The Abbasid Dynasty is a solid (if bugged) civ, there's no denying that. Yet, it seems that the Mamluk Sultanate period that they supposedly encompass alongside the Abbasid Caliphate itself is completely ignored gameplay wise: No "mamluk" units, the worst heavy cavalry in the game and an absurd focus on camel units that weren't actually a meaningful (if at all) part of any Arab army.
I don't even think a strong lancer would upset balance, as Abbasids are pretty much lacking any powerful cavalry unit, since the camel riders not only are bugged, but are only good against other cavalry and terrible against everything else. It seems kind of wasteful that so many cool unique techs are wasted on what's essentially a mounted spearmen (when the Abbasids already have the best spearmen in the game). I know "anti cavalry" is their thing, but they really don't need two versions of the same unit, specially when they counter and are countered by the exact same things.
I'm not even asking for a buff, they could easily nerf other thing to compensate, or find a non disruptive but flavorful way to include the Mamluk Sultanate aspect of the civ into the game, like in the form of a buff such as Boyar fortitude for the Rus. It just doesn't sit well with me that they represent an empire so notorious for their incredible heavy cavalry yet have the absolute worst knights in the game.
The Mamluks failed to fight Tunis and contest the Caliphate back in 1504. The current leader is
Sayf ad-Din Tumanbay, Al-Malik al-Ashraf of Egypt, Syria, the Hejaz, Custodian of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Medina, and Mecca. Rife with internal divisions, a continually weakening political climate, and a pretty horrible army, I will try my hand to make this hurt for my enemies before they take me.
In the little reading I've done, the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluk state (which reached as far as Diyarbekir in modern Turkey) is dealt with rather matter-of-factly. However, for such a massive state with a long-standing military tradition to just collapse is an odd occurence. What gives?
I'm not asking about the high ranking royal mamluks who would eventually become power players or rulers. I'm asking about the rank and file of the mamluk corps that often numbered above 10,000 at a time.
What was life like for them, were they treated as expensive slaves or did they still have a chance at social mobility and true social life?
How would the lives of those Christian (or otherwise non-Mulsim) boys go after they're sold in the faraway lands of Egypt and the Levant as slave soldiers?
Hi. Historically ottoman empire managed to annex the entire Mamluk sultanate in a single war and after becoming the new caliph of Islam. This of course, impossible with the current game mechanics of eu4. Aggressive expansion, overextension, war score cost, etc. So my discussion is, should it be possible for ottomans to do this in the game?
Here are some of my arguments in favor and against it.
Why ottomans should be able to annex mamluks in a single war like irl:
- Historical accuracy.
Pretty straightforward, this is what happened historically, and this is a history game so it should be a part of the game. The rapid expansion of Russia was impossible to emulate with normal colonization so they added a Siberian frontier mechanic, why not do a similar thing for the ottoman-mamluk war? Yes, it is strong but it is supposed to be. Those ages are the exact years ottomans were rising.
- Accuracy (for ai)
It takes almost half a century to annex mamluks in-game, it takes, even more, when ottomans are played by an ai who doesn't know how to minmax. As such it takes too long for ottomans to reach the north, Africa. For example in my last game ottomans almost reach the white sea while not even owning Tunus.
Why it shouldn't:
- This is still a game where we want to have fun.
Ottomans are strong and even the game itself recognizes them as such. If the player doesn't prevent them from conquering Constantinople they can be challenging as hell even for the most experienced players, especially in the early game (which this suggestion focuses on).
Being able to annex entire mamluks in a single war is a very serious buff, Egypt and Levant are one of the most developed regions at game start, even the paradox ai or a total beginner would be unstoppable. It definitely isn't comparable to Siberian frontiers as all of Siberia is just a few dozen of 3 dev provinces that look big on the map.
- Game can't emulate stagnation and decline of ottoman empire in later ages.
Game may not be doing a good job at the accurate rise of ottomans, but the same goes for the decline of ottomans. By that it balances out, they are weaker than they were in early game but they are stronger than they were in late game. By buffing the ottomans more in name of "accuracy" and doing absolutely nothing to slow down them in the late game(fewer pips on Anatolian units hardly matters when they have a 300k army) it just gets more inaccurate. Even now they almost always conquer Vienna.
- Game
So I was looking at random things on the internet and found the Ayyubid sultanate in Egypt (1171-1341) and then the Mamluk sultanate of Egypt (1250-1517) I wonder why these dates would collide as they had the same territory.
Don't look their flag up though
