Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Safavid Persia

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.
Those events are going to be unnecessary once I can post my new ones. The plan is that the AKK will break up into 3 feuding states (which will make use of the Iraq and Fars revolters). Additionally, I made the city changes (for Kurdistan and Nuyssaybin) as the are indeed quite screwy.

I don't think we should have Persia start in Daghestan as Sirvan is then later cited as being independent. Instead I have scripted a small revolt event for Daghestan. Afterwards, as long as Persia hasn't revolted free (which it generally shouldn't) Persia pops out of Azerbaijan. Given the size of the Daghestan province and the sources that point that Sirvan was finally absorbed in the late 16th century, I think we'd be ill-advised to have Persia form there.
 
I posted them just in case. I like what I hear about the new events, though.

I would point out that 1500 is the 16th Century. ;) What other sources do we have on Shirvan? In my book, Shivan was run by Tahmasp's brother in 1548, when he revolted and threw in his lot with the Ottomans (as did Tahmasp's other brother, governor of Kurhasan). That might explain Shivan being absorbed, i.e., them getting it back from the Ottomans later.

And remember, it's not Persia, it's the Safavids. ;)
 
Last edited:
chegitz guevara said:
What other sources do we have on Shirvan? In my book, Shivan was run by Tahmasp's brother in 1548, when he revolted and threw in his lot with the Ottomans (as did Tahmasp's other brother, governor of Kurhasan). That might explain Shivan being absorbed, i.e., them getting it back from the Ottomans later.

And remember, it's not Persia, it's the Safavids. ;)
Click to expand...


I think they were mostly net sources. I'm not really sure though. A quick glance shows a common date of conquest as 1539ish. So not late century by any stretch :eek:o Basing this on when Baku was observed as thats the city we're using.
 
A lot of the border provinces between the Ottomans and Safavids had a habit of flip-flopping in alliegance. For example, while Suleyman was in Hungary in 1526, the governor of Bitlis went over to the Safavids.

Now, what I read today in another book said that Murad was governor of both Baghdad and Fars. On Wiki, Alwand is said to have destroyed an indpendent Ak Koyunlu tribe in Mardin, which is just south of Diyarbakir.

BTW, Diyarbakir is south of Bitlis, not east of Ezerum. How about this?

Sivas / Erzinjan
Nuyssaybin / Diyarbakir
Kurdistan / Ezerum
 
Except Malatya would be in Adana.

With Malatya in Sivas, you have to change the inital set up to have Sivas ruled by the Mamluks, and the Ak Koyunlu would be a one-prov state. With Erzinjan, you can still have a two-prov AKK, but with the capital in Nuyssaybin.
 
copied from Turkish minors thread.

Need an event for Shivan. March 4, 1460, the forces of Shirvan met the forces of the Safavids in battle. Choice A is historical, the Safavids are defeated. Choice B, the Safavids win, Shivan becomes the Safavids.

Need a second, identical one, for July 9, 1488.
 
The Safavids, while based originally in the province of Azerbaijan, first came to power in Shirvan. They tried three times over forty years to take the country, finally succeeding in December of 1500. These next four events give the Safavids two chances to start early.

Code: 
##########################
#        Shirvan         #
#       events by        #
#    chegitz guevara     #
##########################

#The First Battle of Tabarsaran
	event = {

		id = 307000
		trigger = {
			NOT = {
				exists = per
			}
		}
		random = no
		country = u04
		name = "The First Battle of Tabarsaran"
		desc = "The leader of the Safavid movement, Junayd, frequently 
crossed Shirvan on his way to raid Circassia. This time, however, Junayd was 
leading a force of 10,000 men, and there is good reason to believe he 
intended to attack Shirvan. Instead, Shirvan's forces met him on the banks of 
the River Kur, near Tabarsaran. The Safavids were defeated and their leader, 
Junayd, was killed."
		style = 1

		date = { month = march day = 4 year = 1460 }

		action_a = {
			name = "We defeated them!"
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = stability which = 1 }
		}

		action_b = {
			name = "We have been defeated!"
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = stability which = -1 }
			command = { type = country which = PER }
			command = { type = religion which = shiite }
			command = { type = add_countryculture which = persian }
		}
	}

#The Second Battle of Tabarsaran
	event = {

		id = 307001
		trigger = {
			NOT = {
				exists = per
			}
		}
		random = no
		country = u04
		name = "The Second Battle of Tabarsaran"
		desc = "The leader of the Safavid movement, Haydar, frequently 
crossed Shirvan on his way to raid Circassia. This time, however, the Safavids 
sacked the Shirvan capital. Farrukyasar, Shah of Shirvan, appealed to Yakub, 
his son-in-law and leader of the Ak Koyunlu, for help. They sent 4,000 men 
who played a decisive role in the battle. The Safavids were defeated and 
their leader, Haydar, was killed."
		style = 1

		action_a = {
			name = "We defeated them!"
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = stability which = 1 }
		}

		action_b = {
			name = "We have been defeated!"
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = stability which = -1 }
			command = { type = country which = PER }
			command = { type = religion which = shiite }
			command = { type = add_countryculture which = persian }
		}
	}

#The Second Battle of Tabarsaran
	event = {

		id = 307002
		trigger = {
			NOT = {
				exists = per
			}
		}
		random = no
		country = u04
		name = "The Second Battle of Tabarsaran"
		desc = "The leader of the Safavid movement, Haydar, frequently 
crossed Shirvan on his way to raid Circassia. This time, however, the Safavids 
sacked the Sirvan capital. Farrukyasar, Shah of Shirvan, appealed to Yakub, 
his son-in-law and leader of the Ak Koyunlu, for help. Yakub, however, chose 
to side with his brother-in-law, Haydar, and ignored the Sha's pleas for help."
		style = 1

		action_a = {
			name = "We have been defeated!"
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = stability which = -1 }
			command = { type = country which = PER }
			command = { type = religion which = shiite }
			command = { type = add_countryculture which = persian }
		}

		action_b = {
			name = "We defeated them!"
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = revolt which = -2 }
			command = { type = stability which = 1 }
		}
	}
 
I should probably make a version for the Karas too. This event allows the Sheep to decide to help or ignore Shirvan, which determines which the chance for the Safavids to take over Shirvan.

Code: 
#The Second Battle of Tabarsaran
	event = {

		id = 103006
		trigger = {
			NOT = {
				exists = per
			}
		}
		random = no
		country = akk
		name = "The Second Battle of Tabarsaran"
		desc = "In 1488, the Safavids, who were based in the city of 
Ardibil near the Ak Koyunlu capital, Tabriz, sacked the Shirvan capital. 
Farrukyasar, Shah of Shirvan, appealed to Yakub, his son-in -law and leader 
of the Ak Koyunlu, for help. Yakub did not get along well with Haydar, and he 
was uncomforatable about such a large army existing in his territory that he 
did not control. They sent 4,000 men who played a decisive role in the 
battle."
		style = 1

		date = { month = july day = 9 year = 1488 }

		action_a = {
			name = "Side with my father-in-law."
			command = { type = stability which = 1 }
			command = { type = relation which = u04 value = 100 }
			command = { type = trigger which = 307001 }
		}

		action_b = {
			name = "Side with my brother-in-law."
			command = { type = trigger which = 307002 }
			command = { type = relation which = u04 value = -50 }
			command = { type = vassal which = u04 }
		}
	}
 
I'm too lazy to look back in the Indio-Persia thread, but I though the best historicity/gameplay compromise proposed went something like this:

- A handful of core provinces convert immediately when the Savafids come to power.

- There is a large region (historic Savafid Persia, plus some areas of eatern Anatolia and mesopotamia) that will convert if conquered by Persia during the reign of Ismail. Perhaps provinces in historic Savafid Persia would have events like this:
Code: 
event = {
	id = xxxxx
	trigger = {
		control = { province = 526  data = PER}
		not = { religion = sunni }
		not = { year = 1524 } #death of Ismail
	}
	random = no
	province = 526 #Meched
	date = { year = 1494 }
	offset = 10
	name = "Ismail empowers Meched's Shia" 
	desc = "The Savafids were able to quickly establish control over much of Persia by empowering the Shia population."

	action_a = { 
		name = "Curse Ismail!"
		command = { type = provincereligion which = 526 value = shiite } 
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = PER value = 526 }
	} 
}
That event both helps Persia get established, while handling the conversions in a fairly historical way. Parts of the region that were not historically Savafid, which nevertheless had a significant Shia population, could have a less forceful event, like this:
Code: 
event = {
	id = xxxxxx
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 486  data = -1 }
		not = { year = 1524 } #death of Ismail
		atwar = no
		not = { provincereligion = { province = 486  data = shiite } }
	}
	random = no
	country = PER
	name = "Ismail empowers Nuyssabin's Shia"
	desc = "The Savafids were able to quickly establish control over much of Persia by empowering the Shia population."
	date = { year = 1494 }
	offset = 100
	
	action_a ={	
		name = "And so our rule is cemented"
		command = { type = provincereligion which = 486 value = shiite } 
	}
}
Anyway, that was the direction I thought we were going in.
 
doktarr said:
Anyway, that was the direction I thought we were going in.
Click to expand...

It's the direction they went with, but it's not terribly accurate. One minute the whole region is Sunni, the next, it's Shi'ite, and that didn't happen. When Ismail proclaimed Shi'ism the state religion, 2/3rds of Tabriz alone was Sunni. While the Safavids were a large and strong movement of perhaps 200,000, they had to import Shia scholars and clerics from all around the ME in order to have enough people to run the territory.

As I read more, Persian culture isn't even justified at first. The Kizilbash jealously guarded their power in the state and held the Tajiks (anyone who wasn't a Turk) in disrespect. After the death of Ismail, they seized control. Persian culture should be granted later, probably under Tahmasp at somepoint.
 
Last edited:
chegitz guevara said:
It's the direction they went with, but it's not terribly accurate. One minute the whole region is Sunni, the next, it's Shi'ite, and that didn't happen. As I read more, Persian culture isn't even justified at first. The Kizilbash jealously guarded their power in the state and held the Tajiks (anyone who wasn't a Turk) in disrespect. After the death of Ismail, they seized control. Persian culture should be granted later, probably under Tahmasp at somepoint.
Click to expand...
Huh? That's what is currently implemented, but that's not the direction we were discussing in the Indio-Persia thread. The events I have above cause the conversions to happen as Persia expands. What do you think of them?
chegitz guevara said:
When Ismail proclaimed Shi'ism the state religion, 2/3rds of Tabriz alone was Sunni. While the Safavids were a large and strong movement of perhaps 200,000, they had to import Shia scholars and clerics from all around the ME in order to have enough people to run the territory.
Click to expand...
Hm, perhaps in the above events, rather than getting the conversion for free, there should be a choice. Choice "a" costs money for the conversion ("create a Shia infrastructure") while choice "b" leaves things as they are.
chegitz guevara said:
As I read more, Persian culture isn't even justified at first. The Kizilbash jealously guarded their power in the state and held the Tajiks (anyone who wasn't a Turk) in disrespect. After the death of Ismail, they seized control. Persian culture should be granted later, probably under Tahmasp at somepoint.
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable, although this is really a separate issue, I think.
 
doktarr said:
Huh? That's what is currently implemented, but that's not the direction we were discussing in the Indio-Persia thread. The events I have above cause the conversions to happen as Persia expands. What do you think of them?
Click to expand...

Well, with an offset of 10, the conversions will happen within 10 days of the Safavids annexing the province. I don't think that's a very good idea.

I kinda like what we outlined earlier in the thread, using a combination of events, the "reformation," and missionaries. It will push conversions in the right direction without doing it within a fortnight.
 
chegitz guevara said:
As I read more, Persian culture isn't even justified at first. The Kizilbash jealously guarded their power in the state and held the Tajiks (anyone who wasn't a Turk) in disrespect. After the death of Ismail, they seized control. Persian culture should be granted later, probably under Tahmasp at somepoint.
Click to expand...

Savoury's point (I assume you're basing this off his discussion) was that the Safavid state had 2 conflicting elements to it: the Qizilbash (who were Turcomans) ran the army while Persians ran the bureaucracy. If Savoury is correct in his assesment of Tahmasp we should raise his monarch attributes considerably as Savoury credits him almost single-handedly with averting civil war or the disintegration of the Safavid state. Perhaps the Safavids should start with Turcoman and Persian as state cultures with some events to simulate the inter-ethnic tensions among the Safavid hierarchy. Under Abbas I the Safavids added a third element to the mix, the Ghulams, Islamized Georgians and Circassians who gradually usurped control of the army. Abbas and his successors had little use for the Qizilbash (except in times of crisis) and thus perhaps the Safavids should lose Turcoman culture and pick up Georgian, Armenian, or Circassian at the time of Abbas' military reforms.

Also, are we giving the Safavids a seperate tag from Persia? If so, how do we plan on handling the Afghan invasion and subsequent civil war (or is that the next thread)?
 
I probably should have titled this thread, the Safavids and Iran.

Yes, for now I'm basing this off of Savory, but I'll probably grab the volume of the Cambridge history of Iran dealing with the Safavids (and the Sheep and Timurids) as well.

I haven't gotten as afar as the Afgan invasion, but in my mind, the Safavids and Iran were two different entities. The former was a Turkish & Iranian state (and at first just Turkish), the later was just Iranian. I think they should have seperate tags. Instead of being Persia at first, they'll be the Safavids. After the Afgan invasion, they'll become Persia or Iran, depending on what name we decide to use.
 
Fixing this event

I changed the province id and the desc text.

Code: 
#By Guinnessmonkey and the AGC: Persia & neighbours Team - fixed by chegitz guevara
event = {
	id = 21817
	trigger = {
		###event = 100028 # Option: PersianRevolts
		owned = { province = 487 data = -1 }
		NOT = { event = 3564 }
	}
	random = no
	country = PER
	name = "The Safavid Capital"
	desc = "Tabriz was the capital of the Ilkahnids, the Kara Koyunlu, and 
the Ak Kounlu. Great prestige went to the owners of the ancient city. By 
making Tabriz the capital, the Safavids laid claim to the territories of the 
former empires."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 }
	offset = 20
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = december year = 1597 }
	action_a = { 
		name = "Make Tabriz the capital"
		command = { type = capital which = 487 } #Tabriz
		command = { type = population which = 487 value = 1000 }
		command = { type = provincetax	 which = 487 value = 2 } 

	}
	action_b = { 
		name = "I do not care for the climate in Tabriz"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
	}
}
 
Fixing this event. This also checks to see whether or not the Ottomans sacked Tabriz. If the Safavids are powerful enough to defend their capital, why should they move it to a more defensive position?

Code: 
#Move to Qazvin# by Crook - fixed by chegitz guevara
	event = {
		id = 65050
		random = no
		country = PER
		trigger = { 
			owned = { province = 530 data = -1 }
			NOT = {
				cot = 487
			}
		}
		name = "EVENTNAME65050"
		desc = "EVENTHIST65050"
		style = 2
	
		date = { day = 3 month = january year = 1548 }
		offset = 720
		deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1580 }

		action_a ={ # Move the Capital to Qazvin
			name = "ACTIONNAME65050A"
			command = { type = capital which = 530 }
			command = { type = population which = 530 value = 10000 }
			command = { type = population which = 487 value = -5000 }
			command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		}
		action_b ={ # Retain the old capital
			name = "ACTIONNAME65050B"
			command = { type = stability value = -2 }
		}
	}
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back