OMG. Simply extraordinary.
This proves that there was no “Christian” vs “Muslim”. In reality there were POLITICAL forces, ECONOMIC and business interests, Christian and Muslim were allying with each other and converting from a religion to another.
2 Likes
Thank you for the clarification @AKM2953 , I appreciate it. I admit, AOE3’s timeline isn’t my best known portion of history (that would be AOE2’s timeline…) but I appreciate learning more about most areas of history in general.
It only proves I was wrong about the politics. I’ll willingly take the fall for that.
However, I do think you underestimate the power of religion as a driving force in those alliances… Shia Safavids vs. the Sunni Ottomans, the Catholic Maltese vs the Muslim Berbers, Anglican Britain vs Catholic Spain, etc. It was through convenience that there were hands held across the aisles so that they could use mutual might to smash their enemies, and religious divides were a helping hand in forming those politics.
To fix your statement, there weren’t just Christians vs Muslims. There were splits in both blocs that were in play as well, and the Mediterranean was just one theatre of it.
5 Likes
Absolutely, when looking through the individuals’ prisms, the lines between religions were more malleable than we could actually think. People would be inclined to change their religion for another through coercion or if significant materialistic gains could be made: that explains, for example, the number of renegades among the Barbary corsairs or at Ottoman service. Yet, if permissive laws were in place, people would just remain loyal to their religion: that is why most of the Ottoman Empire’s Christian populations remained as such.
On the State level however, that’d be another story: the Eastern Roman Basileus refused to convert to Catholicism, just as the Ottoman Sultan refused to convert to Christianism, even though they would have benefited from a Papal support for the former, and from the Pope’s recognition as the official hereditary of the Roman Empire for the latter.
Nonetheless, by erecting themselves as the sole Muslim rival (with the slight exception of Morocco) directly neighbouring and threatening Christian Europe, the Ottomans crystallized against themselves the Holy Leagues, a new version of the Crusading medieval movement. Wars against the Muslims would be, by the mid-14th c., against the Ottomans uniquely, hence the new nomenclature of ‘War against the Turks’ appearing in the different Holy Leagues.
The old Crusade theme would grow further obsolete, with the birth of modern state politics and the negotiations between Western European powers and the Ottomans, but its remainders would perdure up until the end of the Great Turkish War and the dismantlement of the Holy League in 1699.
Cheers mate, believe me I’ve kept reading here and there people wanting Moroccans for the Barbary corsairs whereas there were actually under Ottoman suzerainty: I jumped on the opportunity this time to clear up things!
But you actually pinpointed a much pertinent detail: Malta was indeed a haven for Christian European ships, where they could take refuge from these Ottoman raids. And the Knights of Saint John indeed in turn did not hesitate to assault Muslim ships when they could.
And you’re equally right later: the Ottoman v. Safavid clash was a confrontation between the Sunni v. Shi’ia champions. France and Russia later on would try to influence Ottoman internal politics by presenting themselves as protectors of the Empire’s Catholics and Orthodox respectively. The Protestant Anglo-Dutch alliance against the Catholic Spanish is another excellent example you gave: you said it, religion was a major asset that could be mobilized to fuel wars or alliances, even though it lost its importance with the rise of modern politics by the 16th c.
PS: if you’re writing on AoE2 history related stuff please post a link, I’d gladly read it!
Best,
3 Likes
Of course, Romania is very late for the period of the game (it recently became independent in 1878)…
Of course, that would be good… although the issue of Afghanistan would not be a polemic?..
Morocco would not be a Mediterranean civ, but rather Atlantic like Spain and Portugal, since it is further west of the Strait of Gibrarltar that separates the Atlantic from the Mediterranean…maybe it will arrive at some point sooner or later…
Some of the available revolt options (like Hungary and Indonesia) didn’t get independence until after World War 1 or 2
They attempted revolt during AoE3’s time, so maybe that’s why they’re available
Call the Iranian+Omani expansion “Emperors of the Gulf” instead.
1 Like
Of course,Burma by Bayinnaung and the wars with Siam of the eighteenth century and with Great Britain in the nineteenth century (1510-1886), Siam for the same but in reverse (1584-1767) and Vietnam (for the players of aoe 1 although the Vietnamese do not have such beautiful memories of the Nguyen dynasty) (1802-1884)…
You say it for Morocco or for Oman?..
No, we want persia by 1) it was always present in the saga, even aoe online has Persians and 2) Persia was one of the great empires of the powder keg along with Ottomans and Mughals, with whom they fought for 300 years…
1 Like
What about Paraguay and Uruguay? They became the main theatres of the Paraguayan War in 1864-1870 
La Liga de los Pueblos Libres (Uruguay) puede ser toda una civ, pasa de edad con la opción de aliarse con Jesuitas, Charrúas, Guaraníes, Quilombos (tienen que agregar como semi civ) y su representante no puede ser otro que Artigas, con esa civ pueden agregar el uso de oficiales con auras que incrementen las estadísticas a los soldados adyacentes (igual que el mansabdar pero mejorado)
Paraguay como revolución de España e Italia va funcionar muy bien
1 Like
@Broscarmania Who are you replying, Donricardo?
Sorry folks, I had to leave…
That’s exactly why we want Iran, a giant of human history. “Age of Empires” without Persia is not Age of Empires anymore!
2 Likes
I am pretty sure Persia would be next stand alone DLC similar to Mexico. Because they always did one Civ DLC and major two civ DLC. And since Asia has been largely ignored since Asian Dynasty… I’d say it is high time we return to Asia by including fan favorite like how they included Italy in current DLC.
2 Likes
The two previous stand alones were post colonial states and former revolutions, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we got for instance Brazil next and then a Middle Eastern dlc with Persia and Oman.
1 Like
I think Persia and Middle East (or Afghanistan) will be the next full expansion
2 Likes