• 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.
I'm very dissapointed at Raymond, really. That kind of things shouldn't be possible.

However, the key thing to remember (as you pointed out) is that Philip was only able to disenfranchise and slay the Templars once he had intervened in the papal succession, appointed a French pope and ensured that the Papacy was moved to Avignon. With the Holy Father as his pawn, it would have been much easier for Philip to attack an important Christian establishment like the Templars.

You're forgetting a key factor: Holy Land was lost, thus making the Templars useless.

BTW, I was rereading your Æthellan and it's a pitty how dead it does look. A shame.
 
It doesn't seem beyond the realm of belief that there would be some levels of infighting among the holy orders and their secular neighbors. While not being able to scold Raynond and watching him get away with it is certainly annoying. I actually find the ward system to be very helpful. Nothing like using daughters to serve as hostages to improve relations with unruly vassals.
 
Well, this AAR is fantastic. So fantastic, in fact, that I award it first Lord Strange Cookie of British Awesomeness to go to a CKII AAR (Though General_BT is about to get one)
 
Kurt_Steiner said:
You're forgetting a key factor: Holy Land was lost, thus making the Templars useless.
Key factor was that the Templars had many holdings across the Europe and the most of them were in France. Philip IV was also in their debt and the Templars were rumored to be fabulously wealthy. With a single blow the king of France was able to size all of their holdings in his realm and relieve the Crown (read: himself) of debt. I am not sure if he found large stockpiles of gold though. Sometimes rumors are just rumors. Lost of the Holy Land wasn't the first, nor the most important reason to their demise.

AlexanderPrimus said:
Granted Jerusalem should not have super-strong crown authority (it's no Angevin England after all), but under minimum crown authority, the realm is basically in chaos. It's like Ireland-type chaos. You can't even appoint army generals under minimum authority. You can't prevent internecine warfare until medium.
It's perfect! Remember that it was squabbling of nobles that led to destruction of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
Key factor was that the Templars had many holdings across the Europe and the most of them were in France. Philip IV was also in their debt and the Templars were rumored to be fabulously wealthy. With a single blow the king of France was able to size all of their holdings in his realm and relieve the Crown (read: himself) of debt. I am not sure if he found large stockpiles of gold though. Sometimes rumors are just rumors. Lost of the Holy Land wasn't the first, nor the most important reason to their demise.

Granted, but once the Holy Land was lost, the Military Orders lost their mission. The Hospitalliers had Cyprus and then Rhodes, the Teutonics Eastern Europe but the Temple had nothing. Had they become the main authority in Cyprus around 1302-1306 they may had had a fate similar to the Hospitallers. They had lost their purpose and their mission and were confused. Add to that that they hadn't the best man for the job -Jacques de Molay- and Phillip's greed and there you have its end.
 
RESPONSES

Dadarian: <head explodes> Catchy rhyme though. :D

loki100: A roller coaster ride -- that's a good way to put it.

Axe27: As I see it, there are two problems. First, Raymond is a powerful vassal who is preying on less powerful ones to make himself stronger. He's Sibylla's distant cousin, which means at some point he'll be in line for the crown. If he amasses enough power, he could be a real danger. Second, the Hospitallers provide me with vital troops that I need to survive. As far as I can tell, the only reason I can afford to recruit them is because they and the Templars are vassals of Jerusalem. Should that bond be broken, I imagine they would become frightfully expensive just like the Teutonic Knights. So I really can't afford for a disloyal vassal to run my biggest helpers out of town!

Kurt_Steiner: Me too. Re: Æthellan, I really do consider it to be some of my best work. I had plans to start it up again with CK2, provided a Saxon mod comes out that's accurate enough to properly tell the story. Or maybe I'll just write that story into a novel someday. :)

Estonianzulu: Oh, sure. I'd expect there to be infighting and backbiting. But internecine warfare on this level is beyond the pale. And you're right that I need to be able to scold Raymond.

Lord Strange: Thanks very much! I'm truly honored. As for the cookie itself, I'm not quite sure what to say besides... yum?

Holy.Death: The squabbling between the nobles' factions most certainly contributed to the fall of Jerusalem, but the primary cause of collapse was definitely Saladin's raging hordes. Again, I would expect the vassals to squabble, but internecine warfare on this level would not have been permitted. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was fully capable of organizing armies under crown-sponsored commanders and sending them out to fight the Muslims. Raymond really shouldn't have a leg to stand on - the Hospitallers were invested with their lands by the crown - Raymond shouldn't get a casus belli for an imagined de jure claim that he would not really have had.
 
Looks like Sibylla took power too soon. Baldwin should have changed the laws bfore he got the boot. You'll just have to hand over one of your Counties to the Hospitallers and perhaps one to the Teutonic Knights. I'm sure you'll soon have a few more counties to allocate.

Raymond's rather powerful already. Bet he's already plotting to become King.His spymaster is rather good. It is true that Raymond wasn't like that and would never have attacked any of the Holy orders.
 
Curse Raymond! Quite ridiculous how the game mechanics function in such a situation but it seems very likely he'll get his comeuppance at some point. Although hopefully it is revenge at the hands of Richard rather than the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir!
 
Chief Ragusa: For some reason, Baldwin wasn't able to get enough support from his vassals to change the law the second time around. But for some reason Sibylla was. I don't have enough counties to just keep parceling them out, and it's not as easy to take new lands as it was in CK1. It's certainly no picnic trying to rip off lands from Salah ad-Din. I tried giving a county to the Teutonic Order at one point, but they stayed independent and didn't become a vassal, meaning I had just given a county away. (Reload.) I assume they're already vassals to the HRE. You make a good point re: the real Raymond. That guy was much more shrewd and a lot less reckless than his in-game counterpart.

morningSIDEr: Indeed. It's going to be an interesting couple of years. :)
 
No create new vassal. Just free rein to unruly vassal driving away Holy orders pledged to defend the Holy Land. Just turn round and claim the Caliphate - bet that's out too. I think I'd have just revoked Raymond's titles and thrown him in jail, nothwithstanding the vassal loss of loyalty
 
Chief Ragusa: I'm trying to maintain a very tenuous position at the moment. I should specify, CK2's mechanisms unfortunately do not function like CK1's. So, for example I can't fight a holy war with Saladin or the Caliph while they're already fighting a Holy War with me. Claims have been really pared down. As for revoking Raymond's titles, there' no way to do it all at once. Every title I revoke from him costs -20 reputation with everyone else. I actually did test that out in my first playthrough. I started a massive civil war which I couldn't win and then got dogpiled by the Muslims who finished me off like vultures. So I thought I'd try the subtle approach.
 
Kind of figured you tested it out. If you're going to be subtle you may lose the throne to Raymond. He sure plans on winning the most prestige in the war against the Caliph. Raymond has the best part of a decade before the war with the Assassins can start again.

Raymond's got you seeking to claim lands he owns rather than new land to be won from the paynim. Good luck with the war.
 
Chief Ragusa: Oh, I don't know about that. ;) For one, Raymond's not at war with the Caliph. And it is definitely possible to both forge claims on Raymond's lands and attack the Muslims to take theirs. I don't need a claim to take Muslim lands, I can just launch a holy war. The only trouble is that my neighbors (the Seljuks, Ayyubids and Abbasids) are bigger than I am. I want to hit them when they're down, not when they're itching to fight.
 
True, you don't need claims on Muslim lands - but if you want to create instant Holy Order counties from a ducal title you have taken. Otherwise you get unwanted muslim vassals.

It does not surprise me that Raymond hasn't joined. He'll wait unrtil the Abbassid forces have poured out to attack the Kingdom of Jerusalem, position his troops and then launch his own war against the Caliphate. Raymond , King of Iraq has a certain ring to it, don't you think?
 
Chief Ragusa: For one, Raymond can't do anything militarily if I have all his troops mustered. And there's literally nothing he can do to the Caliph anyway. Al-Nasir has over three times the province count that Raymond does. If each province has 3 or 4 settlements, there's no way Raymond's piddly levees could hold up to the attrition involved. Not sure what you mean about "instant holy order counties from a taken duchy title." It's not possible to fabricate claims to duchies. You can only usurp them, and only then if you have 2/3 of the required territories.
 
It's not possible to fabricate claims to duchies. You can only usurp them, and only then if you have 2/3 of the required territories.

Not true, did it in my AAR. However, when you fabricate claims against a duke, you're more likely to get the county offered than the duchy (and duchies cost more).

You could create an antipope and excommunicate him...
 
Is it even possible to have rediculously spread out territories in CK2?

I know that in EU3 my Denmark owned all of coastal Europe, but is it possible to own Ireland, Sicily, the Holyland and Denmark at the same time in CK2? Well, and be stable.
 
naggy: Really? Interesting. I guess I figured it wasn't possible because my Chancellor had only ever managed to fabricate claims to a Duke's individual counties. Would love to fabricate a claim to a duchy. :D Don't want to create an antipope because I want the benefit of the main pope's crusades, and AFAIK anti-popes can't call crusades for some reason. :(

Dadarian: Yep, you can hold all kinds of crazy titles. That's why I was worried about somebody in Toulouse inheriting Raymond's lands in Tripoli and Tiberias. It's not exactly easy to be stable when you own a lot of kingdom titles, but I've seen it done. If Henry the Young King dies, then I might be adding the Angevin Empire to the Holy Land someday... ;)