Ok, I’ve read the whole thread from the beggining, since the topic of a hypothethical sarracen split is one I enjoy a lot.
Until now, @Temudhun seems to be the only one with oppinions based on actual knodwledge of the history and geography of the arab world.
I’ve write a thread about this very same topic on reddit. I’ll just copy-paste it here. Inb4: Saracens should not be split.
Regarding a hypothetical Saracen split. A small essay. How should they be divided?
WARNING. WALL OF TEXT AHEAD
For a long time, specially here on Reddit, but also on the official forums, I’ve been reading proposals for a Saracen split of the kind like “Abbasid and Egyptians”. Or “Arabians and Mamluks” and I’m like “???”
Ok, I don’t want to come up as arrogant, but after reading some of these proposals, and given that studying islamic history is one of my favourite hobbies, I believe may view on the matter can give some insight.
Well, first of all, I think we all agree that now that Berbers exist (they didn’t when they game game out), Saracens are meant to represent, first the arab people, and then the nations/states with an arab ruling class, which embrace and develop arab material culture, and are integrated into the wider islamic civilization, even if the majority of the population is not arab in ethnicity .
So, for.example, Aghlabid Tunis, Idrisid Morroco, or al-Andalus, are encompassed within the Saracens civilization, even when their population consisted mostly of berbers and ibero-romans respectively. On the other hand, the Almoravid dinasty is berber in both people and ruling class, and thus fall under the Berbers civilization, even if their culture recieved lots of influence from the arab sphere.
As a second point I want to comment on the comparison between this hypothetical split and the Indian split, and clarify some things regarding the Saracens as a single civilization.
The Saracens umbrella is nowhere as wide and unappropiate as the old Indians civ was. Yes there were numerous states that rised and falled over a wide period of time, but at all times there was an underlying concept of a single islamic civilization, with a shared arab heritage, language and material culture. So, despite covering many regions and ruling over diverse peoples, the concept of a single arab civilization is not a wild and misconcieved concept, nor for real history nor for the game.
Then, before adressing myself the matter of the split I want to mention that naming an AoE2 civilization as “Abbasids”, “Ayubbids”, “Ummayads”, etc, that is, after specific dynasties or states, is something the game have always actively tried to avoid. Civilizations should be named after ethnic, cultural or geographical identities, that way they can cover a wide variety of states belonging to a same group of people.
Fine. All that said, let’s talk about how can we split the Saracens. My understanding of the medieval arab world makes me arrive to the following sub-groups of arab peoples that developed over the centuries and share, as I said before, a same heritage, cultural and ethnic ###################
-Syrians: For the arabs of the Levant and Palestine.
-Iraqis: For the arabs of Mesopotamia.
-Arabians/Bedouins: The original desert dwelling arabs from the Arabian Peninsula (except Yemen) and the Syrian desert.
-Yemenis: Arabs and related peoples from the mountanius region of Yemen.
-Egyptians: The group that most evolved along its history, but nevertheless centered on the Nile, sharing a geographic identity.
-Maghrebis: Arabs from North Africa, from Tunis to Morroco. Ruling over a majority Berber population.
-Andalusians: Arabs of al-Andalus, in Iberia.
Now, I’m not saying all of these must be added to the game as civilizations. Not at all. This is just an insight on how the medieval arab world can be understood in sub-groups.
If we want to split the Saracens, then all of these groups must be covered, or at least somewhat represented by the new civilizations. Otherwise we’re covering less peoples and states than before the split. That said let’s try to come up with some considerations to try to arrive to a reasonable number of civs to add.
First, Syrians and Iraqis can be grouped under a same civilization, this grouping relying on their shared mostly urban and cosmopolitan character and the fact that the region served as center of the mighty early caliphates. This civ would be called “Mashriqis”, in lack of a better term.
Then, yemenis are a pretty disctint arab group from bedouins, despite of geographical sharing the península with the nomad Bedouins. They were more of a mountain people than a desert one, and the landscape of Yemen is way more green and friendly to agricultural practices, with all that implies for the local culture. But despite of all of this, in terms of military conflicts, Yemen was for more of its history its own thing. Yemenis were fully integrated into the wider arab community, of course, but always doing their thing and paying homage to the big empire of the time. Never extending beyond their frontiers nor constantly resisting an invader force. Because of that, we can make the concession of making yemenis to be part of the Bedouins civ, despite not quite being Bedouins themselves. PD: Look up for the history of Yemen. It’s really intresting.
And that’s as far as I can get. Any other simplification would either be an unnappropiate grouping, or a direct omission of an arab sub-group.
All I wrote above leads to the following conclusion: If we want to split the Saracens “umbrella” into more civs to properly represent the richness and diversity of the medieval arab world, then we need at least 5 civilizations: Mashriqis, Egyptians, Bedouins, Maghrebis and Andalusians. None of these should be left aside. None of these should be grouped with another.
Now, in terms of (broadly speaking) what states would each one of these civilizations represent, we have:
Mashriqis: The caliphates centered on Iraq and Syria: Abbasid and Ummayads and the succesor states of the region, like the Hamdanids. Exercising power from urban centers.
Bedouins: The Rashidun Caliphate, Yemenis, and tribal Bedouin dynasties of mostly nomadic character: Uqaylids, Qarmatians, Numayrids, etc. Imamate of Oman as well.
Egyptians: Tulunids and Ikshidids. Mid to late Fatimids. Ayubbids and Mamluks.
Maghrebis: Idrisids, Aghlabids, Rustamids, Sicily, early Fatimids, and a long list of North African states.
Andalusians: Emirate and later Caliphate of Cordoba. First,
and some Second and Third Taifas Kingdoms. Emirate of Granada.
That would be my go to list.
All that said, as a enthusiast of arab culture and history, being the middle east my favourite region on the world, I say Saracens do not need to be split. Saracens is the best achieved umbrella (Yes, umbrellas civs sometimes are good). In a handful of bonuses they achieve to encompass the main characteristics of the arab civilization and represent the arab world as a whole without leving any particular group as unfit for the civ.
I’m not saying they must not be split. Just that they’re not a prioritiy by any means, given the amount of cultures and states still unrepresented in the game. Furthermore, we’re at 43 civs now, who knows how far are we going to get in terms of adding more and more civs? Adding 4 new civs for dividing a historically well designed civilization does not feel like the priority. Saracens can be split maybe after the 60th civ or so (I hope we never get to that point).
If anything they should be renamed to Arabs. Since this is the culture that Saracens represent. (inb4. Kurds are better represented by Persians). Saracens is an exonym used by europeans to refer to muslims and often arabs muslims specifically.
That was it. It was supposed to be a simple three paragraphs text. Things went out of control. Thanks for reading!
Tldr: Saracens should not be split, imo. But if they do, they should be into, at least, 5 civs: Mashriqis, Bedouins, Egyptians, Maghrebis and Andalusians.