FACTION: The Sultanate of Ghazni

[Strelac]

Very nice; looking even better in game.
If you didn't mention the mounts, I wouldn't even notice...it matters not all... it's probably just small oversight that other variation aren’t showing.

The lack of variation in mounts is due to a technical reason that currently I dont know how to fix. I dont think it matters much.

[Zephrelial]

Ghazni is getting some changes, namely the removal of the daylami infantry units from the roster, and the inclusion of a new heavy lancer, with a tier 5 spearman to be proud of.



More to follow.

Wohoo-Uh-Oh...Another masterpiece from Alpha..Freshly rendered from a historical book(that's the best part I like),nicely modeled,as a tailour is working on a new elegant dress.

These guys will surely crack a few heads with those maces.Brilliant work again Alpha...

[Yoda Twin]

Look great in game AD, its strange how all units look great in game.

[teh.frickin.pope]

They really are quite a fascinating group. Where in the West Ghulams or Mameluks were more of a very limited elite-of-elites, in Ghazni they had fielded up to 30,000 Ghulams total, some 4,000 to 6,000 of which were the esteemed Palace Guard of the Ghulams. Due to that sheer number, it's easy to suggest that their regular Ghulams were not of the same caliber of the core of elite slave-warriors in the West. But compare that 4,000 to 6,000 Palace Ghulams to Saladin's 500 Ghulams in his Invasion of Egypt.

Hey, if you guys are still not sure what to call the tier 5 spear/horse units, maybe palace ghulams would work?

[Ahiga]

Good idea. Might go with that name! Simple, sweet, and to the point.

[jermagon]

Ghaznivid Family Tree

Faction leader: Khusrau Malik,(Age:52),Spouse:Zumurud Khatun,(Age:49).

Faction Heir:Bahramshah Khusrau,(Age:30),Spouse:Mufeda,(Age:25)---Sebuktigin(Age:7),Rasheda (Age:10).

General: Massoud Khusrau,(Age:25),Spouse:Esmat(Age:23)----Mawdud(Age:5)

[jermagon]

The Ghaznivid Sultanate

[Miraj]

Thanks Jermagon!

One quick note: I believe its supposed to be "Bahramshah" instead of Burhamshah.

EDIT: Nice map!

[SwiftBlade]

just a question dont flame me!-

Will the ghaznavids have Elephants?
i do know that they used them probably due to indian influence
so will they be available to them *shield's his face*

[Ahiga]

Although the Ghazni did use elephants, their inclusion as part of their native roster would make things a bit lopsided at the moment [We had to cut two units of theirs - the tribesmen, now mercs, and assault daylami, now Khwarezmian I think, because their roster was too powerful]. However, Ghazni will be able to recruit elephant mercenaries. Perhaps in the future we can have they and the Ghorids be able to recruit them native-ly, but with far more expenses, and far less amount, than the Rajput's would have. For now they'll get them as mercenaries.

And no worries about flaming. :original: You can ask all the questions you wish to and we'll do our best to answer them.

[SwiftBlade]

thanks for the quick response.
i read that hey used elephnats in the Battle of Dandanaqan which is a lot years before the events of BC but i still thought that the ghaznavids probably used still used elephants.

[Miraj]

Yes, I also read that the Ghaznavids had elephants in Dandanaqan. The slow-moving nature of the Ghaznavid army was the key to their defeat at the hands of the swift Seljuks. (at least that what other sources mention)

Ghaznavids start of with a unit of Elephants at their capital. And the province of Ghazni features some unique Indian mercs (hindu archer, elephants, axemen cavalry) that have a slow refreshment rate - particularly the elephants. Not to forget that they are damned expensive.

[Kalos]

This faction is my dream faction. They look amazing.

[SwiftBlade]

well if the have Elephant Mercs its still good

i dont understand yet what side is 'supposed' to fight the hindus Ghazni Or The Ghorids?
they are both Afghan dynasties right?

[Ahiga]

well if the have Elephant Mercs its still good

i dont understand yet what side is 'supposed' to fight the hindus Ghazni Or The Ghorids?
they are both Afghan dynasties right?

For the Ghorids its a little ambiguous. What I read has them being a Native Afghan Dynasty, and I seem to think Muhammad Ghor was a Native Afghan Tribesmen (At this time they might not really be called Afghans.).

The Ghaznavids were however ruled by Turks, but heavily adopted Persian culture and influences, effectively becoming a Persianized Dynasty. I believe Mahmud came from the West, having served other Iranian Dynasties.

Of the two, both are supposed to fight the Hindus. Mahmud was known for a mix of tolerance (He had Hindus in his ranks, apparently one of his generals was Hindu) and intolerance (Smashing Hindu Temples and looting them). Mahmud also smashed the Ismaili Soomro (Native Pakistanis) or Arabs ruling Sindh at this time. For the Ghorids I don't know their deal. Unlike Mahmud, they were more fixated on permanent conquests and not just raids.

We basically chose to reflect two different styles with the Ghorids and Ghaznavids. The Ghazni are depicted as more cosmopolitan and less Jihadic, reflecting less of Mahmud and more of his successors and their cultural achievements. The Ghorids are depicted as more Tribally Turkish and Afghan and much more Jihadic, reflecting more of Muhammad of Ghor and less of the Sultanate of Delhi (Who succeeds Muhammad of Ghor, and seems to have a track record of negative and positive achievements).

It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely to me that you would or should ally with the Indians as either of those two Eastern Muslim Dynasties. About the only Muslim Dynasty I'd see as possibly allying with the Hindus would be the Soomro (Who are not included, but whom we may discuss in the future). It seems like Ismaili, or Shi'ites, were more ready to align with non-Muslims than Sunnis were.


In case my post was too long The summary is that the Ghazni and Ghorids both fought and never really allied with the Hindus. Ghazni represents a kingdom more culturally inclined than fixated on the Jihad, whereas Ghorid Ghulams are inclined towards rampant conquest and the Jihad. The former was on the decline, the latter was on the rise. It's up to the player to see how that unfolds, though.

[SwiftBlade]

I think one of these dynasties destroyed the other so is it unlikely the ghorids and ghaznavids ally with each other when ruled by the AI?

[AlphaDelta]

Historically the Ghorids destroyed the Ghaznavids. The Ghorids and Ghaznavids will most likely remain at peace until the borders of their empires press against one another, and the Ghorids have reached the Rajputs. Diplomacy isn't my area, and I'm not entirely sure what we can or will do to script relationships between factions.

Cheers

[Miraj]

@Swiftblade

We took certain historical liberties with these two factions for the sake of gameplay. Ghazni was in factuality on the decline and would be destroyed and replaced by the Ghorids by 1187.

We decided to go instead with a certain style. Ghorids are the "invader" faction that is perched right at the gateway to India. They start with two armies ready to pounce on the Punjab and then the rest of India. In fact they have no option but to invade India and move forward.

Ghazni represents its classical self with slow-moving armies and lots of heavy archers. Their function is that of a core competitor with the Khwarezm over the eastern persian heartland.

[Kalos]

Sweet, I love heavy archers. Another reason why it makes sense why these guys are my favorite I guess is because they aren't so Hordeofdoomrampagingdeath.

[Son of Mao]

does this faction have 3 horsed units now that there are no punjabi's