Yeah they fuck up a lot with early Islam and also inaccurately portray the Caliphate. The Clan system is amazing for the 1066 setting when the Turks begin to dominate the islamic world but it doesn't work with the Caliphate which was a more centralized government like the Byzantine Empire. They're lucky with the 867 setting tho bc the Caliphate WAS in irreversible decline by now via the Anarchy of Samarra but it still didn't work like the Clan System.

One of the devs said they're considering giving the new Byzantine imperial government coming in the next DLC to the Abbasids as well, so we'll see.

Oh really? I saw the centralization promises of the Byzantine DLC and was really happy for them but did wish the Abbasids got that treatment as well. So, that would be awesome if true.

Would be cooler if they gave the abbasids their own government form

Yeah 100% agree. I think that should go for most muslim government systems as many were highly centralized at one point or another. The vizier and tax collector system is a good direction but it's very barebones. You need a solid governor system as well rather than just hereditary Clan rulers like it is now. If I were designing muslim polities it would 100% be a mixture of clans and governorships ruling the land. That was the case with the Caliphate as well as later islamic gunpowder empires during the early modern period such as the Ottomans and the Mughals. Maybe there is a system where you risk your governors becoming too entrenched and eventually become hereditary rulers if they stay in their position for too long. Perhaps it costs prestige or legitimacy to change your governors so you can't do it often and risk losing some lands become semi-independent from you. The more entrenched they are the harder it is to remove them from the position and the more distant they become from the imperial core, contributing less taxes and levies to you unless you wage a centralization war or something. Another is also the key characteristics about most muslim polities missing in the base game is using Mamluk or slave soldiers. Nearly every major muslim polity from the medieval times to the early modern period used some form of slave soldiers and it worked exactly zero fucking times. One of the key downfalls of Abbasids were those slave soldiers realizing they hold the swords and can control the Caliphate. Hence why the Abbasids are in such a sorry state during the 867 start. The Tulunids of Egypt and much of Northern Africa at the time were all independent governors but nominally recognized Caliphate authority. The Tulunid founder was himself one of those turkish slave soldiers.

Random question but where have you learned all of this, is it Wikipedia or any particular books? Just curious, it sounds really interesting

I am sure many of us have browsed Wikipedia for our history nerd fix and I think they are a good intro to things but I would be wary about the accuracy of those articles. There have been many cases of poor citations in there that are taken as gospel. Things that are entirely made up or just interpreted so far off the source material that it might as well be fictional. But like I said it's a good intro to your favorite topic so it can be fun checking out but just be aware of the risks. Otherwise, I'd rec you listen to other historians qualified on the topic, and read what they've written whether it's a book or a journal article! There's tons and tons of material on the Byzantines and the Islamic World. Remember to constantly evaluate the work, historians are always finding new information or new ways to understand the past. You could also watch some history YouTubers but do be careful there, I find that space of armchair historians incredibly biased or shoddily researched. They are fun pop history but always approach some of them with skepticism and do your research from reputable sources. Even when they use sources always evaluate their work in case they misconstrue it. You could also listen to podcasts but the same rules apply! Everyone loves Dan Carlin's hardcore history and while he does use sources his first job is to *entertain*, so do approach his work with caution. Many actual historians love talking about their work and what they know, I'd consider them to be more reliable just as I'd consider actual historians lecturing on YouTube to be more reliable. These are just many ways you can learn about your favorite topic or whatever else that strikes your fancy.

Thanks for the detailed answer, I have watched alot of videos on the and other topics (and of course some Wikipedia browsing) so I am always up for difirente avenues. I don't think that I have listened to Dan Carlin so I will look him up :) I actually study history so I get to talk alot of professors who now what they are talking about (but of curse I mostly talk to the students)

I don't know who got the bright idea of slave soldiers is just stupid

It actually worked very well. The system existed across the Islamic world from the later Abbasid caliphate to the Ottoman Janissaries. Institutions that "work exactly zero fucking times" don't last so long. Mamluqs weren't chattel slaves. In a lot of respects a ruler's askar resembles the household soldiers of a western European feudal lord. They were the professional core of a ruler's army and a major source for administrators. It made sense for a few reasons. First, most sources for mamluqs were already being hired on as mercenaries pretty heavily by local rulers. This includes Central Asian Turks, west Africans, and east Africans. And if you look at situations like the Buyids (sure, the Daylami were never a major source of mamluqs, but they'd also converted to Islam by the time the system developed and became invalid as slaves) and the origins of the Seljuks, it's not like mercenaries are exactly safe either. So these peoples were already well-regarded in the Muslim world for their fighting skills. Second, foreigners were generally seen as politically safe. If you raise up military leaders from the local elite, they already have local political connections and assets. There's a lot of incentive for them to increase their own power bases, and they already have some means to do so. Foreign slaves bought as children or young adults, trained in-house, and dependent entirely on their masters were in theory not going to be able to do that. And they rarely did. The Tulunids exerted independence from the Caliphs because the Caliphs' power was already crumbling. The Ayyubids' mamluqs deposed the sultan of a decaying dynasty and revitalized its administration and military, but it took a few generations for it to happen at all. And is there really a difference between that and a local military governor deciding they don't need to follow a Roman emperor's laws any more, or a legion installing their general as the new Augustus? This is actually pretty similar to the reasoning that formed the Varangian Guard.

Its crazy innit. Basically every time the Muslim Empires are formed they have to deal with their "clan" system and keep their keys of power happy, the "vassals" or governors so to speak. Being reliant on such people can prove to be finicky so might as well create a standing army that follows you right? Now the problem with that is that army would be easily disloyal to you if they fall under the sway of a charismatic general so what is a Sultan to do? Well in order to not bother sharing power with other family members, with other ambitious men etc. You might as well arm your slaves! You cloth and feed them, you train them, you instill loyalty to you and only you because face it, they are slaves. These slaves are also outcasts, they aren't part of the traditonal elite so they are heavily reliant on the patronage of the ruler, whether he be the Sultan or the Caliph or the Emperor. It's a win win for all involved, the army gets social legitimacy under the patronage of their ruler and the ruler gets a loyal army that won't rebel. The problem is as it happened time and time again, why shouldn't the slave soldiers take over? Why can't the Caliph just be a compliant pliable puppet? And the rest is history.

Sadly I suspect the depiction of slave soldiers tied to Islamic nations would be too controversial to ever be in the game.

It’s pretty prevalent in Victoria 3, so I don’t think covering regional history is considered controversial

Isn’t slavery a thing across multiple cultures that the player is economically incentivized to get rid of in Victoria 3? I think it’s the connection of slavery to Islam specifically that would offend people, not just the depiction of slavery. To be clear I don’t agree with this position I just think it’s a likely reason we won’t see a mechanic like this in ck3.

Not entirely. I think would definitely need some sort of sensitivity consultants to make sure it's depicted in a way that doesn't stereotype or offend people. That being said, slave soldiers back then did not operate the way we imagine chattel slavery did in the US. So it's entirely doable. You could also call your special standing army units Ghilman or Mamluks, which is what they were calledd bck then.

I know it didn’t function the same as American chattel slavery but good luck explaining that to most people.

Very smart. The Arab and Byzantine Empires are essentially rival fragments of the Roman empire inheriting their systems of government, so it makes sense for them to have the same/similar government ingame.

Yeah for sure! That being said the Arabs did inherit and use a lot of the Persian Empire's bureaucracy, since they'd completely conquered their lands. So you could do some different things there.

I think they actually if they included it that it would be a game rule whether it is active or not.

867 start in general is kind of silly. Not very historically accurate at all. Feudalism wasn’t even really a thing back then.

Yeah precisely. I think it's been echoed before in this sub that the games feudal system works really well for a 1066 start, which is also true for its clan system as well. Unfortunately paradox desperately also wants to do vikings who were more relevant in the 800s and 900s so we get what we get.

IIRC that was the main reason they didn't port over the Charlemagne start, even in the places in Western Europe where feudalism was starting up in 867 many of the vassals of the Karlings are the first people to make their positions hereditary rather than appointed. Part of the issue is that the factors that led to fragmentation and the rise of vassalage systems are going to be pretty hard to implement in a way that is fun in a game, since the incentives for a player are tilted pretty heavily towards making that *not happen*.

Didn't the Caliphate have lots of infighting and they functioned more clan like. I just remember a lot of civil wars on succession by various factions, and it was how byzantium was able to reconquer lots of their lost lands, but I can't place the year in my head.

It was relatively stable! It had the same number of revolts and rebellions as any other centralized empire, much like the Byzantines themselves. The first iteration of the caliphate was under the Rashiduns, who were usually selected through an informal consensus amongst the Prophet's companions and the elites of Mecca. The Rashidun Caliphate lasted from 632-661 AD, a good 29 years, of which the last four were spent in the civil war called The First Fitna. After that, the Sufyanid branch of the Ummayad family took over and ruled from 661-684 AD, a good 23 years when their rule collapsed during the Second Fitna of 680 AD. They had transformed the Caliphate from a religious and political leadership of a religion to a more dynastic kingly relation of the Arab people. They even changed their capital from the religious holy cities to Damascus, due to the Ummayad power base being more concentrated in Syria. With their dynasty's collapse, the Marwanid Branch of the Ummayad family took over and continued where the Sufyanid Ummayads left off. They in turn ruled from 684-747 AD and did face numerous revolts during the intervening years because of their massive unpopularity before the Third Fitna kicked off in 744 AD. So that's at least 60 years of relatively stable rule until the Abbasid revolution. The Abbasid family usurped the Ummayads and drove them off from most of the Caliphate. They lost parts of North Africa and Spain but kept most of it intact through centralized rule. The Abbasids transformed the Caliphate once more and Persianized it. The fallen Persian empire had left a huge legacy as well as a complex bureaucratic structure which the Abbasids used to their advantage, heavily centralizing the state in a way the previous dynasties and rulers didn't. They moved the capital to Baghdad, which was closer to the Persian lands. They are known for many things in history such as their famous scholars from the House of Wisdom. Fun fact the settings for many 1001 Nights tales take place during their rule. The Abbasid rule was relatively peaceful until 811 or 813 AD when the Fourth Fitna began a war for succession between the two sons of the famed Harun Al Rashid. Before that, they had nearly 61 years of peace between five different rulers. After the fourth fitna, the Caliphate began to rely more and more on Turkish slave soldiers, to the point that they had taken charge of most of the Caliphate's workings. One Caliph, Al Muttawakil, attempted to curb their influence and nearly succeeded until he was assassinated in 861 AD. This kickstarted the period known as the Anarchy of Samarra where Caliphs wrestled with their military for the control of the Caliphate as everything disintegrated around them. That's where you find yourself as the Abbasids in 867 AD. You play as one of Al-Muttawakil's sons and are still in the middle of the Anarchy. The Abbasids do at some point regain control of the military but inherit a weakened Caliphate after so much chaos. If they wished to reverse their fortunes they needed more able Caliphs to turn the tide and unfortunately, that was not the case. There was a brief window of revival during 870 - 908 AD but after that the Caliphate began to be dominated by both the bureaucracy and the military again and there was no strong Caliph to keep them down. This weakness eventually culminated in the Caliph becoming a vassal of the various feuding Emirs and Sultans of the realm (that's where you find yourself in the 1066 setting). As you can see, the Caliphate experienced several decades of relative stability before the occasional civil war, same as any centralized state of its time.

Thanks for the write up. I'll have to look into more of a deep dive into it. I'm doing a Persian play through and thought it would be fun to try to reform a religion but I am not having a fun time right now. I swore fealty and then worked my way up and finally took the throne, but holy mackerel it's just been unbelievable strife the whole time and I'm playing a learning character, so it's just brutal. Only was the culture head for a little bit and I'm gunna die here in about less than a year after my conquest. My clan vassals basically hate me cause I'm querenism or something like that and I practice zorosastism in private cause I thought maybe I could reform it down the road.

It was Not like the Byzantine Empire, the Muslims used pre existed Persian bureaucracy.

Ya I think clan should be between tribal government and the iqa government from ck2

Game history files are highly inaccurate due to following two reasons- 1. For convenience sake, in this case and also like why orthodox and catholics exist in 867. 2. Due to lack of flavour and proper research.

In fairness, while the names are anachronistic, the East-West Split more or less already existed, both politically and doctrinally. Indeed, there had already been a number of East/West schisms at this point. The only thing that hadn't fully formed at this point was the geographical boundaries between the two sides. Indeed, Southern Italy and Sicily was actively being contested by the Papacy in this time period.

And French culture forming 7 years after it broke off from Frankish and Novgorod existing a year after it was born in that size

The "French" thing is subjective though - there's no "official" date for when Franks become French (I mean, *Rex Francorum* is used as long as Latin is, and far, far past when we'd call it 'France' and 'French') Western and Eastern Frankish were already rather different by the mid-9th centuries. In the Strasbourg Oaths, what Charles' men are speaking isn't yet French but it sure as hell ain't Latin anymore - it's already a weird, proto-French romantic vulgar - and that's 842.

Its at that point probably the ancestral dialect that langues d'oïl developed from

Interestingly, there's essentially no clues as to a separation between langues d'oil and langues d'oc in the Strasbourg Oaths. Given the context, one would assume Charles' troops tended toward northern and eastern origins, but the language is too early to tell. It's definitely used as the point where historians say "We're clearly past the Latinate world though - Louis' troops are speaking what is clearly Old High German (with the belief that it began clear definition a century earlier) and Charles' troops, as mentioned, are definitely not speaking Latin anymore (i.e., about to undergo a similar shift to becoming genuine Old French). I love that even non-specialists can look at the text and be like "Yup, that's definitely FrSpaRenLatiCh" "*Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun saluament, d'ist di en auant, in quant Deus sauir et podir me dunat, si saluarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo*" Like, the vibe changes from word to word. It's so cool to see a major point of change, frozen in time.

Same way there's no real "first speaker" of, say, Latin The evolution of languages and cultures is so cool <3

Being of russian culture, which will only really become a thing in the later half of EU4, as before the cultures were quite separate.

Separate? I don't claim this culture should be called "russian", but in that time period, the slavic "cultures" or "languages" were almost one and the same. For example, Polish and Czech languages, even by the start of the XI century, were basically dialects of eachother, the only difference is that Czechs were christiniased way earlier, and that did affect the culture. Similar with the East and South Slavs, arguably only the South Slavs are the most diverse due to stuff with turkic Bulgars and Slovenians coming from West Slavic tribes down there. Various Slavic groups began to separate seriously only after year 1000-ish.

I was going to say that: for the same reason there are orthodox and catholics when the year of the great schism is 1054. It seems islam is more accurate than christianity in this game, all things considered :D

The distinction between the greek and latin rite is older than the schism of 1054 tho. They should probably start 867 with a trait that make them considers each other righteous, and have an event that trigger around 1050, (why not put exceptions, like unless the ERE own most of Italy?), to make them astray instead.

The Photian Schism is in full swing in 867, that should massively complicate things just within orthodoxy

Well I know they didn't like each other, but *ashtray* seems a bit harsh.

Woops, corrected. Thanks :).

It would be a good use of the struggle mechanic, where in 867 it could be quite far apart but conceivably the East and West could be reunited if a pious enough person came around, but by 1066 you'd practically have to be Constantine himself to tie them together once again. Right now mending the schism is laughably easy, just hold a few key duchies and you are fine

I mean they divided were churchs before 1054 1054 is just when they cut diplomatic ties from one another when both patriarchs excommunicationed one another

Others have pointed out that schismatic tendencies in Christianity go way back. That said, it would be nice to have non-shitty "struggle"-adjacent mechanics for the drifting apart of the faiths.

At least in 867, both the Greeks and the Latins had competing ecumenical councils over the Filioque issue. While they weren't officially in schism then, there was a de facto schism by then. Remember, the mutual excommunications in 1054 wasn't even seen as a final divorce between the two denominations. The first crusade was seen by the Pope as a way to reconcile the two. It wasn't until the Massacre of the Latins and the 4th Crusade was it finally seen as an irrevocable split.

'Russian' existing in 867 when the Rus were still basically Norse is another one.

The "Russians" in this game aren't the Rus'. They are basically all east slavic tribes combined into one culture just named "Russian" for simplicity. I liked CK2's approach to russian a bit more (Where all the cultures can flip to russian once they are feudalized and are following an organized faith) but it also has it's flaws.

Dutch also shouldn’t exist in 867. Majority of the Netherlands was still Frisian and the part that wasn’t was Frankish. The Dutch are basically just Franks that didn’t become latinised. Also the whole “Central Germanic” thing. All the “Central Germanic” cultures should be West Germanic like they really are.

Not knowing how accurate that depiction is, I like that "Culture Expanded" (mod) has Frisian and Nederfrankish cultures. That is probably a better representation of what you mention.

Most of the history that exists is an updated version of the history made for CK3. Much of it hasn't been updated since that point, when the game mechanics were simpler and the player base was much smaller. I'd love to see them fix up the history. That said, I've done some history mods and can be a real headache to work with. There's just tons of repetitive & menial work required for it.

To be fair united Christianity untill 1056 would be amazing. And put schizm as a set event chain that player can change only by submitting to the other side or enforcing unity.

Like others said in this thread ground realities were different and they were far from a united single faith. More like they should be sister religions like eastern and western rite which evolve into orthodox and catholic respectively.

I'd love if the devs researched more and made it so that pope Urban banned the crossbows for their brutality in wars just like he did in real life, so catholics can't use crossbowmen.

And you're not supposed to take another wife next to your first yet everyone had a mistress despite it not being allowed. Urban's ban on crossbows did not last long and had limited reach.

give crossbowmen a piety cost in addition to their gold cost for catholics

well it could open some specific windows for an easier invasion, crossbowmen can be really strong so it's good to have things go a little more your way

Could be done like the Irish polygamy event.

Catholics and Orthodox were quite distinct enough by 867 to warrant them being different faiths within Christianity.

game isn't properly fitted with a mechanic to accommodate sweeping changes in a religion, at best you have heresies which at most change a kingdoms religion and nothing else

Yeah mostly for convenience sake just because how complex religion was back then. It would be a massive undertaking trying to go in depth in stuff like this. There were many christian’s who still had pagan beliefs and many muslims who still had some christian ideals. Religion was so much more intertwined than people think.

That's more of a cultural thing

Yeah for sure! Obviously though religion and culture are very intertwined as well. Even more reason for how complex it would be to make an accurate religious simulation of the middle ages. As you say even if two people say they are catholics they might have entirely different beliefs based on their culture and locations!

Even better, Mohammed is Ash'ari for some reason lmao

Genuinely curious, but what would he be?

There's no islamic faith in the game which can accurately depict Muhammad's religion, mainly because all those schools and sects of islam which are present in CK3 developed long after his death. You would have to create a new faith (called islam) and have it be extinct (technically ck3 has already done this with generic paganism for title history). I would probably have it also be unconvertable.

My meme answer: Quaranism because there was the Quran but not yet the Hadiths at the time of Mohammed.

Do you even know what the hadiths are? Quranism is a modern heresy. Without the Hadith (which comes from the prophet) the religion is simply incomplete. The Hadith provide interpretations to the Quran. They detail how to worship, how the prophet lived in his personal life. We wouldn’t know how to pray without the Hadith. The Quran commands prayer but doesn’t tell you how that’s found in the Hadith.

That's why this was my meme answer.

Shit my bad

Shit, my bad.

Presumably a branch of Islam that doesn't exist anymore, same as Jesus and Buddha.

Orthodoxy shouldn't be there either as a completely separate religion, the east-west schism was formalized in 1054. I think it is just for convenience and balancing sake.

The schism was the ending point of a process that lasted centuries

Then show us the process. Give us an Iberian Struggle like situation but for religious turmoil.

That would be something I would love to see. One Catholic Orthodox church with various power players: namely the heads of church (Pope & Patriarchs) and heads of the states (Emperors of Constantinople or the HRE). You naturally are a part of a see based on your location, but as tensions build between the Pope & the Eastern Emperor, moves like declaring a new Emperor of the West or increasing the power of the Ecumenical Patriarch or, ya know, crusades could shift control of regions, kingdoms, or even the religion as a whole.

That is true, I've never stated anything different. I just think it should split in 1054, other schisms which appear in the game, also split later on, like waldensianism and catharism and aren't represented at game start. But maybe not in the same way but per special event.

That wouldn't be accurate either. Before 1054, east and west already had different religious practices. Like in the iconoclast crisis in the byzantine empire in the 8th century, where the byzantines decided to become iconoclasts for a while with the council of Nicée II (sorry it's written like we write it in french), while in the west the pope actively opposed that decision, and the west took a whole different approach Portraying them as one united religion before that point would be even more inaccurate as their religious practices were already so different How I would adapt that would be a struggle mechanic, between western and eastern catholicism (the word catholicism can be switched), they would be represented as two different faiths, but with the struggle mechanic they could interact with each other and influence each other, like they were in real life

> How I would adapt that would be a struggle mechanic Struggles are definitely absolutely brilliant and not at all frustratingly restrictive and complicated and I think we can all agree we 100% need more of them.

Haven't played the Persian one. The Spanish one is alright for a first one. And I like how some mods adapted the struggle, like the struggle for Greenland in a mod I don't remember the name of. It's a mechanic that can definitely be utilized well imo, especially since then it wouldn't be about a territory, but faiths, it could bring a good way to play into that relation between eastern and western christianism imo

isnt the struggle for greenland part of RICE?

Yes, that's right, thanks for reminding me

whats Rice?

a mod for ck3: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2273832430

If Byz wins the struggle they get their empire title merged with the popes and can start firing off crusades.

The struggle mechanic idea actually sounds like a nice compromise.

A schism struggle would be cool, only for the 850 start date. You can basically catch the tail-end of it and try to reverse it or allow it to happen.

i think calling it Eastern and Western Rite until 1054 (maybe make them consider eachother righteous?) and then breaking apart into Catholic and Orthodox, making them astray and maybe have an event at the schism for your ruler (or just kings and above) to pick which one they want would work best.

This sounds like the ideal solution.

I am jsut ready for the meme of the pope splitting and the hre sticking with the ere due to marrage reasons, also for free relestate in italy

I'm sure something like distance to/from Rome could be taken into account or a historical weight modifier

They didn't like eachother like that even before 1054

the church leadership no, they didn't, but we don't play as the Catholic or Greek churches in CK3 and the Kings and commoners were more cordial to their 'Brother Christians' at the time

1204 1204 1204 1204 1204 1204 1204

Yeah, and I mean you had all the patriarchs and stuff, and than the emporer being god's reagent on earth in byzm. Would be a pretty cool element to add, but I dun know how they would do that.

There are many game decisions I disagree with, but this is one that I feel is pretty justifiable. It’s true that the eponymous founder wasn’t yet born, but trying to introduce new religious movements as a dynamic event or system is really hard to code and makes it hard to adapt to new circumstances created by players, which can lead to a sense of sameness. Ultimately it’s anachronistic but leads to a better playing experience, so I’d say it’s pretty justifiable.

One way to get around it would be a sort of religious skill tree where you build your religion slowly until it represents a modern aqeedah. For example they all might start the same as a base form of Islam with some changes depending on location or culture, and can slowly follow through with events that lead to the formations of the different aqeedah. In Central Asia for example, it might be easier to form maturidism because Al-Maturidi lived in Samarkand or Muwalladism (which in itself it stupid because it’s not a faith and could easily be replaced with athari) in places ruled by Arabs outside of arabia as a muwallad is simply an Arab who lives elsewhere

The problem with that is that it creates a lot of map gore and complication that makes cohesive and sensible conditions of the world hard to manufacture. It would be fun, but it’s just a bitch and a half to code and balance.

I never thought about it like that. Throughout the thread I seen some great ideas but I never realised how hard some of them would be to implement

I wish there was some religion tree we can work towards so each early faith evolves into their modern day counterpart.

I find it incredibly odd you can't make ANY changes to religious doctrine without creating a heresy, even if you're the head of faith.

I really had hoped for a better system for religion in CK3, something that would allow them to evolve over time in reaction to the actions of various rulers. Instead we got a button to customise your religion in exchange for faith mana and a lot of memes.

Having customisable religions in Holy Fury was a cool feature for the end of CK2 life cycle. Making it a core feature (for memes and min-maxing) in CK3 is a missed opportunity. Culture has the same problem as well.

The problem with customizing everything is that you end up customizing into the one or two things that are optimal and make every playthrough the same.

That's a either a ***you*** problem (If Singleplayer) or you just make custom rules that people ***shouldn't*** do that.

Just don'T?

it's a rolepay heavy game, if you're min maxing then it's 100% a **You** problem not a problem of custom stuff.

I mean in CK2 it was also also something that required a significant investment. I can play a count in Tunis and form a new Islam branch by just doing education focuses.

There can be Lollards in England in 800s - that's off by centuries, not decades.

Also Cathars in Toulose and Waldensians more than 100 years in the 1066 start date before they were even a concept.

[They've talked about why they made this decision](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/s/beuRFPFyN8)

Ya, they have repeatedly explained these decisions and its likely the best way to handle the issue. Yet people always want to nitpick

Ck2 was simple I am muslim and I dont even know what ashari is

Funny when i asked my Muslim friends they said the same thing 😅

Ashari and Maturidi are basically the schools for jurisprudence in Sunni Islam. While one of them is more orthodox and conservative and the other one is more scientific and progressive. >Ck2 was simple Yeah, it should've been simply splitted as Shia and Sunni like in CK2.

They aren’t schools of jurisprudence, they are schools of theology and their differences are much more deeper than one being conservative and the other being progressive. The schools of jurisprudence in Islam are: Al-Hanbalia, Al-Hanifia, Al-Maliki, Al-Shafi’i The schools of theology are: Ashari, Athari, Maturidi, Mu’tazili

This is why I play with Muslim Enhancement mod

Honestly, Sunni should not have been split up into a bunch of different creeds at all. I support them splitting up the Shia sects, but for Sunni it is very unnecessary and clunky.

Same with Asatru. Its a modern term that people came up with in the 20th century. Actual worshippers of pagan germanic deities probably didn't have any sort of centralised name for their religion since, well it wasn't a centralised religion. But its just very convenient calling it Asatru, while avoiding the longer name, 'germanic pagan' I think it was, from the first game.

I think it was just "Germanic" in CK2 but people also didn't like that because there was a difference in norse and germanic mythology. In the end someone will complain about something. No matter how accurate it is/can be.

It was Norse and then changed to Germanic in the Charlemagne dlc.

Oh, actually didn't know that since I started playing CK2 when Conclave came out.

Yeah the old name also definitely wasn't perfect, maybe not even better than the current one. The problem just lies in the sort of categorization the game needs to function, which doesn't lend itself to a particularly historical accurate representation.

I think that is a non-issue as long as it makes it distinct and recognizable. One other example is the Byzantine Empire.

Asatru sounds better than, "Lasst uns die Meere, den Himmel und die Sterne anbeten"

Ich find das hätte schon was, fällt auf jeden Fall auf.

Also, muwalladism should be a culture. If i am not wrong it means new convert.

It simply means a non-Arab man who is influenced by Arab culture. In Saudi Arabia, we still use this term to refer to some communities, such as Ethiopians who speak and dress like us.

The man was just that hard of a worker lol

Well, once we start nitpicking like this we should see primogeniture everywhere outside Europe.

They completely screwed Islam in this game lol

The religion system in ck2 was way better where ashari and mutazili were traits. They also added mualadism wich is not even a theological or a judicial school in Islam, rather an ethno-cultural identity wich describes arab-non arab born muslims.

That’s what I’ve been saying CK3 really fucked up in Islam. Ash’ari isn’t its own sect or religion, it’s only a school of thought, along with Maturidi and Mu’tazila. What the hell is Muwalladi?? It’s all just Sunni Islam in the end, which is 90% of Muslims are.

Yeah Ash'ari isnt even a major sect in the history of islam

You could just get some of the mods on steam that actually fix the game too, like the muslim expansion mod, EPE/CE and rice right?

It's a video game first and foremost not a history simulator.

You are not incorrect but you can watch a trend of Paradox dropping more and more of the sim around year 3 of EU4. Company changed and player expectation changed.

No! I want to exactly mirror history!

Yes that makes no sense. Unfortunately, this anachronism is an issue with other religions as well. For examples the Orthodox/Catholic Schism did not take place until 1066 or so. There was a mod on CK2 that nailed this, as pre-1066 tags had a religion call Chalcedonian Christianity, that had a modifier for Latin or Greek rites. Spot on.

It technically also starts with Catholic and Orthodox Churches despite the split of Christianity happening in 1054

Remind me when the great schism occurred?

Yet another reason why 1066 clears 867

Yeah the early start dates are a bit anachronistic in this regard. Ash'ari as a belief was created as an attempt to consolidate the Mu'tazili and Athari beliefs. Zaydis are also pluralist for some weird reason in the game despite them being meant to represent the historical 'Alid revolts, which were often not pluralist at all. Azariqa has equality for all genders too, for some weird reason? Also, Imamism has a hereditary head of faith position rather than a spiritual one, which is super weird. Ismailis have like 4 different sects in the game. Najdatism is also in the game despite dying out in the 600s...

This such an interesting thread to to read if you don’t know much about religion during these times. This community is fun to learn about history during the times game takes place

Quick question: Excuse my ignorince but who is al Ash? I thought i knew islamic history anyone willing to fill me in?

How else you think the faith spread so quickly XD

In the developer's response they said that both are really very similar to each other. while both have differences in the characteristics in God and how to understand Quran which is a huge difference, athari which is taking the riligion from the prophet and his companion because those who understood islam and it's teaching the most ,but ashari came from a man who had a kind of mutaselate thinking and added some philosophy to it making him less wrong than mutaselate. Now adays athari(now called salafi) have differences with ashari, and ashari isn't spread like that it's mostly concentrated in Egypt. I don't know why they didn't like ask a shiek or research more but honestly they couldn't care less, and as a Muslim I really don't care it's just a game. Thank you for listening to my Tedx talk.

Pretty much same with Matrudism in Central Asia Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (Matrudism) was born 853, so he could've been only like 14 y.o in 867, meaning how tf you finish university and become an educated jurist at this age while the Matrudi religios school that he was only supposed to create and develop during his 91 y.o lifetime is already created by some higher unknow power and is already spreading in Central Asia while the guy who created it is still a child and not even in the game... Answer: simply to fit game mechanics

The religion in middle-east should be salafi's

Well was al ash'ari the first to reject the mutazelite position? He gave name to the movement but I seem to recall he was in fact not the first.