because unlike the house of wisdom, there are direct descriptions of such a battle happening, in such a date, in a certain location, with certain people and armies. meanwhile we don’t even know which building the house of wisdom could be referring to. we have multiple candidates, from multiple timelines in multiple places founded by different rulers that could possibly be the fabled house of wisdom, however none are certain. also, I don’t mind if you believe it exists, why not. it may very well have. its not something I feel is worth arguing.
So, in order for it to exist, it needs to have its place shown? You do realize that it was completely destroyed by the Mongol invasion, right? Historians always claim that it was entirely destroyed, not just partially. Just because it doesn’t have direct descriptions about its shape/architecture and exact location, doesn’t mean that it’s false. We could use that to deny the existence of library of Alexandria the same way. I don’t really think you know how historiography works. Anyhow, I wouldn’t mind an Abbasid campaign, but by expanding from their Abbasid-Byzantine wars to the Mamluks against the Crusader-Mongol alliance.
3 Likes
" Abbasid Governor of Sindh, Hisham (7 in office 768–773 AD) raided Kashmir, recaptured parts of Punjab from Karkota control, and launched naval raids against ports of Gujarat in 758 and 770 AD, which like other Abbasid Naval raids launched of 776 and 779 AD, gained no territory."
Source: Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia.
And let’s not forget the Aghlabid dynasty invasion of Sicily(The Aghlabid ruler was appointed by the Abbasid caliph Harun Al Rashid.) That’s besides the Mamluk sultanate, of course.
2 Likes
there is a lot more literature and records concerning the existence of the library of Alexandria than the the house of wisdom, but I welcome you to open a topic proving the existence of the house of wisdom once and for all. ill be cheering you on.
I guess border raids with no territory changes are campaign worthy events.
the conquest of Sicily does have potential though, and could be an interesting campaign if the Byzantines are included later. but again, this reinforces that as a launch civ with the current roster, it doesn’t have as much potential as other candidates.
2 Likes
I didn’t send the campaign against India to put it in the campaign, it was a reference for when you asked the guy for a proof of it or something. I agree that it’s not worth having in the campaign, but the rest is.
The Inquisition, whose trials were one of the most fair at the time? That Inquisition?
Cause the arab caliphs NEVER enslaved the people they invaded, right? You know, except for the Nubian, Ghanaian and Iberian peoples, plus the several Slavic slaves they bought from the Venetians. But hey who cares about them, heh?
5 Likes
radical new theory, it was their fault for not converting and obeying the most fair laws outlawing their religion, and they only have themselves to blame for not converting and sentenced to death or being exiled and leaving everything they owned behind. the inquisition was just doing them a favor really by making it easier to convert to the one true faith and making clear the penalties for not doing so.
ah yes, the mythical Ghanaian/Nubian/Slavic colonies of the Arab Caliphates, who like the Iberians had their faith and language outlawed, their cities razed and their entire populations put into plantations and mines to enrich their masters in Damascus at the cost of their own lives, homes, and culture.
clearly there are direct parallels between the Arab invasion of Iberia with the colonization of the new world, one could even say the Spanish and Portuguese actions there were directly influenced by the traumatic experience they had centuries earlier and were only doing to others what was done to them. so in a way it was all the Arabs fault that entire populations of Native American people were destroyed and had to be replaced with African slaves to continue stripping the land of its resources.
before your post I had never thought to compare a golden age starting in 912 with another starting 1492, but I guess I never bothered to think outside the box. while on this point, why do people keep talking about the Habsburg Armada when the Spanish Navy of the Second Republic ended up completely eclipsing it? or of the Portuguese Tercio when Brigada Mecanizada completely outclasses it in every way? why talk about the Siglo de Oro when 20th century Spain is so much richer and advanced with an even smaller time gap difference than between the Umayyad golden age?, you should make a post detailing your arguments further, it will be interesting to hear your thoughts on this topic.
meanwhile if you got anything to add about potential Abbasid campaign material, id love to know more about it here.
2 Likes
Go study some history, instead of reading pop-history, it might help.
7 Likes
Don’t bother the dude doesn’t know jack of what he’s talking about.
3 Likes
ah yes, the one word quote conveniently cutting off the “colonies” after mythical. also ignoring every other counterpoint and then spewing vague replies about pop culture and history.
I’ve gone ahead and read them, and could find no mention of the Arab caliphates conquering and setting up colonies in Sudan, Ghana or eastern Europe, in an imitation of the Spanish/Portuguese colonies in the new world. I also went ahead and searched on my own, and again there are no colonies or treasure fleets from those areas.
if you want draw parallels of the colonies of the new world with the Iberian Caliphate, make a case of how something half a millennium newer is better, or prove the existence of such colonies in Sudan, Ghana and Eastern Europe, and explain how the inquisition had the fairest trials feel free to open a topic on these subjects. this post is not about those things.
“They didn’t settle up colonies guys, so they didn’t take wealth from them!”
Literal brain-rot.
2 Likes
It would be nice if the civ name is just referred to as “Abassids” rather than “Abassid Dynasty” because it sounds more basic. Also, wouldn’t it be nice if the Camel Rider and the Imam were more of common units that would be used by civs that historically had them?
I suspect and other civs will have camel riders. The camel riders from this civ are unique because of the buff abilities they gives to near allies.
That’s the problem, it seems that no one really used camels in war as shown in Aoe2 and 4. They were used most times just as transportation and survival in the desert and rarely to fight on them, archers would usually dismount to shoot. So camels are in the game like that just because people expect camels being there, not because they actually were used that way. Making them more unique and used in lower numbers is like a midpoint, so cavalry is the more common mounted unit.
Use of camels warriors in early Arabs conquests (versus Sassanids for exemple), or use of berber auxiliaries (which used both camels and horses) were a thing. Funny trivia, Romans are probably the ones which widespread the most camels into improbable places.
Some Turkic warriors made some archery on Camels, they were singular cases, among the numerous people into “mongols empire”. So, an exception.
We don’t know so much (which is a benefit for a game, so they can freely use camels) about Ethiopians warfare, but they apparently used regiment of camels and elephants.
Probably camels could be referenced as Caravane guard regiment for Mali / Ghana.
So there is the debate of choice of civilizations, some would have been better camel users (maybe) than Abbasids. If the time-frame was earlier, maybe Rashidun used Camels too , I don’t know tbh ? (camels + Mubarizun (infantry or horsemen champion) sounds fun to me)
As some already said, a bunch of camels warriors / archers, were dismounted. Impossible to shoot anything without a special saddle, and depending the race of camel.
Why I am saying all of this : because even if Abbasids probably used some camels auxiliaries / mercenaries at some point, it’s definitly not emblematic of them. It’s why this over-focus looks so silly.
If they want to highlight Abbasids caliphate diversity, the mercenaries should be more diverse than only representing camels. Camels could be used for their imam/scholar, or a trade unit able to defend himself, or a doctor. But it’s more the gamey side of things. The core of abbasids army, were horsemen and turkic mounted archer.
If they wanted to highlight the Mamluk Sultanate (supposed to be encompassed into Abbasids dynasty from their page description) : It’s a fail. The famous “knights of Islam” : the mamluk horsemen pushed out of holy lands the franks, they were not camels (throwing scimitars)
2 Likes
Abbasid Camels will not be a military unit you will build in numbers. It will be expensive. They will work mostly as buff units for the rest of the army. As the game developer mentioned in a video, the number of camels you see in the released videos will not be a practical action people will do in a real battle.
2 Likes
It’s propaganda spread from mouth to mouth by armchair historians. Part of the myth of the European “dark ages”, following the fall of the Roman empire, and which Catholicism is apparently responsible for. Because in this myth, it is also Islam the bringer of light to the barbarous wastes inhabited by Europeans. In reality, the economic collapse came much later than the fall of Rome, and no, it wasn’t the Inquisition, it was due to the Mediterranean being infested by muslim pirates, essentially cutting the umbilical cord of all coastal and nearby cities (which is why the focus of European history shifted from the south to the temporarily agrarian north)
4 Likes
Mubarizun only rode camels to march. They were heavy infantry.