Ridiculously high Tolerence of Heathens - Indian Sultanate

[SantoshKashyap]

Indian Sultanate have been designed with very high tolerance of heathens. This is one of the reason the sultanate states don't fade out as no Hindu Kingdom revolts forming separate state from them. (Marathas never happen).

Historically Sultanate never had such high tolerance for Hindus. Mughals had high tolerance during Akbar, Jahangir, Shah-Jahan, but after Aurangzeb ascended around 1650, the tolerance moral of Mughals had faded leading to multiple Hindu revolts and subsequent rise of Maratha.

I suggest following be improved in gameplay:

First, the sultanate kingdom have a rather peaceful realm which should be changed into events triggering Hindu revolts forming states.
Second, The Mughal Empire don't form or even come closer to forming one. Attention is required.
Third, Even if Mughal empire is not formed, Sultanate rulers should not exist as strong as in the game. They should break into multiple hindu states.
Fourth, A prominent Hindu kingdom from Central/South or even north India should dominate to counter take Mughal/Sultanate states like Maratha. It could be any.
Fifth, advent of European Powers and tug of war among them for lucrative domination in India.

 

[Grand Historian]

I can completely agree with this, but I'm not certain to how it should be implemented.

 

[Noel84]

For your first idea, that just sounds like railroading for the fall of sultanates. Why not add the same events for eery empire that stagnated while we're at it. If the sultante is poorly managed it will fall, which is far more historical than random rebellions out of nowhere.
For you second idea, why should it form often? Let's see all the circumstances required for its real formation:
First the timurids collapsed to Kara Koyunlu
Then one of the many remaining timurid leaders one invaded india
They gained a significant enough foot hold that india became the heartland of their kingdom, so they formed an empire based around their new gains
The forming of the mughals was pretty unlikely, honestly I think that if the timurids don't collapse they shouldn't be allowed to form the mughals at all (and by collapse I mean lose the majority of persia)
For you third idea, why? Why should sultanates collapse more than other kingdoms? There's no historical (or mechanical) basis for this.
For your fourth idea again why? Just because the real mughal empire was extremely decentralized and prone to fall doesn't mean the player or AI will take india in the same decentralized manner. And before the mughals came it was basically a 50/50 shot of hindus or muslims controlling india
For your fifth idea, that will happen if two colonial powers settle the subcontinent at once (as happened historically). However if the subcontent is unified or nearly unified under a highly centralized empire the colonial powers would be (and currently are) driven out.

TLDR: All these suggestions are just asking for historical occurrences to happen while completely ignoring the historical circumstances that led to those occurrences and therefore all these suggestions are actually ahistorical as they make no historical sense.

 

[FleetingRain]

Well, it seems at least the high Tolerance of Heathens should be removed, if OP's right about it. Maybe Trin Tragula could help us here?

 

[Noel84]

Well, it seems at least the high Tolerance of Heathens should be removed, if OP's right about it. Maybe Trin Tragula could help us here?

they were good enough at tolerance to make it so that revolts were extremely rare in the sultanates despite the vast majority of their land being the wrong religion (in fact, as far as I know the only sultanate who didn't get eaten by an external power was Bahaminis, and they were partitioned after the last Bahaminid died)

 

[SantoshKashyap]

they were good enough at tolerance to make it so that revolts were extremely rare in the sultanates despite the vast majority of their land being the wrong religion (in fact, as far as I know the only sultanate who didn't get eaten by an external power was Bahaminis, and they were partitioned after the last Bahaminid died)

Well I don't want to get into how many Hindu temples were destroyed during Sultanate, forceful conversion, additional taxes be paid by other religion, taxes on Hindu pilgrim.....these were abolished only when the Mughal Akbar Ascended and Mughals had a rather peaceful time. Sultanate was never peaceful, and it didn't assimilate into the local society....please note Sultanate in Delhi had already broken, Akbar fought a Hindu King Hemu to gain over Delhi. When Hemu had ascended, Sultanate in Jaunpur too had broken... And of course it was Akbar's luck that Hemu was defeated. Bahamani's were broken into 5 different states right when Vijaynagar was flourishing and never united.
I meant that there were always revolts during sultanate for it was intolerant. South India was never peaceful in either Sultanate or Mughals' regime.

Same thing happened when Mughals grew intolerant after Aurangzeb's ascend and Marathas ate Mughals up....

 

[SantoshKashyap]

For your first idea, that just sounds like railroading for the fall of sultanates. Why not add the same events for eery empire that stagnated while we're at it. If the sultante is poorly managed it will fall, which is far more historical than random rebellions out of nowhere.
For you second idea, why should it form often? Let's see all the circumstances required for its real formation:
First the timurids collapsed to Kara Koyunlu
Then one of the many remaining timurid leaders one invaded india
They gained a significant enough foot hold that india became the heartland of their kingdom, so they formed an empire based around their new gains
The forming of the mughals was pretty unlikely, honestly I think that if the timurids don't collapse they shouldn't be allowed to form the mughals at all (and by collapse I mean lose the majority of persia)
For you third idea, why? Why should sultanates collapse more than other kingdoms? There's no historical (or mechanical) basis for this.
For your fourth idea again why? Just because the real mughal empire was extremely decentralized and prone to fall doesn't mean the player or AI will take india in the same decentralized manner. And before the mughals came it was basically a 50/50 shot of hindus or muslims controlling india
For your fifth idea, that will happen if two colonial powers settle the subcontinent at once (as happened historically). However if the subcontent is unified or nearly unified under a highly centralized empire the colonial powers would be (and currently are) driven out.

TLDR: All these suggestions are just asking for historical occurrences to happen while completely ignoring the historical circumstances that led to those occurrences and therefore all these suggestions are actually ahistorical as they make no historical sense.

1. I really don't care what mechanics they use, Sultanate don't grow weak in the game. When Bubur invaded Delhi in 1526, his military were far superior and much less in number than Lodi's and yet Lodi's were defeated. Sultanate never won confidence of Hindu masses. After Babur's death, Humayun's flee and Jaunpuri Shershah's weakening, Delhi came under rule of Hindu King Hemu. In the battle with Akbar, an astray arrow hit his eyes and there was confusion in his army and Akbar got hold of the battle else there was no way Akbar would have existed as a king in the history and Delhi would had been a Hindu Kingdom.
2. OFTEN, i have never seen formation of Mughal in over 1000 hrs of game after the last 2 patches. The mughals in India had made themselves separate from the main line of Timurids once Humayun was denied any help from his Kin. This is the reason Mughals and Timurids are taken differently in India. If Humayun could gain Delhi again it was help from Hindu friends and none from his brothers in Samarkand or Kabul.
3. I don't say Sultanate should collapse more, they become too formidable which is should not be case. Off course gameplay is very important but in its current state Sultanate is too predictable, where is gameplay.
4. All arguments goes in line with three, Marathas never form, Almost always india is divided into Strong Bahamanis in Central and South India, weak delhi-strong Jaunpur/weak jaunpur-strong Delhi/Bengal in east, Gujarat to Sindh in west......it is very predictable, non-historic and where is the game play.
5. The europeans don't seem to vie for India as they used to in earlier patches. Portugal gets Goa and they are happy. over. ..at least English and French be fighting for dominance......game play.....

 

[SantoshKashyap]

they were good enough at tolerance to make it so that revolts were extremely rare in the sultanates despite the vast majority of their land being the wrong religion (in fact, as far as I know the only sultanate who didn't get eaten by an external power was Bahaminis, and they were partitioned after the last Bahaminid died)

Marathas who took over almost all of Mughal India started their rule from where erstwhile Bahamanis existed...(Bijapur, Ahmednagar all Marathi cultured states).....

 

[Noel84]

1. I really don't care what mechanics they use, Sultanate don't grow weak in the game. When Bubur invaded Delhi in 1526, his military were far superior and much less in number than Lodi's and yet Lodi's were defeated. Sultanate never won confidence of Hindu masses. After Babur's death, Humayun's flee and Jaunpuri Shershah's weakening, Delhi came under rule of Hindu King Hemu. In the battle with Akbar, an astray arrow hit his eyes and there was confusion in his army and Akbar got hold of the battle else there was no way Akbar would have existed as a king in the history and Delhi would had been a Hindu Kingdom.
2. OFTEN, i have never seen formation of Mughal in over 1000 hrs of game after the last 2 patches. The mughals in India had made themselves separate from the main line of Timurids once Humayun was denied any help from his Kin. This is the reason Mughals and Timurids are taken differently in India. If Humayun could gain Delhi again it was help from Hindu friends and none from his brothers in Samarkand or Kabul.
3. I don't say Sultanate should collapse more, they become too formidable which is should not be case. Off course gameplay is very important but in its current state Sultanate is too predictable, where is gameplay.
4. All arguments goes in line with three, Marathas never form, Almost always india is divided into Strong Bahamanis in Central and South India, weak delhi-strong Jaunpur/weak jaunpur-strong Delhi/Bengal in east, Gujarat to Sindh in west......it is very predictable, non-historic and where is the game play.
5. The europeans don't seem to vie for India as they used to in earlier patches. Portugal gets Goa and they are happy. over. ..at least English and French be fighting for dominance......game play.....

1. They didn't "grow weak" in real life either. Other than Delhi (whose empire controlled almost all of India, a pretty big area to control. Their collapse could easily be represented by better imperial mechanics in general) all the sultanates were eaten by the mughal empire or fell with the dynasty they were named after (Bahaminis).
2. Sounds about right to me. Their formation was highly unlikely.
3. Too predictable...
Let's see a head count for sultanates losing power:
Revolts:1
No successors left:1
Eaten by a more powerful foreign threat:All the rest
And how about a head count for how sultanates lost independence:
No successors left:1
Eaten by a more powerful foreign power:All the rest
So why should sultanates be more prone to fall exactly? Without the existence of more powerful invaders they didn't fall historically.
4. Why should marathas form? They should be even less likely than the mughals, and their success even rarer than their formation. They were on the far reaches of a large empire when the maratha dynasty revolted, and then, seeing the marathas were stronger than the mughals in a 1v1, many parts of the decentralized empire joined the marathas. A centralized empire would be able to hold off the marathas, and the existence of an ambitious conqueror gathering a confederation and revolting was pretty unlikely.
5. I doubt the portuguese don't try to expand when they actually can.

Marathas who took over almost all of Mughal India started their rule from where erstwhile Bahamanis existed...(Bijapur, Ahmednagar all Marathi cultured states).....

And? Since when does "an ambitious conquering dynasty gathered a confederation, revolted, put together a really good military, and then drew in many opportunistic parts of the decentralized massive empire it revolted from" mean an entire government form is intolerant....

 

[Noel84]

Well I don't want to get into how many Hindu temples were destroyed during Sultanate, forceful conversion, additional taxes be paid by other religion, taxes on Hindu pilgrim.....these were abolished only when the Mughal Akbar Ascended and Mughals had a rather peaceful time. Sultanate was never peaceful, and it didn't assimilate into the local society....please note Sultanate in Delhi had already broken, Akbar fought a Hindu King Hemu to gain over Delhi. When Hemu had ascended, Sultanate in Jaunpur too had broken... And of course it was Akbar's luck that Hemu was defeated. Bahamani's were broken into 5 different states right when Vijaynagar was flourishing and never united.
I meant that there were always revolts during sultanate for it was intolerant. South India was never peaceful in either Sultanate or Mughals' regime.

Same thing happened when Mughals grew intolerant after Aurangzeb's ascend and Marathas ate Mughals up....

I don't get why you keep referring to the mughals as a sultanate, they weren't. And as I said earlier, only ONE sultanate even lost power from revolts. Jaunpur was eaten (by another sultanate) and Bahminis, a state that was the Bahaminid dynasty, only fell because the bahaminid dynasty ran out of successors

 

[SantoshKashyap]

W

I don't get why you keep referring to the mughals as a sultanate, they weren't. And as I said earlier, only ONE sultanate even lost power from revolts. Jaunpur was eaten (by another sultanate) and Bahminis, a state that was the Bahaminid dynasty, only fell because the bahaminid dynasty ran out of successors

Where did I refer Sultanate as Mughals...the days of Delhi Sultanate were over in 1526 when Babur defeated Lodi and established Mughal kingdom. Please note that local nobility was so pissed with sultanate rule that they invited Bubur to the battle and even the local peasants fought against the Lodis. Religious Tolerance were abysmal during Sultanate.

After crushing defeat from Vijayanagar's Krishnadevrai Bahamanis were collapsed and broke into 5 separate kingdom. Out of these Kingdom Bijapur became the most prominent in the days to come. Marathas broke and declared independence from Bijapur under Shivaji forming empire in days to come.

 

[Noel84]

W

Where did I refer Sultanate as Mughals...the days of Delhi Sultanate were over in 1526 when Babur defeated Lodi and established Mughal kingdom. Please note that local nobility was so pissed with sultanate rule that they invited Bubur to the battle and even the local peasants fought against the Lodis. Religious Tolerance were abysmal during Sultanate.

After crushing defeat from Vijayanagar's Krishnadevrai Bahamanis were collapsed and broke into 5 separate kingdom. Out of these Kingdom Bijapur became the most prominent in the days to come. Marathas broke and declared independence from Bijapur under Shivaji forming empire in days to come.

again, that's 2 sultantes that fell, only one of which included unrest (a kingdom shattering after a defeat is normal, not a demonstration of unrest)

 

[Noel84]

Where did I refer Sultanate as Mughals

well seeing as you're using their fall as a reason for sultanates to have more unrest implies they were also a sultanate.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

1. They didn't "grow weak" in real life either. Other than Delhi (whose empire controlled almost all of India, a pretty big area to control. Their collapse could easily be represented by better imperial mechanics in general) all the sultanates were eaten by the mughal empire or fell with the dynasty they were named after (Bahaminis).
2. Sounds about right to me. Their formation was highly unlikely.
3. Too predictable...
Let's see a head count for sultanates losing power:
Revolts:1
No successors left:1
Eaten by a more powerful foreign threat:All the rest
And how about a head count for how sultanates lost independence:
No successors left:1
Eaten by a more powerful foreign power:All the rest
So why should sultanates be more prone to fall exactly? Without the existence of more powerful invaders they didn't fall historically.
4. Why should marathas form? They should be even less likely than the mughals, and their success even rarer than their formation. They were on the far reaches of a large empire when the maratha dynasty revolted, and then, seeing the marathas were stronger than the mughals in a 1v1, many parts of the decentralized empire joined the marathas. A centralized empire would be able to hold off the marathas, and the existence of an ambitious conqueror gathering a confederation and revolting was pretty unlikely.
5. I doubt the portuguese don't try to expand when they actually can.

And? Since when does "an ambitious conquering dynasty gathered a confederation, revolted, put together a really good military, and then drew in many opportunistic parts of the decentralized massive empire it revolted from" mean an entire government form is intolerant....

Perhaps your problem is that you see sultanate ruling vast land having a WRONG religion and hence you need high tolerance of heathen to support.
You fail to see the vast majority of population being ruled by those having WRONG religion.

I also don't understand your point 4. Why shouldn't it form. Formation of any power against the Muslim rule was very natural. Mughal empire was formed out of luck. I agree. but revolt against Mughals or other muslim rulers after mid 1600 were not by luck. it was a natural protest against their oppressor. Please note the Maratha gained much prominence and support in masses because they popularised "Hindavi Swarajya" - Hindu Self-Rule.

The period of 1600 is marked with strong religions movements and gave air to such sentiments carving out empires of Maratha, Sikh.

 

[Noel84]

Perhaps your problem is that you see sultanate ruling vast land having a WRONG religion and hence you need high tolerance of heathen to support.
You fail to see the vast majority of population being ruled by those having WRONG religion.

I also don't understand your point 4. Why shouldn't it form. Formation of any power against the Muslim rule was very natural. Mughal empire was formed out of luck. I agree. but revolt against Mughals or other muslim rulers after mid 1600 were not by luck. it was a natural protest against their oppressor. Please note the Maratha gained much prominence and support in masses because they popularised "Hindavi Swarajya" - Hindu Self-Rule.

The period of 1600 is marked with strong religions movements and gave air to such sentiments carving out empires of Maratha, Sikh.

It wasn't a typical revolt though, it was an ambitious conquerer toppling a decentralized empire from the inside, not an oppressed minority vying for independence, that's why they should be unlikely. In fact, all revolts in the mughals should be unlikely because they were very tolerant, hence why they experience one major revolt throughout their existance.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

again, that's 2 sultantes that fell, only one of which included unrest (a kingdom shattering after a defeat is normal, not a demonstration of unrest)

The 5 kingdoms after Bahamanis should not be referred as Sultanate. They are called Muslim Deccan rulers. these kingdoms actually tried to assimilate local society with some success unlike the sultanate.

 

[Noel84]

The 5 kingdoms after Bahamanis should not be referred as Sultanate. They are called Muslim Deccan rulers. these kingdoms actually tried to assimilate local society with some success unlike the sultanate.

what does that have to do with sultanates being unstable? Yet again, there was ONE sultanate that lost power to rebels.

So please just answer this question:Why should sultanates be more unstable?

 

[SantoshKashyap]

It wasn't a typical revolt though, it was an ambitious conquerer toppling a decentralized empire from the inside, not an oppressed minority vying for independence, that's why they should be unlikely. In fact, all revolts in the mughals should be unlikely because they were very tolerant, hence why they experience one major revolt throughout their existance.

what does that have to do with sultanates being unstable? Yet again, there was ONE sultanate that lost power to rebels.

So please just answer this question:Why should sultanates be more unstable?

When did Sultanate (Except for Bengal) had a peaceful time. it was only the Mughal rule till Auranjeb that was stable for it cultivated a tolerant society.

 

[Noel84]

When did Sultanate (Except for Bengal) had a peaceful time. it was only the Mughal rule till Auranjeb that was stable for it cultivated a tolerant society.

Peaceful? They don't have a peaceful time in game, they're constantly at war.
Now, answer the question I asked. Since you're saying so much about sultanates being unstable-why should they be.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

what does that have to do with sultanates being unstable? Yet again, there was ONE sultanate that lost power to rebels.

So please just answer this question:Why should sultanates be more unstable?

Suppose Mughals had not come could you expected Delhi Sultanate to exist. No way. Small Hindu nobilities had already revolted against them. They fought against Sultanate in 1526.