Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why don't pagans have access to jews?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Crusader Kings II 69871 Bug Reports 19708 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
Halcyan said:
Well, many Christians still buy into the "Jews killed Jesus!" propaganda even though it was over 2000 years ago.

And as for Zoroastrians, it is still probably a stronger historic basis than for Christians, who persecuted Jews during the Spanish Inquisition and slaughtered them (and Muslims and Orthodox and Miaphysites) during the Crusades.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people still by into this crap.

Go read the actual writings produced around the time of the Crusades - leaving aside the nutjob contingent who started killing Jews (the Pope put a stop to that, irrc threatening people with excommunication in addition to the secular courts) the Crusades were not, by and large, a religious bloodbath - certainly not for Christian-on-Christian violence.

The actual reason that Christians and Muslims borrow money from Jews is that they have prohibitions against money-lending (as do Jews amongst themselves).

The Jews, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all united by their refusal to worship any other Gods - Pagans are all Polytheistic to one degree or another, they allow for variants in worship and Pantheon.

Essentially the first group say "Our God is the True God" whilst the second say "I do not worship your God - but that is because my God is better".

As to why Pagans don't get access to Jewish courtiers - it's because Jews are "atheists" in the Classical sense and their concept of a single "jealous" God would be considered as dangerous as the Muslim or Christian one.
 
SigurdStormhand said:
Go read the actual writings produced around the time of the Crusades - leaving aside the nutjob contingent who started killing Jews (the Pope put a stop to that, irrc threatening people with excommunication in addition to the secular courts) the Crusades were not, by and large, a religious bloodbath - certainly not for Christian-on-Christian violence.
Click to expand...

So the Fourth Crusade (against Orthodox Catholics) and the Albigensian Crusade (against Christian Cathars) and the Aragonese Crusade (against a Roman Catholic) was not Christian-on-Christian violence?

So rampant pillaging in East Roman territory, the Rhineland massacres of Jews during the First Crusade,the massacre of Christians after the siege of Antioch, and the massacre of Jews after taking Jerusalem - none of that happened?
 
Halcyan said:
Well, many Christians still buy into the "Jews killed Jesus!" propaganda even though it was over 2000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Oh that's cute.

So "many" is quantifiable is it? How much is "many?" I assume you have a source to back this up?
 
AllThat4Nothing said:
Oh that's cute.

So "many" is quantifiable is it? How much is "many?" I assume you have a source to back this up?
Click to expand...

Certainly not a majority but also not insignificant.

It is easy enough to find sources documenting the existence of Christian belief that Jews killed Jesus.

For example a quick Google search shows that:

Professor Martin I. Lockshin of the Centre for Jewish Studies at York University in Toronto has an article "Who Killed Jesus? A history of the belief that the Jews killed Jesus." writes that:

"But the belief that Jews killed Jesus has been found in Christian foundational literature from the earliest days of the Jesus movement, and would not be easily abandoned just because of historians' arguments."

"All four gospels suggest either implicitly or explicitly that because the Jews were not allowed to punish other Jews who were guilty of blasphemy, they had to prevail on the reluctant Romans to kill Jesus. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, is described as basically sympathetic to Jesus but unable to withstand the pressure from the Jews who demanded Jesus' execution. This idea is expressed most clearly in the gospel of John: "Pilate said, 'Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law.' The Jews replied, 'We are not permitted to put anyone to death'" (18:31). "

"In the writings of the Church Fathers, the authoritative Christian theologians after the New Testament period, this accusation appears with even more clarity and force. One of the Church Fathers, Justin Martyr (middle of the second century), explains to his Jewish interlocutor why the Jews have suffered exile and the destruction of their Temple: these "tribulations were justly imposed on you since you have murdered the Just One" (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 16). "


There is a Times of Israel article "26% of Americans believe Jews killed Jesus" dated November 1, 2013 that quotes:

"The percentage of respondents who believe that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus was 26 percent, down from 31 percent in 2011."

Is 26% cute enough for you?



Also, I was recently reading an article (unfortunately I don't recall the source) where a professor was musing about misconceptions his students have about the Bible. He recounts an anecdote where he asked his students "What religion were the Romans?" One of the students responded "the Romans killed Jesus, right?" to which he replied "Yes." And the response was "the Romans were Jewish!" :p
 
Yay for thread derailment!

To answer the original question: because the game has no way to model the migration of minority cultures. If banishing Jews resulted in the neighbor realm getting a welcome Jews event then we could potentially have Jews migrating to Nordic Iceland or Sri Lanka. That would allow for cool stuff like Gypsies/Roma migrations. Alas, Jews are just hardcoded, random, and arbitrarily wealthy.
 
SignedName said:
Pagans ought to get more events for different-religion courtiers- otherwise, how do you get Nestorian Mongols or Jewish Khazars?
Click to expand...

Well, THAT is quite settled, as you can get Shia Byzantium and Jewish HRE.

As for the OP, I've never found the jews being too immersive in CK. Just an ability to borrow some money and and trade some tech progress for some extra, plus some courtiers who rarely make any difference.
 
Halcyan said:
So the Fourth Crusade (against Orthodox Catholics) and the Albigensian Crusade (against Christian Cathars) and the Aragonese Crusade (against a Roman Catholic) was not Christian-on-Christian violence?

So rampant pillaging in East Roman territory, the Rhineland massacres of Jews during the First Crusade,the massacre of Christians after the siege of Antioch, and the massacre of Jews after taking Jerusalem - none of that happened?
Click to expand...

Pillaging, rampant and otherwise, was a general feature of war - laying that at the foot of the "Crusades" is childish. To answer your other points, the massacres against Jews were strenuously condemned by the church and are akin to the recent spate of Mosque bombings in Sweden, the Fourth Crusade was derailed by the former Emperor to attack Constantinople and was never "Against" Orthodox Christians, it's target was Jerusalem and it was considered a failure at the time. Indeed - the sack of Constantinople was a shameful embarrassment for all involved, including the Papacy. I just looked up the alleged Massacre of the Jews after the siege of Jerusalem, there's no real contemporary evidence it happened, only that the synagogue was burned and that the Jews fought beside the Muslims against the Christians (likely making them indistinguishable to the soldiers pillaging the city).

Cathars and Christian heretics are a somewhat different issue - as heresy was effectively an attack on the State as well as the Church heretics were often dealt with harshly. The Aragonse Crusade, likewise was not really a Crusade but a political conflict, a bloody and pointless one even though it seems the Pope was (legally) correct.

As to the idea that the "Jews killed Jesus" I'm afraid that's quite explicit in the Gospels, in the sense that the chief priests were the driving force behind his execution, which makes sense as he threatened their authority directly. For Medieval Christians the extant Jewish population were obviously the descendants of those who had refused to accept Jesus was the Messiah.

Now, as you may know, the punishment under Jewish Law for "False" prophets (which is what Jews even today believe Jesus was) was death. Ergo, according to Jewish Law those Jews who did not follow Jesus were required to kill him according to God's writ (as they saw it).

Even so, the vast majority of your medieval clerics were more sophisticated than you average American pastor in the Bible Belt and they were able to recognise this complicated situation on the one hand and to understand that the Jew next door had not actually, himself, killed Jesus.

That's not to say there wasn't plenty of prejudice, there certainly was, but it's not the same kind of thing as during the Renaissance and later.
 
To be honest I'm always have crush about people who can make statements about "the vast majority of your medieval clerics were more sophisticated than you average American pastor". Intellectual elites for medieval society was priests, but not all priests was intellectual elites. Average medieval English pastor could be more sophisticated that his flock, true; well, he could read. But average American pastor can read too.

There was very different positions with christian church about jews.
John Chrysostom condemned Jews hardly. Judensaus can be met in catholic churches. Main catholic teaching contained supersessionism. Somewhere there was local saints who were supposed to be killed by Jews, and this beliefs were supported by local clergy. Priests used to remind about Jews collective guilty (that Christ blood is on their hands - quite as it described in Gospels!). To denounce this belief Catholic Church needed 20th century.
And yes, there was "and another Catholic Church".
 
aono said:
To be honest I'm always have crush about people who can make statements about "the vast majority of your medieval clerics were more sophisticated than you average American pastor". Intellectual elites for medieval society was priests, but not all priests was intellectual elites. Average medieval English pastor could be more sophisticated that his flock, true; well, he could read. But average American pastor can read too.

There was very different positions with christian church about jews.
John Chrysostom condemned Jews hardly. Judensaus can be met in catholic churches. Main catholic teaching contained supersessionism. Somewhere there was local saints who were supposed to be killed by Jews, and this beliefs were supported by local clergy. Priests used to remind about Jews collective guilty (that Christ blood is on their hands - quite as it described in Gospels!). To denounce this belief Catholic Church needed 20th century.
And yes, there was "and another Catholic Church".
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, I have a really low opinion of the Bible Belt but you are correct that Ignorentia Sacerdotum (on the ignorance of priests) was issued by the Pope because many rural Vicars were, well, ignorant. So I'll amend my point to "the vast majority of medieval Abbots and Bishops" because the point is that the people in charge for most of the medieval period were much more enlightened than they were during the Renaissance.

For example, the burning of heretics was illegal in England until 1403 and that was because Archbishop Arundel was unable to deal with the Lollards in the traditional way (theological argument).
 
SigurdStormhand said:
I don't know why people still by into this crap.

Go read the actual writings produced around the time of the Crusades - leaving aside the nutjob contingent who started killing Jews (the Pope put a stop to that, irrc threatening people with excommunication in addition to the secular courts) the Crusades were not, by and large, a religious bloodbath - certainly not for Christian-on-Christian violence.

The actual reason that Christians and Muslims borrow money from Jews is that they have prohibitions against money-lending (as do Jews amongst themselves).

The Jews, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all united by their refusal to worship any other Gods - Pagans are all Polytheistic to one degree or another, they allow for variants in worship and Pantheon.

Essentially the first group say "Our God is the True God" whilst the second say "I do not worship your God - but that is because my God is better".

As to why Pagans don't get access to Jewish courtiers - it's because Jews are "atheists" in the Classical sense and their concept of a single "jealous" God would be considered as dangerous as the Muslim or Christian one.
Click to expand...

Your entire post does not make sense to me. The Crusades weren't religious bloodbaths? By what definition of the term do you figure? To which religion wasn't it a bloodbath?

The Christians and muslims borrow money from Jews because they have prohibitions against money-lending? How about they needed money and the Jews were willing to lend to non-Jews?

Both your lines regarding god should be attributed more to the Abrahamic religions. Most Pagans have worshiped their own gods for hundreds or thousands of years before they came into contact with the Christians. Their point of view should be more along the lines of "you have your god and we have ours". They aren't going to be as xenophobic as the Abrahamic religions. Whether they would allow Jews to live among them I wouldn't know. But I would think that the Jews would rather live among civilized heretics that they have a much better understanding of rather than live among barbarians. Perhaps after the reformation of the religion Jews should be allowed to join Pagan courts in the game.
 
SigurdStormhand said:
Well, to be honest, I have a really low opinion of the Bible Belt but you are correct that Ignorentia Sacerdotum (on the ignorance of priests) was issued by the Pope because many rural Vicars were, well, ignorant. So I'll amend my point to "the vast majority of medieval Abbots and Bishops" because the point is that the people in charge for most of the medieval period were much more enlightened than they were during the Renaissance.

For example, the burning of heretics was illegal in England until 1403 and that was because Archbishop Arundel was unable to deal with the Lollards in the traditional way (theological argument).
Click to expand...
Well, I believe you get into common trap. Not abbots and bishops became less enlightened, but their flock became more.
And, well, "the burning of heretics was illegal in England" - speaks good about England, not about church. France was less enlightened - Jacques de Molay is good example.
 
Fishy101 said:
Your entire post does not make sense to me. The Crusades weren't religious bloodbaths? By what definition of the term do you figure? To which religion wasn't it a bloodbath?

The Christians and muslims borrow money from Jews because they have prohibitions against money-lending? How about they needed money and the Jews were willing to lend to non-Jews?

Both your lines regarding god should be attributed more to the Abrahamic religions. Most Pagans have worshiped their own gods for hundreds or thousands of years before they came into contact with the Christians. Their point of view should be more along the lines of "you have your god and we have ours". They aren't going to be as xenophobic as the Abrahamic religions. Whether they would allow Jews to live among them I wouldn't know. But I would think that the Jews would rather live among civilized heretics that they have a much better understanding of rather than live among barbarians. Perhaps after the reformation of the religion Jews should be allowed to join Pagan courts in the game.
Click to expand...

As far as the Norse were concerned Odin was the most powerful God in the Nine Realsm, failure to worship Odin (as other Pagans failed to do) would be considered stupid and possibly unhealthy, denying the existence of Odin would be considered insane and dangerous, after all your own people might turn away from Odin and he would then visit his wrath upon your lands.

"Abrahamic" religions are not "xenophobic" that is an ethnic or cultural prejudice, they are atheistic, they believe in only one God, no other Gods exist, as opposed to Pagans who believe their Gods are better than other Gods.

As to Crusades not being "religious bloodbaths" my point, which I thought was obvious, was that bloodbath or no it had little to do with religion because all wars at the time tended towards bloodiness, especially after a siege.

The Jewish money lender thing is definitely because of the prohibition on Christians lending to other Christians etc. I've never seen anyone dispute that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back