanates in India have special case.
But first, should they have Mamluk type of government - No. They were all hereditary monarchs except Qutubuddin Aibak, first Sultan of Delhi - a slave to Mohd. Ghuri. This dynasty is called Slave Dynasty. Mamluk means slave here.
Did the sultans of Delhi recruit leaders from other cultures? - Yes. In the initial days All sultanates in India recruited from outside of India. They were promoters of Persian/Turkic culture and not of any Indian culture. Even their soldiers were mostly slave recruits from Central Asia, Middle East, and other Islamic country as they were readily available and they considered native solders inferior (lower height).
Once this free flow of slave officers and soldiers got hampered due the changed political situation in central Asia (Timurids rise) things changed for all the Indian Sultanates. Now they have to rely on local population and both Hindu as well Muslim Indians started to be recruited but owing to the better height of Afghan men, they were the new most preferred recruits - but more Afghan into the system was only to weaken the monarchy in the long run. (absolutism of Sultanate monarchy vs democratic values of Afghan tribal sentiments).
Sultanates in India need to be modelled separately in EU4 - may be a mechanic for separate culture-language of masses and monarch. Gujarat Sultanate were not promoters of Gujarati culture and similarly neither Bahamanis were promoters of Kannad culture. They promoted Persian culture. So was Delhi sultanate, the new amalgam like use of more Persian words into grammatical structure of Khari Boli came to be known as Hindavi.
Bengal sultanate is a separate case for the main line of the Bengali King converted to Islam. They were Bengali and remained Bengali ( a very potent reason why Bengali muslims in Indian subcontinent have Bengali as their mother tongue while all other muslims in North Indian subcontinent have Urdu as mother tongue (a kind of Persianized Hindavi) and all muslims in South Indian subcontinent have Dakkani as mother tongue (very close to Urdu or Persianized Hindavi).
But first, should they have Mamluk type of government - No. They were all hereditary monarchs except Qutubuddin Aibak, first Sultan of Delhi - a slave to Mohd. Ghuri. This dynasty is called Slave Dynasty. Mamluk means slave here.
Did the sultans of Delhi recruit leaders from other cultures? - Yes. In the initial days All sultanates in India recruited from outside of India. They were promoters of Persian/Turkic culture and not of any Indian culture. Even their soldiers were mostly slave recruits from Central Asia, Middle East, and other Islamic country as they were readily available and they considered native solders inferior (lower height).
Once this free flow of slave officers and soldiers got hampered due the changed political situation in central Asia (Timurids rise) things changed for all the Indian Sultanates. Now they have to rely on local population and both Hindu as well Muslim Indians started to be recruited but owing to the better height of Afghan men, they were the new most preferred recruits - but more Afghan into the system was only to weaken the monarchy in the long run. (absolutism of Sultanate monarchy vs democratic values of Afghan tribal sentiments).
Sultanates in India need to be modelled separately in EU4 - may be a mechanic for separate culture-language of masses and monarch. Gujarat Sultanate were not promoters of Gujarati culture and similarly neither Bahamanis were promoters of Kannad culture. They promoted Persian culture. So was Delhi sultanate, the new amalgam like use of more Persian words into grammatical structure of Khari Boli came to be known as Hindavi.
Bengal sultanate is a separate case for the main line of the Bengali King converted to Islam. They were Bengali and remained Bengali ( a very potent reason why Bengali muslims in Indian subcontinent have Bengali as their mother tongue while all other muslims in North Indian subcontinent have Urdu as mother tongue (a kind of Persianized Hindavi) and all muslims in South Indian subcontinent have Dakkani as mother tongue (very close to Urdu or Persianized Hindavi).
As covered by SantoshKashyap the Delhi sultanate of 1444 was not a Mamluk state like the one in Egypt. There would be no reason to give them that government.
Generally while Mamluk Egypt perhaps wasn’t the only state of its kind in history it certainly was the only state of its kind in our timeline.
Generally while Mamluk Egypt perhaps wasn’t the only state of its kind in history it certainly was the only state of its kind in our timeline.
what dynasty are you talking about what is the point of it?
i said delhi sultanate was founded by turkic mercenaries like mamluks of course they did recruit leaders from other cultures