Why Admin Gov Fails the Caliphate
I’ve previously argued that Islamic Caliphates need a distinct Caliphate Government, and one common response is that Administrative Government already represents it.
I agree that Administrative Government is much closer to classical Islamic Caliphates (like the Abbasids) than Clan Government, especially with mechanics like centralized authority, appointing and dismissing governors, bureaucracy, and political struggles over influence.
However, I don’t think it fully represents Islamic Caliphates. Administrative Government captures the bureaucratic side of the state, but not its religious legitimacy, dynastic politics, and the unique relationship between the Caliph, independent rulers, military elites, and religious institutions.
In other words, it captures how the state was administered, but not enough of what made a Caliphate politically and religiously unique.
Some important differences include:
Dynastic succession: Caliphates were generally hereditary within specific ruling families (such as the Abbasids or Umayyads), with the bay’ah often given to the designated heir during the ruler’s lifetime.
The Vizier: A powerful political figure who could effectively run the government and oversee the diwans. There is no real equivalent in the current system.
Religious legitimacy: While religious/sectarian purity or divine right is a major factor, the other political, institutional, and military aspects mentioned below are equally vital to how the state actually functioned.
Recognition of rulers: Even when the Caliph had little actual political power, regional rulers and sultans (such as the Seljuks) still sought his formal recognition and legitimacy.
Religious institutions: Scholars and judges could play an important role in the political and legal legitimacy of rulers, something that isn’t really represented.
Historical Dynastic and Ideological Rivalries for the Caliphate: This could feature deep claims and struggles for the Caliphate between different lineages claiming religious legitimacy—such as the Alids and the Umayyads—or competing caliphates entirely, mirroring historical realities like the Abbasids and the Umayyads of Cordoba.
Military Dominance and Praetorian Guard: In many Islamic eras, rulers and caliphs often became figureheads dominated by military elites soldiers (Mamluks/Turks), or warlords who could depose or enthrone leaders at will—a dynamic distinct from standard bureaucratic reshuffling.
The Ulema and Moral Authority: Religious scholars and judges held immense moral and legal influence over the populace. Their recognition (or denial) of a ruler’s legitimacy could spark rebellions or legitimize regime changes, adding a crucial checks-and-balances layer missing in current mechanics.
The DIWAN GOVERNMENT mod already implements some of these ideas, and I think it’s a great step in the right direction. However, I still feel that there is a lot missing before it can fully represent the political structure of historical Islamic Caliphates.
So I’m curious what you think:
Do we really need a separate Caliphate Government, or could Administrative Government be expanded enough to represent it properly?
And if you could add new mechanics to a Caliphate system, what would you add?
