The nomadic system must change

[Portoop]

The nomadic system should change, nomads are divided into tribes and each tribe represents a nation, for example mongol: Oirats, Kalmyks
For example Turks: (Oghuz), Avshars, Pechenegs (Kipchak and Karluk branches are very long and in a wide geography but you get what I mean) there may be selectable tribes within the Golden Horde, we can manage these tribes and make them migrate, then capture the region and establish a state.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Why would you want to play as the various tribes for the khanates rather than the gengisihid khan

 

[lazprune]

The steppe empires were not merely "tribes" with a single "culture" equating to one state. Instead, they were complex militaro-administrative systems where a king (qaghan) and his lineage typically ruled over aristocratic families. These aristocratic families, in turn, governed commoner families and their herds, rather than fixed territories as seen in feudal Europe. The head of an aristocratic family would command military units composed of soldiers provided by each commoner family to the horde. Simultaneously, they would rule over these families, effectively becoming general-princes (khans).

Occasionally, these polities would divide because the king couldn't control his vassals, or the king might be overthrown, which wasn't legal as "might-makes-right" is an orientalist view and was never the way things worked. In such cases, the former vassal would pretend to rule in the king's name. This is why Temujin was only a Genghis Khan rather than a Qaghan, with the title of khan being retroactively "upgraded" to be sovereign by the Mongol imperial chronicles, demoting the Kereit dynasty from the rightful rulers of the plateau and liege of the Mongols to simply another realm. Similarly, Tamerlan was only called "son-in-law" for not being of the (now) rightful royal lineage of the Borjigid.

In the game's context, they shouldn't be depicted as SOPs-like but as landed ABCs (the top ruler) having vassal landless ABCs (the aristocrats/generals) that can be assigned regions to keep in check, thereby increasing control. However, these generals can rebel during times of instability and become de facto sovereigns, giving in turn armies and populations to new generals and creating new landless vassals, and so on.

EDIT: better wording

 

[DiabloDeVille]

The steppe empires were not merely "tribes" with a single "culture" equating to one state. Instead, they were complex militaro-administrative systems where a king (qaghan) and his lineage typically ruled over aristocratic families. These aristocratic families, in turn, governed commoner families and their herds, rather than fixed territories as seen in feudal Europe. The head of an aristocratic family would command military units composed of soldiers provided by each commoner family to the horde. Simultaneously, they would rule over these families, effectively becoming general-princes (khans).

Occasionally, these polities would divide because the king couldn't control his vassals, or the king might be overthrown, which wasn't legal as "might-makes-right" is an orientalist view and was never the way things worked. In such cases, the former vassal would pretend to rule in the king's name. This is why Temujin was only a Genghis Khan rather than a Qaghan, with the title of khan being retroactively "upgraded" to be sovereign by the Mongol imperial chronicles, demoting the Kereit dynasty from the rightful rulers of the plateau and liege of the Mongols to simply another realm. Similarly, Tamerlan was only called "son-in-law" for not being of the (now) rightful royal lineage of the Borjigid.

In the game's context, they shouldn't be depicted as SOPs-like but as landed ABCs (the top ruler) having vassal landless ABCs (the aristocrats/generals) that can be assigned regions to keep in check, thereby increasing control. However, these generals can rebel during times of instability and become de facto sovereigns, giving in turn armies and populations to new generals and creating new landless vassals, and so on.

EDIT: better wording

If youre going to try and force qahagan rather than the far simpler khagan, why say tamerlan instead of timur? Might makes right isn't orientalism, its the harsh reality of how steppe polities overran another with ease, whereas europe from the high middle ages on has a veneer of legality with annexing only part of your neighbor's land after utterly trouncing them

 

[prinscky]

Tribal confederation was common before 11th century, but after Kitan built Liao dynasty, the nomads also started to build their own empire with central government, taxation and bureaucratic systems. Kipchaks in the Pontic steppe was far behind the Mongols in terms of political advancement, thus was easily crushed by the Mongols even though they had more horseman.
As for the Mongols, the Kalmyks was a part of Oirats, but left the confederation during 17th century and migrated to the Pontic steppe. The remaining Oirats built the Zuungar khanate, also a nation with government.
The Genghis khan was so great not because he was a brilliant military leader, but he created a political system specially designed for the nomads, greatly eliminated the internal conflicts and bind all the tribes together into unified military power. Thus laid the foundation for the success of Mongol expansion.
Golden Horde was such a nomad nation, not a tribal confederation, I agree with you to some extent actually, the current nomadic system do seems a bit too simplified. Golden horde was rather stable during the reign of Ozbeg.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Tribal confederation was common before 11th century, but after Kitan built Liao dynasty, the nomads also started to build their own empire with central government, taxation and bureaucratic systems. Kipchaks in the Pontic steppe was far behind the Mongols in terms of political advancement, thus was easily crushed by the Mongols even though they had more horseman.
As for the Mongols, the Kalmyks was a part of Oirats, but left the confederation during 17th century and migrated to the Pontic steppe. The remaining Oirats built the Zuungar khanate, also a nation with government.
The Genghis khan was so great not because he was a brilliant military leader, but he created a political system specially designed for the nomads, greatly eliminated the internal conflicts and bind all the tribes together into unified military power. Thus laid the foundation for the success of Mongol expansion.
Golden Horde was such a nomad nation, not a tribal confederation, I agree with you to some extent actually, the current nomadic system do seems a bit too simplified. Golden horde was rather stable during the reign of Ozbeg.

What political advancements did the mongols have compared to the kipchaks?

 

[lazprune]

If youre going to try and force qahagan rather than the far simpler khagan, why say tamerlan instead of timur?

?

Might makes right isn't orientalism, its the harsh reality of how steppe polities overran another with ease, whereas europe from the high middle ages on has a veneer of legality with annexing only part of your neighbor's land after utterly trouncing them

Nomads weren't Orcs. They had strict laws/customs/traditions they had to follow. You are just projecting your "wild barbarian" trope.

Tribal confederation was common before 11th century, but after Kitan built Liao dynasty, the nomads also started to build their own empire with central government, taxation and bureaucratic systems. Kipchaks in the Pontic steppe was far behind the Mongols in terms of political advancement, thus was easily crushed by the Mongols even though they had more horseman.
As for the Mongols, the Kalmyks was a part of Oirats, but left the confederation during 17th century and migrated to the Pontic steppe. The remaining Oirats built the Zuungar khanate, also a nation with government.
The Genghis khan was so great not because he was a brilliant military leader, but he created a political system specially designed for the nomads, greatly eliminated the internal conflicts and bind all the tribes together into unified military power. Thus laid the foundation for the success of Mongol expansion.
Golden Horde was such a nomad nation, not a tribal confederation, I agree with you to some extent actually, the current nomadic system do seems a bit too simplified. Golden horde was rather stable during the reign of Ozbeg.

The Göktürk, Khazar, Uyghur, Pecheneg, Naiman and Kereit states (at least) likely used the decimal system decades and centuries before Temujin "invented" it.
Source 1
Source 2

 

[DiabloDeVille]

?

Khagan is alot easier to spell, and an accepted rendition, so why not use it?

Nomads weren't Orcs. They had strict laws/customs/traditions they had to follow. You are just projecting your "wild barbarian" trope.

They werent orcs, but orcs certainly take inspiration from various steppe peoples. If you're being routinely raided, you don't care about what customs they have, you care about what was stolen and who was killed or captured.

The Göktürk, Khazar, Uyghur, Pecheneg, Naiman and Kereit states (at least) likely used the decimal system decades and centuries before Temujin "invented" it.
Source 1
Source 2

And even then, it was all a hypothetical, as having exact 100 guys in a unit is hard to do, or get assigned families to move to a new family

 

[lazprune]

Khagan is alot easier to spell, and an accepted rendition, so why not use it?

You seem to get mad at mundane details.

They werent orcs, but orcs certainly take inspiration from various steppe peoples. If you're being routinely raided, you don't care about what customs they have, you care about what was stolen and who was killed or captured.

"Racist stereotypes are modeled after certain societies so now we can model said societies in our games after those racist stereotypes" isn't a gotcha.

A history-inspired game should make efforts to portray history as close as it was within the framework of the gameplay. Steppe nomads in history weren't orcs, so the historical game shouldn't put orcs in 1337 Eurasia.

And even then, it was all a hypothetical, as having exact 100 guys in a unit is hard to do, or get assigned families to move to a new family

Each unit potentially included more soldiers than its numerical designation suggested, with a tripartite structure:

1. Soldiers: The primary fighting force.
2. Auxiliaries: Equivalent to squires or pages, these individuals, often younger brothers, sons, or servants, handled logistical tasks such as managing reserve horses.
3. Reservists (Kötöchi): Non-combatants who could replenish weakened units or form new armies without disrupting the existing system.

Simon Berger estimates that a tümen, nominally a unit of 10,000 warriors, could have a total population of between 120,000 and 150,000 people when including families and unregistered men. This large population base allowed for the easy creation of new armies by duplicating existing units, facilitating territorial annexation.

The Mongol military's strength lay in its rapidity and autonomy, enabled by the accompaniment of families and the portability of its administrative and economic systems.

 

[Ukrop(Furrota)]

Who must change?

 

[prinscky]

What political advancements did the mongols have compared to the kipchaks?

Minggan is the Mongolian word for a thousand, before him there were numerous tribes roaming on the steppe, Genghis khan break them and reorganized the nomads into 95 "Minggan"s, he appointed loyal generals and noyans (nobles) to govern those Minggans, and then allocated the 95 Minggans to each of his sons. Thus created a feudal nomad society instead of tribal confederation. Minggans are loyal to the Mongol princes, and had secondary level feudal organizations loyal to them.
Of course the system was much more complicated than I can describe, I'm no expert on this topic.

 

[prinscky]

?



Nomads weren't Orcs. They had strict laws/customs/traditions they had to follow. You are just projecting your "wild barbarian" trope.



The Göktürk, Khazar, Uyghur, Pecheneg, Naiman and Kereit states (at least) likely used the decimal system decades and centuries before Temujin "invented" it.
Source 1
Source 2

Decimal system was adopted by many great tribes, but the real difficulty of ruling the steppe is to keep the nomads under control. Before Genghis khan those tribal confederation you mentioned were all composed by tribes, all tribes are equal, and the confederation the formed was fragile. Its really inappropriate to call the Göktürks, Khazars, Uyghurs, Pechenegs, Naimans as "state", there was no state, no social hierarchy, no central command, no taxation, but only war and loot. During most of the time the nomads would fight between themselves for pasture and women, it was Genghis khan that eliminated the circumstance, reformed the nomad society and created a unified nomad army with central commanding system that saw no rivals of its time.

 

[Portoop]

Decimal system was adopted by many great tribes, but the real difficulty of ruling the steppe is to keep the nomads under control. Before Genghis khan those tribal confederation you mentioned were all composed by tribes, all tribes are equal, and the confederation the formed was fragile. Its really inappropriate to call the Göktürks, Khazars, Uyghurs, Pechenegs, Naimans as "state", there was no state, no social hierarchy, no central command, no taxation, but only war and loot. During most of the time the nomads would fight between themselves for pasture and women, it was Genghis khan that eliminated the circumstance, reformed the nomad society and created a unified nomad army with central commanding system that saw no rivals of its time.

Was it impossible to call the Gokturks a state? The Gokturks were a very first class "state", they had many administrative systems such as kagan, yabgu and banners. The issue of war between tribes is a bit different, even today in Anatolia there can be conflicts between families due to land disputes. But in the end they are all dependent on the state. My answer to the argument that "they were all fragile" is that the Genghis Empire also fell apart and went to war with each other without lasting even 100 years. (Berke Khan and Hulagu fought 35 years after Genghis died.) All the methods Genghis used were used in old nomadic states. One of the biggest reasons for Genghis' expansion is that he did what was not done. For example, he chose his commanders not by lineage but by merit, and established a very large intelligence organization. Although he was famous for burning the cities he entered, the cities he burned were generally the cities that resisted him. They demanded taxes and loyalty in the cities they governed, they offered freedom of religion and a moderate life.

 

[prinscky]

Was it impossible to call the Gokturks a state? The Gokturks were a very first class "state", they had many administrative systems such as kagan, yabgu and banners. The issue of war between tribes is a bit different, even today in Anatolia there can be conflicts between families due to land disputes. But in the end they are all dependent on the state. My answer to the argument that "they were all fragile" is that the Genghis Empire also fell apart and went to war with each other without lasting even 100 years. (Berke Khan and Hulagu fought 35 years after Genghis died.) All the methods Genghis used were used in old nomadic states. One of the biggest reasons for Genghis' expansion is that he did what was not done. For example, he chose his commanders not by lineage but by merit, and established a very large intelligence organization. Although he was famous for burning the cities he entered, the cities he burned were generally the cities that resisted him. They demanded taxes and loyalty in the cities they governed, they offered freedom of religion and a moderate life.

I see there is a different definition of state between the east and west, but to me, a state must have a central government that monopolize all the powers. Mongol empire may be shortlived but was definitely a state, and both its successors the Golden horde and Ilkhanate was legitimate states. HRE on the other hand, can hardly be called a state in my opinions, but who am I to challenge all of those that prefers to call HRE a state~
AS for the Gokturks and many other nomadic confederations, they were composed by tribes and each tribe is in theory independent, it may or may not listen to the command of the great khan, and could leave the confederation at any time.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

I see there is a different definition of state between the east and west, but to me, a state must have a central government that monopolize all the powers. Mongol empire may be shortlived but was definitely a state, and both its successors the Golden horde and Ilkhanate was legitimate states. HRE on the other hand, can hardly be called a state in my opinions, but who am I to challenge all of those that prefers to call HRE a state~
AS for the Gokturks and many other nomadic confederations, they were composed by tribes and each tribe is in theory independent, it may or may not listen to the command of the great khan, and could leave the confederation at any time.

Where do you draw the line between state and confederation? Because the Golden horde was able to leave the Mongol Empife fairly easily. Same goes for the Ilkhanate, though they still recognised the nominal authority of the Yuan (at least during Kublai Khans lifetime). Then you have a surviving Oegedeid prince trying to secure an independent /autonomous Khanate similar to the Ilkhanate or Golden horde.

All that is inherent to Tribal union (just wanted to avoid the word state / confederation). They can break apart within years when the leading family looses the ability to enforce its will. There is no simple distinction between state or confederation you have to look at the individual entity (again trying to avoid state or confederation wording) at a specific point in time.

 

[lazprune]

all tribes are equal, and the confederation the formed was fragile

Its really inappropriate to call the Göktürks, Khazars, Uyghurs, Pechenegs, Naimans as "state",

there was no state, no social hierarchy, no central command, no taxation,

but only war and loot.

During most of the time the nomads would fight between themselves for pasture and women,

it was Genghis khan that eliminated the circumstance, reformed the nomad society and created a unified nomad army with central commanding system that saw no rivals of its time.

I beg you to inform yourself beyond fantasy stereotypes about non-white people.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Decimal system was adopted by many great tribes, but the real difficulty of ruling the steppe is to keep the nomads under control. Before Genghis khan those tribal confederation you mentioned were all composed by tribes, all tribes are equal, and the confederation the formed was fragile. Its really inappropriate to call the Göktürks, Khazars, Uyghurs, Pechenegs, Naimans as "state", there was no state, no social hierarchy, no central command, no taxation, but only war and loot. During most of the time the nomads would fight between themselves for pasture and women, it was Genghis khan that eliminated the circumstance, reformed the nomad society and created a unified nomad army with central commanding system that saw no rivals of its time.

All tribes were equal? No social hierarchy? No central command? No taxation or tribute? Where have you found such claims?

Was it impossible to call the Gokturks a state? The Gokturks were a very first class "state", they had many administrative systems such as kagan, yabgu and banners. The issue of war between tribes is a bit different, even today in Anatolia there can be conflicts between families due to land disputes. But in the end they are all dependent on the state. My answer to the argument that "they were all fragile" is that the Genghis Empire also fell apart and went to war with each other without lasting even 100 years. (Berke Khan and Hulagu fought 35 years after Genghis died.) All the methods Genghis used were used in old nomadic states. One of the biggest reasons for Genghis' expansion is that he did what was not done. For example, he chose his commanders not by lineage but by merit, and established a very large intelligence organization. Although he was famous for burning the cities he entered, the cities he burned were generally the cities that resisted him. They demanded taxes and loyalty in the cities they governed, they offered freedom of religion and a moderate life.

Having pyramids of skulls built from former inhabitants the second you revolt over taxes isnt a moderate life

You seem to get mad at mundane details.



"Racist stereotypes are modeled after certain societies so now we can model said societies in our games after those racist stereotypes" isn't a gotcha.

A history-inspired game should make efforts to portray history as close as it was within the framework of the gameplay. Steppe nomads in history weren't orcs, so the historical game shouldn't put orcs in 1337 Eurasia.



Each unit potentially included more soldiers than its numerical designation suggested, with a tripartite structure:

1. Soldiers: The primary fighting force.
2. Auxiliaries: Equivalent to squires or pages, these individuals, often younger brothers, sons, or servants, handled logistical tasks such as managing reserve horses.
3. Reservists (Kötöchi): Non-combatants who could replenish weakened units or form new armies without disrupting the existing system.

Simon Berger estimates that a tümen, nominally a unit of 10,000 warriors, could have a total population of between 120,000 and 150,000 people when including families and unregistered men. This large population base allowed for the easy creation of new armies by duplicating existing units, facilitating territorial annexation.

The Mongol military's strength lay in its rapidity and autonomy, enabled by the accompaniment of families and the portability of its administrative and economic systems.

What custom allows you to go from ruling over some mongol tribes, to conquering northern china in the east and much of iran in the west?

 

[Big_birdy]

I beg you to inform yourself beyond fantasy stereotypes about non-white people.

The funniest claim is that they had no social hierarchy

 

[prinscky]

All tribes were equal? No social hierarchy? No central command? No taxation or tribute? Where have you found such claims?

Having pyramids of skulls built from former inhabitants the second you revolt over taxes isnt a moderate life

What custom allows you to go from ruling over some mongol tribes, to conquering northern china in the east and much of iran in the west?

Gokturks and Uyghur khanate was such confederations, they were formed by some core tribes and joined by other tribes later on, all the tribes were in equal status. When the khanate collapse most of the tribes just stayed where they were and over time started to form other confederations. Gokturks was joined by many Ughus tribes (not the Ughus of central asia) who was later on known as Uighurs, same people, different names.
Without central government there is No central command in the army, I thought Europeans would understand this in a good way, as many battles were lost due to the disobedient vassal lords. The nomadic confederation was pretty much in the same manner, before Mongols all the nomadic army was assembled by tribal armies and led by tribal chiefs, the khan had little commanding authority, and many battles recorded by Chinese history tells that nomadic army simply fled the battlefield as the war went unpromising.
No taxation was simple as that, ruling tribes cannot collect tax from other tribes, there was tribute but that was highly irregular, and depended much on the personal authority of the khan. Demanding tribute could cause unhappiness among the tribes and trigger wars, looting was a better way to solve financial problems.
I think I have explained the reformation made by Genghis khan. As for the social hierarchy thing, may be my English skill was insufficient to describe it.

 

[lazprune]

What custom allows you to go from ruling over some mongol tribes, to conquering northern china in the east and much of iran in the west?

You would be surprized, while studying Modern European or imperial Chinese history, that despite a very expansive legal system upholding rigid ownership/birthright/judiciary laws those societies often expanded outwards and brought new places and people under their juridiction.

Or maybe you don't think that in "swear to pay tribute of you will all die", the "swear to pay tribute" part has formal, legal, administrative implications?