Why is Mesopotamia not part of the de jure Arabian Empire?

[LAF1994]

In-game, the kingdoms of Mesopotamia and Jazira are de jure part of the Persian Empire rather than the Arabian Empire (the Abbasids' primary title). This has two effects on the Abbasids in the 867 start:
1) The Abbasids' historical core territories in Mesopotamia are not considered part of their de jure territory.
2) The Abbasid AI will invariably try to move their capital from Baghdad/Samarra to Damascus (which is the 'de jure capital' for the Arabian Empire title) which of course they never did historically.

 

[kgptzac]

The de jure setup of Arabian Empire is reflecting the Umayyad Caliphate, which shouldn't be the case because it doesn't exist anymore in Arabia or Persia. As to why we have that setup instead of a de jure that reflects the Abbasid Caliphate... I truly can't say. In my personal mod I made either Arabia or Persia can, via a decision, to acquire Jazira and Mesopotamia into their de jure when fully controlling the two kingdoms, and moving de jure capital to Baghdad. I did it when I was playing as the Abbasids... but the effect is pretty strong, creating a very formidable caliphate that's resistant to civil wars, because they'll never idiotically grant Baghdad away.

 

[Kvesir]

the effect is pretty strong, creating a very formidable caliphate that's resistant to civil wars, because they'll never idiotically grant Baghdad away.

This should be the case in game, yeah. That would both reflect the historical reality (the Abbasids remained strong until Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols) and be fitting for game balance, as the Abbasids are the main enemy of the Byzantines and the Byzantines physically can't collapse due to how admin works.

 

[LAF1994]

That would both reflect the historical reality (the Abbasids remained strong until Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols)

Not really? The Abbasids progressively lost control of Persia throughout the 9th century, and then were reduced to figureheads by the Buyids and Seljuks.
The problem is that the latter won't really happen in-game.

 

[Slaughter]

Because the whole point of the Iranian Intermezzo is that the Iranians were fighting foreign domination of the Eranshah. Mesopotamia has been considered part of the greater sphere of Iran since the rise of the Achaemenids. It makes sense that Mesopotamia by then was closer to the sphere of Iran than that of Syria and Arabia.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Mesopotamia by then

Mesopotamia by then was ruled by the Arabs without a Persian local administrative class for around three hundred years, in this sense it fell out of the Persian sphere of influence.

 

[tribnia]

Well, I could also ask Why is Mesopotamia not part of Persian empire if they do the opposite.
So I once made a suggestion to make Persia/Arabia incompatible, you may need Mesopotamia to form one of them, Mesopotamia will be the de jure territory of the empire you formed with Baghdad as its de jure title, the other title will be destroyed at the same time. Received many disagrees then.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Not really? The Abbasids progressively lost control of Persia throughout the 9th century, and then were reduced to figureheads by the Buyids and Seljuks.
The problem is that the latter won't really happen in-game.

Yeah theres no reason in game to keep the abbasids alive, as you can just declare your own caliphate once you have enough holy sites

 

[Noxatrox]

Make Mesopotamia and Jazira part of the empire of Arabia in 867. Certain endings of completing the Iranian intermezzo will move those two kingdoms de jure into Persia

What about the two other start dates though? Seljuks (emperors of Persia in 1066) control Mesopotamia and Jazira, so it would make sense to put them in Persia de jure in 1066. No idea for 1178 though

 

[LAF1994]

Make Mesopotamia and Jazira part of the empire of Arabia in 867. Certain endings of completing the Iranian intermezzo will move those two kingdoms de jure into Persia

What about the two other start dates though? Seljuks (emperors of Persia in 1066) control Mesopotamia and Jazira, so it would make sense to put them in Persia de jure in 1066. No idea for 1178 though

A more fundamental point is that the mechanics of De Jure titles in general aren't really appropriate for the Islamic world.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

A more fundamental point is that the mechanics of De Jure titles in general aren't really appropriate for the Islamic world.

Its only really appropiate for the feudal catholic world

 

[SupremTurtle]

And this is why we need overlapping de jure titles. It makes no sense for strict de jure, as if a greater being said one place can only be legally obliged to one title

 

[Slaughter]

Mesopotamia by then was ruled by the Arabs without a Persian local administrative class for around three hundred years, in this sense it fell out of the Persian sphere of influence.

300 years vs what, almost a thousand years of Persian domination?

 

[kgptzac]

300 years vs what, almost a thousand years of Persian domination?

the most recent 300 years count much more in the game's mechanic, which I think needs to be reminded of being the subject of this discussion. We are talking about the de jure hierarchy, which should always match the current situation at each start date, like how Sicily is de jure Byzantine in earlier start date but not the later one.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

De jure of titles can really be seen as kind of an abstraction more than anything. The biggest problem with Mesopotamia in 867 that I have seen is the Abbasids wanting to relocate to Damascus, the capital of the Umayyads whom they overthrew and almost exterminated. Some special exception should probably be put for the kingdoms of Mesopotamia. Maybe they could be considered part of the Arabian empire in 867, but shift to the Persian Empire when the struggle ends. If the DLC is not installed or the struggle is disabled, it remains part of the Persian Empire.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

300 years vs what, almost a thousand years of Persian domination?

China ruled Korea for over one thousand years, and neither did it take Korea another thousand to think it was no longer a part of China.
Vietnam too, for that matter.

 

[LAF1994]

300 years vs what, almost a thousand years of Persian domination?

At this point Mesopotamia is culturally almost entirely Arab.

 

[Byzantium2000]

the most recent 300 years count much more in the game's mechanic, which I think needs to be reminded of being the subject of this discussion. We are talking about the de jure hierarchy, which should always match the current situation at each start date, like how Sicily is de jure Byzantine in earlier start date but not the later one.

I mean tbf Sicily as Dejure Byzantine was still recognized historically in 1178. Emperor Manuel Komnenos got the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor to recognize his dejure claims, it don’t get more dejure than that lol.

And yeah I don’t think nor have ever thought Mesopotamia should be part of Persia over Arabia. It is literally the historical capital of the Arab Empire and is significantly Arabized by this point. If Egypt which was less so at this point is dejure then why not Mesopotamia.

Now that said Mesopotamia as Dejure Persia in 1066 makes more sense again with the Buyids and Seljuks but that was 940s onwards and of course by 1178 the Caliph has declared and gained independence.I think it should be a decision to switch like Sicily is given the importance of the region to both Empires.

But any benefit of Mesopotamia as Persia is not worth the Caliph giving away Bagdad in 867.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

I mean tbf Sicily as Dejure Byzantine was still recognized historically in 1178. Emperor Manuel Komnenos got the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor to recognize his dejure claims, it don’t get more dejure than that lol.

And yeah I don’t think nor have ever thought Mesopotamia should be part of Persia over Arabia. It is literally the historical capital of the Arab Empire and is significantly Arabized by this point. If Egypt which was less so at this point is dejure then why not Mesopotamia.

Now that said Mesopotamia as Dejure Persia in 1066 makes more sense again with the Buyids and Seljuks but that was 940s onwards and of course by 1178 the Caliph has declared and gained independence.I think it should be a decision to switch like Sicily is given the importance of the region to both Empires.

But any benefit of Mesopotamia as Persia is not worth the Caliph giving away Bagdad in 867.

The Abbasid court had strong Persian influences on it. So despite Mesopotamia becoming predominantly Arab, it still had heavy influences from the Persian culture.

In 1178, I don't see any real benefit for it being shifted to Arabian Empire. The Caliph is independent, yes, but he technically has no empire The only reason that I can think of to have it be part of Arabian Empire would be to nerf Saladin and his successors, because I don't think Saladin or his successors could create the empire of Arabia if the Mesopotamian kingdoms were a part of it.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

In 1178, I don't see any real benefit for it being shifted to Arabian Empire. The Caliph is independent, yes, but he technically has no empire The only reason that I can think of to have it be part of Arabian Empire would be to nerf Saladin and his successors, because I don't think Saladin or his successors could create the empire of Arabia if the Mesopotamian kingdoms were a part of it.

TBF Saladin and his successors aren't Arab, so it's not a big deal if they form a titular Kurdish Empire instead of the Arabian Empire anyway.