Jewish superiority?
- Thread starter RealQi
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Dude, believe whatever you want. But don't post things like they are 100% fact, "proven" the Jews themselves never caused people to not like them by their own actions. Even though extremely different peoples decided to expel them, and the only similar factor was the Jews themselves.
Also, it seems many of you are thinking and referring to the modern "Jews" in game. If that is the case, I agree with you that any "sort of hostile" actions against the Jews should come with negative diplomacy modifiers. But there wasn't really a "Press" in the medieval days to be controlled.
I havent found the Randomly Generated Jews to be better on average than the Councillors I get to appoint from a Medium sized Kingdom, my guess is when your options are limited as a count they might come in well, but no more so that the eunuchs from the Merchant that has stories from Hindustan.
As for the Tech losses, I figure if I expelled any sizeable minorities Id lose the tech regardless of who they are.
As for the Tech losses, I figure if I expelled any sizeable minorities Id lose the tech regardless of who they are.
Temujin (Genghis Khan), Stalin, Mao, Christopher Columbus, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), Shaka Zulu, and Che Guevara are all individuals who are celebrated (by some) for their accomplishments and contributions, while they have been reviled (by many others) for their role in genocides and mass killings/murders.
For a small sampling of the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, these include:
- Inquisitions
- Crusades
- Forced conversion and murders of Pagans
- Pedophilia scandal
Of course the Catholic Church is an organization (not an individual). If you want to look at larger examples, you have Imperialist Europe, U.S. and Australian policies towards "indigenous" groups, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Communist China, depending on your position either Israel or the various Muslim countries/groups in the Middle East, etc.
It was disingenuous to give them a free pass afterwards. If anything, it creates a bad precedent that the *next time* you do something really bad, you'll just get forgiven just like last time.
I understand the concept of realpolitik, but all too often it results in an "ends justifies the means" situation. For 20th century examples, you have many Nazi officials who got a free pass because they agreed to help the Allies against the Soviets. During the Cold War era, numerous repressive regimes in Central/South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, who were propped up by the U.S. and Europe only because they were allied against the Soviets. China and Russia often get away with oppressive actions b/c no one wants to start something over it. Turkey gets a free pass (on genocide, and the occupation of Cyprus) b/c it is a NATO ally and secular. Different countries repeatedly look the other way when it comes to Israel, Palestine, and/or Middle Eastern countries (U.S. is biased towards Israel, lately Europe has been biased towards Palestine).
As an example from the First Crusade: Alexios asked the Pope for help. He wanted help (for the Byzantine Empire) against the Turks, and was looking for organized forces (not unruly hosts).
The Pope had complete control over his own speech, and how to present the Crusades. He could have:
1. Emphasized helping the ERE or reclaiming Anatolia instead of focusing on just Jerusalem
2. Mentioned a partnership with the Basileus in his speech
3. Been more selective about who (and how) to recruit (instead of the "EVERYONE who crusades, goes to heaven!!!")
4. Helped fight the increasing anti-Byzantine prejudice that was growing in the West
(Sarcasm) So you're saying that to save himself and Italy, he just sicced the Normans on the ERE instead? (/Sarcasm)
There was plenty the Pope could have done. Keeping them excommunicated would have been a start. Helping the ERE successor states retake their territory. NOT being so eager to share in the spoils of Venetian treachery.
Persecution of Pagans.
Persecution of Jews.
Persecution of Science.
Persecution of Heresies (including Protestantism).
Greed & Indulgences.
Snuffing out their own holy orders (Knights Templar) and their high martial event commanders (Joan of Arc).
Are you attacking the medieval church, or the modern church with your comments on pedophilia?
Your suggestions clearly indicate that you are woefully uninformed about the specifics of what you're referring to. The Venetians were singled out in that they were the only participants not to have their excommunication rescinded. Becuase, you know, they were behind the whole debacle. Further, the Pope specifically did order the Crusaders to render their assistance to the Byzantine Emperor on the way to the Holy Land. Again, the whole concept of an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land is just as valid a reason for the Crusade as the mission to assist Alexios. The Seljuks had cut off he pilgrimage trade, the Church had to do something about that. The Seljuks also were attacking the Byzantines, the Empire had to do something about that.
But hey, I'm sure all those Crusaders would have listened to the Pope if he told them that it was more important to secure the Anatolian highlands than it was to recapture Antioch and Jerusalem. Of course, given that the main problems that the Byzantines had with the Crusaders were when they were in Byzantine territory, perhaps that wouldn't have gone so well. Just maybe.
Finally, your (by your own admission) sarcastic response about the Normans again shows a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the situation. The Pope did not specifically say "Hey Normans, go attack the Turks instead of me." The Normans were having their own internal troubles, as they were prone to having, and Bohemond, Guiscard's bastard son, was of the opinion that he had a better chance at gaining his own land through a Crusade, rather than by fighting his own family for southern Italy. Can't blame the Pope for Bohemond (not that Bohemond, in particular, did anything wrong)
You'll have to show me where the Church was persecuting an intangible concept. Or are you referring to the conflict between the Church during the Renaissance and a few individuals such as Galileo? You couldn't possibly be referring to that, since you were specifically responding to a question about the medieval church, and it would be a complete non sequiter to introduce Galileo's personal problems with the Church into the mix. PS, beyond Galileo generally being a dick to the Pope when the official Church line was that Heliocentrism was one of multiple possibly correct theories, the Church was right, as far a the scientific method was concerned, since nobody at the time could adequately explain both the movement of the planets and the non-movement of the stars in one cohesive theory. Even Galileo knew this (ultimately, it was due to the simple fact that stellar parallax is so minute as to be undetectable by anything but modern instruments).
If you want to have a discussion about your problems with the Catholic Church in general, I can't think that this is the forum for it. If you want to have a discussion about the Medieval Catholic Church specifically, then you should keep your comments directed to that era. Finally, nobody has yet to show that the Church during that era was opposed to progress. Only that it wasn't as nice as people nowadays expect everyone to be. Get over it, thats human nature.
Last edited:
While the focus is on the "medieval church," other time periods (Renaissance, modern) aren't necessarily out of scope since it's the same entity/organization and time periods are arbitrary (it's not as if one day it was officially "Medieval Era" and the next day it was magically "Renaissance Era."
? Uh, the Venetian excommunications *were* lifted. They weren't rescinded when the other excommunications were. But they were eventually absolved.
This was a systemic issue with Venice, which the Pope(s) did a terrible job of resolving. For several centuries after the 4th Crusade, Venice constantly played both sides between the Catholic West and the Ottomans. Until the Ottoman-Venetian war over Cyprus, Venice consistently prioritized commercial interests over religious (Catholic) interests, despite numerous declamations from the Pope.
The issues that the Byzantines were having were that the Crusader were pillaging their controlled territory, abusing the populace, and then when taking over Muslim occupied cities (with Byzantine populations) were indiscriminately killing and terrorizing Orthodox Christians who just happened to look different. The problem was how the Crusader acted while in Byzantine territory (not the mere fact that they were in Byzantine territory).
Yes, I think Anatolia was more important because it was actually secure-able. Antioch and Jerusalem were too distant and too surrounded by hostile territory, to be able to be held for a long period of time. (And many Byzantine Emperors made terrible decisions by ignoring the Turkish threat and focusing on, for example, Antioch).
I feel like you are taking a lot of this personally for some reason.
I don't have any "problems" with the Catholic Church. I am being highly critical of it, sure. If you want, I can also be highly critical of the Orthodox Church (oppression of Hellenic paganism, crimes against Zoroastrianism), or Jewish governments (atrocities by old Jewish kingdoms or modern day Israel), or Muslim entities (Ottomans for example), or Zoroastrians (Persia), or Atheist governments (Soviet Union, Communist China). That doesn't mean I have a "problem" with any of them.
The Catholic Church did indeed oppose progress, often by labeling ideas it disagreed with (or viewed as threatening) as "heresy" and then persecuting them as such. Social progress regarding the distribution of wealth, social equality, abolishment of the feudal system, etc., was commonly categorized as "heresy."
Maybe the random Jew algorithm uses a similar methodology as the events which give you a free eunuch.
Occasionally I have gotten a eunuch with really good stats but most of the time, the eunuch only has average stats and sometimes he actually has really crappy stats. Maybe it's the same with random Jewish courtiers?
No, they didn't magically change, but they gradually did. The church of the Medieval Era is not the same as the church of the Renaissance Era, let alone the church of the Modern Era. Don't dispute that fact because one can't make a clear cut. That is not argument, it's an excuse.
You are probably right, it was. But that still doesn't mean that reasoning with the Crusaders would've actually bore fruit. As DominusNovus already said - albeit rather sarcastically - they would've never had listened to the Pope, as Anatolia is not the Holy Land.
In my most recent Zoro game, I got a 20 Spymaster and 20 Steward Jew almost right after I started, which is amazing! The last game I played, though - which was quite while ago - I had really crappy jewish courtiers.
"- Pedophilia scandal"
You were (and are) significantly more likely to have been abused by a pastor or rabbi than a priest.
The issue is that the catholic church claims a higher moral authority and the institution had the ability to do something about it, and chose not to.
You were (and are) significantly more likely to have been abused by a pastor or rabbi than a priest.
The issue is that the catholic church claims a higher moral authority and the institution had the ability to do something about it, and chose not to.
Last edited:
Citation pls.
EDIT:
I mean I can buy them being equal but why would a rabbi or a pastor be MORE likely to be a pedophile?
Because believe it or not celibate clergy are less prone to that kind of thing. Which I would guess is partly self selection and partly discipline by church authority.
Oh well maybe in the future put in a IMHO before you say something like that then.
The numbers are a fact. My explanation of them was the guess. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Celibacy may be harmful for most priests (probably it is?) but in does not in aggregate make them statistically more prone to abuse despite pop psychology.
And, again to be clear, I don't think this excuses the behavior of the catholic hierarchy in failing to prevent and later covering up abuse.
I'm not a catholic in case that wasn't obvious. I'm not religious at all.
Celibacy may be harmful for most priests (probably it is?) but in does not in aggregate make them statistically more prone to abuse despite pop psychology.
And, again to be clear, I don't think this excuses the behavior of the catholic hierarchy in failing to prevent and later covering up abuse.
I'm not a catholic in case that wasn't obvious. I'm not religious at all.
Closed, for idiotic derailing, discussion of paedophilia, crackpot conspiracy theories etc etc etc. Stick to game discussion, and if someone is trolling, PM mods to alert them, don't take time to announce to everyone that they are trolling, you only make things worse.
- Status