Are crusades and Jihads harder when the player is involved?

[Chunakun]

I am currently playing a custom game as a Occitan Catholic Byzantine Emperor 867 start. I took Egypt. Armenia was taken by one of the muslim Duke, after which a liberation revolt followed and the Kingdom of Armenia was established. After a while I married one of my sons the the Armenian King's daughter.

When the Jihads triggered the Caliph called a Jihad for Armenia. It was the Caliph versus the Armenian King, no other muslim ruler joined. The Armenian king was doing bad and was at -80% warscore after 2 years. Still no otherm uslim ruler joined the Caliph so I decided to form an alliance with the Armenian King and join his war.

All of a sudden a lot of other muslim rulers joined the Jihad and we got our asses kicked, me losing all of my retinues. I could have helped the Armenian King if the other muslim rulers had not joined.

So I am really wondering if Jihads and crusades are harder when the human player gets involved.

 

[kmh42]

I can't say for sure but in all my many hours of CKII I never come to the impression that my involvement changed the likely hood of other realms to join a crusade/jihad/GHW. Maybe the caliph who died was unpopular and was succeeded by a far more popular caliph?

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

I tend to see other parties not joining smaller holy wars when "their" side is winning, but only when they are loosing. I have several times tried to help a fellow religion member in a holy war, only for my involvement to be countered by other of the opposing side religion also joining. Perhaps something similar is happening with Jihads/crusades? If so it seem reasonable (as they dont want to waist good troops if the caliph is winning, but if he is loosing they might think it advisable).