Intermarriage across religious groups should be allowed under some circumstances, though not encouraged. IIRC Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, though the opposite is not true, but under current canon law "mixed marriages" are allowable, provided the children are raised Christian (I don't know if that was the case in the medieval era). But there were some cases of Christian noblewomen marrying Muslim men for diplomatic reasons. I seem to remember one of the early Ottoman sultans marrying a Byzantine princess--and claiming the right of succession for his children to the Byzantine throne, while many Ottoman sultans married enslaved Christian women, but that is a different case (or a rare event--your daughter is captured in a raid and becomes a wife to a Muslim ruler...).
Please don't start discussions about genocide or other massacres (even if you want to be sarcastic).
Posts have been deleted.
The problems with crusader states in CK1 was:
1. Sometimes muslims would inherit the thrones of christian crusader-states.
2. Nearly every courtier had an european firstname and an arabic surname.
3. Children and fosterlings could inherit the grandmaster throne of the templar-orders.
4. Sometimes strange things would happen like the Templar Order became a vassal of Egypt, and the grandmaster converted to islam.
5. Many crusader-states declared independence from their lieges wich resulted in their fall over and over again.
Very nice thread, lots of info about anti-popes and heresies, and obviously we know Christians and Pagans/Muslims wont get along all too well
But there's little info on Catholic/Orthodox relations. Is it possible to end this "mega" schism too? If Orthodoxy reigns supreme, would it be able to call Crusades then? If Catholism sudues the Patriach(s) does it gain alot of moral authority or some such? I figured since EU3 had ways to end the schism, it may exist here too
In CK1, I have simply inherited the Byzantine Empire (Charlemagne and Robert Guiscard both came to this conclusion but neither succeeded in their schemes of course) and over time created an empire stretching from the Atlantic to the River Jordan. That is one approach. Then there is politically dominating the old area of the Roman Empire, and calling a general council like Constantine did at Nicaea or Carlos V would do much later at Trent, in both cases powerful secular lords demanding that the tenets of the faith of their people be set to paper. I think that it would make a nice mod idea, unless the devs have something planned (and they have been silent on the issue thus far). But it should not be out of the question if that is something that modders want in their games.
I'm guessing, at the very worse, it will at least be technically possible to conquer and convert every Orthodox province to Catholicism manually. Not the most elegant way to end the Schism, but probably doable?
Do we know if we have the power to order vassals to use missionaries in their domains to convert heretics, or is there a chance such a thing can only be ordered in your demesne, severely limiting the feasibility of mass conversions? (This may be a noob question, as Im a bit of a CK noob)
But in mega-events like ending the schism, it might be possible to convert a province immediately by event. I have done it in EU3, modifying protestant reformation mechanics. So say that you bring Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians into the same fold, it might be possible to create an event changing the religion of every province in your domains with the religious tag "orthodox" and "catholic" to something else, like "christian." But that is a philosophical thing, because if you do that you are saying that the main division was in fact largely political rather than cultural or something else, which is a much simplified view of my stance on the issue: i.e., what separates an Orthodox Christian from a Roman Catholic is whether the mass is held in Latin or Greek and whether religious authorities look to St. Peter's or Hagia Sophia for direction. But rulers did pursue such policies because religion tended to unite the people under their rule together even if language, customs, and laws did not. So in terms of game mechanics it should be possible, but there are members of this forum who would say doing so would be ridiculous.
As for having pagans in Scandinavia, I imagine the real conversion doesn't happen overnight for all the population of the region and quite often baptism doesn't actually suggest that those baptized are going to stick to Christian ways and venerate the crucifix. My uneducated guess (considering some vague remarks on Teutonic and Syrian/Egyptian faring) suggests the span around two hundred years during which you have slow atrophy of the old habits (or a reaction in form of a revolt from representatives of an established religion / conservatives) superceded with superstitious rabble (comet sighted - the end is nigh! and stone the sorceror meanwhile! events). Until finally you get popular piety. (Which might bring you religious fervor, resistance towards missionaries for a generation or two and maybe an increased chance to produce protestants or heresies under certain conditions. Like the level of literacy and education in the region/realm/kingdom.)
Thus imo Orthodoxy would have to fight its way in Ruthenian principalities as much as Catholicism is yet to in Scandinavia to reach this popular piety and loyalty. We see pagan uprisings in Novgorod in 1071, population of North-Eastern Rus is said to be quite hostile to the new religion etc.
So the question is if the game is concerned with the religion of the ruling elite of a certain region only? Does the rest of the population count? And if so, to which extent? Are there any ways to force baptism/suppress superstition/breed and impose puritanism or vice versa promote higher learning and Aristotelian pondering among nameless populace? Affect the frames of mind by certain policies towards certain orders or religious ideas? (And as for people effects in general. Can we see a rioting mob of Constantinople expelling (and effectively forcing embargo) Muslim or Venetian merchants giving CB to the offended? (: )
Will donating lands and giving gifts of gold to the church / building abbeys / decorating cathedrals etc have any effect on the standing of "pious" rulers? (Or at least those earning the "patron of the church" status through such actions.) Other than support of local bishops that is. Maybe popular support/some sort of "prestige" too?
Will Christian kings require comissions and bulls of the Pope to conquer pagans and claim the lands for their own? Will there be any ways to bargain conditions of these commissions? (Hungry Popes used to demand as much as 2/3 of the land to the see afaik. Which was later reduced to 1/3 in case of the Baltic.) For example. Let's say, a Danish king manages to get the "remission of sins" option attached to his certain war/crusade bull. I'd guess that should bring a bit more voluntarees (which he would maybe be able to recruit as cheap specific mercenaries?).
Finally, there were a number of princes and kings who bargained with Popes to legitimize their rule and/or request aid/protection by accepting Catholicism. From different Balkan princes swinging back and forth to the Ruthenian king Danylo of Galicia and Mindaugas. Would love to see options like that. And considering the number of Byzophiles here (and thus quite possibly a lot of powerful EREs in games), Catholic princes of Eastern Europe and Italy should sometimes consider switching to Orthodoxy in return for emperor's support and recognition.
Last edited by Konstantinos XV; 15-06-2011 at 04:24.
A very thoughtful and inspiring post. Here are my own little comments.
For both Muslims and Christians, the formal conversion was only the first step, in what could take generations. When could peasants be said to be "truly" Christian? By the French Revolution? At the same time, most people could be counted on to consider their personal version of Christianity to be the real thing, or at least as legitimate as any one else's. The Christian Church's claim to universality left a lot of room for local interpretations. Universities and schools might help spread orthodoxy, but it never really reached a consensus. The boundaries between the major faiths were rather clear. Spanish Christians knew what a Jew or Muslim was, even if they themselves could not recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments (Sarah T. Nalle has an interesting book addressing this, God in La Mancha). The content of their faith, like their ethnic identification, did not matter so much, but the boundaries are much easier to pick out (so in game terms, there should be less problem between say Catholics and Orthodox Christians than between either group and Muslims or Jews or Pagans, and moving from one Christian affiliation to another should be more a political issue, just as people sharing a cultural group should get along better than those outside of their cultural group as in EU3: i.e., Catalans, Occitains, and Provencals will find more in common than the members of either group would with a Frank or Low German--okay, just throwing out this idea, it's still debatable I know).
Nobles also retained their own particular ideas about God and how the universe worked; in some cases, people kept the old gods alive (even in a diminutive form; e.g., "the wee folk") in case the new ones did not prove adequate to their immediate needs. So I think that there needs to be a sort of measure of "religious flexibility" vs. "religious stringency," to sort out how much orthodoxy is being pushed, which could be related to the religion's moral authority and any ongoing reform movements. A policy of religious flexibility would require of the people regular church attendance, the paying of tithes, etc. while allowing a lot of room for non-Christian practices to exist quietly. A stringent religious policy would on the other hand put a lot of pressure on getting the kingdom in line with the religion's central authorities, in Catholic countries following papal bulls to the letter, enforcing clerical celibacy, strengthening the Inquisition. Heresy would be more readily apparent in countries with stringent religious policies, as an added bonus (or not).
Crusades were generally practiced informally by local leaders who had non-Christian neighbors. But if he wanted outside help, then it would help to have a papal crusade. For example, in Iberia war between Christians and Muslims was pretty constant if low in intensity between the eighth and eleventh centuries. At the end of the XI century, both Christian and Muslim rulers ramped up the religious content of their violence, with the pope actually making participation in the Iberian Reconquista equivalent in grace to going to the Holy Land, with the effect that many Frenchmen crossed the Pyrenees, and a cadet line of the House of Burgundy came to rule Castille, Leon, and Portugal.
In game terms, I agree that you should be able to get low-cost mercenaries bands of Crusaders to spawn in your capital, seeking glory and the forgiveness of their sins. Rulers should have ample opportunity to show their piety by commissioning religious architecture and artwork and move between the flavors of their own religion when it suits them, with marriage or vassalage a means of doing so: so, for example, the Normans of Sicily were wedged between the HRE and the ERE, so I could imagine Robert Guiscard making a decision on the matter. Historically, the King of Croatia appealed to Rome to counterbalance the ERE's aggression in his direction.