Catholic Egypt

[unmerged(2456)]

The spread of Catholism iin general though seems too fast, especially in Egypt. In every game, not one exception of those 50, Egypt became catholic by c1150 and never converted back to islam. This is because Fatimids fall so easily to germany and others who attack them and none of the muslim neighbors want to attack those big nations as they are all tiny sheikdoms. I know historically Fatimids should fall about this time, but so also should Mameluks come into power, something the game doesn't do, so we end up with weak shiekdoms unable to beat up uber kingdoms and Egypt remains firmly in chrisitan hands in every game.

 

[unmerged(11677)]

I agree, I was actually quite dissappointed to see this when I first fired up the beta patch. Perhaps there could be something similar to the Mongol hord events (although not nearly as large) with Baybars, and the Mameluks taking Egypt. What I mean is that Mameluk warriors spawn in Egypt and attempt to take it from the Heathens and the Fatamids... maybe... or maybe I'm crazy...

 

[unmerged(44072)]

Really? In the game I'm currently playing, there are still plenty of muslims in Egypt at 1260, although North Africa in general is about half Christian. At their peak, the Muslims actually controlled southern Italy (including Rome), all of Spain and a good third of France. The major countries have not participated much in the crusades, which were led by me (Wales/Ireland), Scotland, Sweden and Denmark. Germany was too busy conquering Europe (they hold the titles Kingdom of France, Italy, Burgundy and have large areas of Russia and the Balkans as well. Byzantium has fallen apart. What A.I. aggressiveness are you using?

Historically, if Egypt had been conquered, it might have converted pretty quickly because there were large numbers of Christians present (as there still are today). One source I read suggested that Egypt was still predominantly Christian in the 10th century.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Then you truly do have a fluke magritte.

Its true there were plenty of chrisitans there, but not plenty of catholics. They were mostly those recognized in Southern Egypt as Orthodox (even though they aren't orthodox even). So converting to Catholism is as unlikely as converting to judaism.

 

[Lord Costabella]

Then you truly do have a fluke magritte.

Its true there were plenty of chrisitans there, but not plenty of catholics. They were mostly those recognized in Southern Egypt as Orthodox (even though they aren't orthodox even). So converting to Catholism is as unlikely as converting to judaism.

Actually, they were Catholic. He is referring to the 10th century, ie 901-1000AD and the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic Church gradually. Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence in 1472. So yes, the Christians at that time were all Catholic, as there was one Church. Heretics were rampant, and it is true that many heresies originated from this part of the world.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Actually, they were Catholic. He is referring to the 10th century, ie 901-1000AD and the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic Church gradually. Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence in 1472. So yes, the Christians at that time were all Catholic, as there was one Church. Heretics were rampant, and it is true that many heresies originated from this part of the world.

That was a major split only. Before this therw were numerous slinters in the church ever since they began creating dogma. FE one of the first such splinters was on whether Chrisitanity was a polytherstis or monothesistc religion.

 

[LordLeto]

There were multipul times where the churches of east(Constantinople) and west(Rome) were split so to speak. With the Pope excommunicated by the Patriarch and Patriarch by the Pope. There was acutally a constant struggle over who fell under whose jurisdiction. The Bulgarians used this to play of the Emperors in Constantinople via the Patriarch not wishing to lose them to Rome multipul times. At time the Patriarchs could hold considerable sway.

The final split was inevitable given the distances, subtile differnces had arose in the teaching of the religion in east and west, but strong enough to drive a wedge that lasts to this day. And while the final split may have occoured much later out of the games time frame the distinctions between the two churches were noticable and relations between Catholics and Orthodox were at times strained to put it lightly.

Not to metion that the majority of Christians in Egypt and the Holy Land wern't exactly orthodox in the east or even west sense. There was a perticular breed of christianity that was popular in the region that was at odds with that in Constantinople(former rulers), that and the generally leinent rule and comparitivly low tax burden allowed the Moslims realitivly easy rule of the area.

 

[TKaz84]

Actually, they were Catholic. He is referring to the 10th century, ie 901-1000AD and the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic Church gradually. Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence in 1472. So yes, the Christians at that time were all Catholic, as there was one Church. Heretics were rampant, and it is true that many heresies originated from this part of the world.

AFAIK the Coptic Church in Egypt predates the official break between East and West. Catholicism in the Middle East was never strong until the Crusaders came. And even after they did the local population much preferred whatever sect they followed over Catholicism anyway (the Crusaders treated non-Catholic Christians only marginally better than they treated Muslims). So I would agree that the spread of Catholicism in Egypt should be slow at best.

BTW is there the chance of religious conversion modified at all by province income? because the bigger and wealthier a city was, the more difficult it was to change the status quo in religious matters. If this is already the case then nevermind.

 

[LordLeto]

BTW is there the chance of religious conversion modified at all by province income? because the bigger and wealthier a city was, the more difficult it was to change the status quo in religious matters. If this is already the case then nevermind.

Not wealth persay, but techs can affect the spread, and higher tech advancement goes hand in hand with richer provinces generally.

Though those techs that directly effect the spread(the Religious Strengency line) are conpleatly unavialable to Moslims, Pagans, and Orthodox, preventing those provinces from being even more ripe for the picking.


Historical nitpicking and game rules aside I agree the spread of religion should be toned down. Could it be possible to attack a lenght of rule trigger to the events? So religious conversion events won't happen after a set amount of christian ownership.

Thinking about that probably not. o

 

[Garbon]

Yea if the Mams aren't included..then it almost seems to me that the Fatimids shouldn't be falling then. To keep regional boundaries correct and all.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

It's a game, who knows would Egypt fallen or not, if the First Crusade would have went for Alexandria instead? Christians are a bit too powerful, but that has little to do with Egypt specifically, they just most commonly end up there. Same with conversion events, there is no real reason for them to exclude Egypt.

Btw, while discussions about history and stuffs are interesting and all, it's preferable that they are important for the thread's context, since we do have a History forum too, which is the place for history discussions not really relevant for CK.

Thanks.

EDIT: Mamluks won't be spawning by event, neither will Ottomans or other groups except Mongols. Having Mamluks or Ottomans always pop up in certain area at certain time is directly conflicting with the goal of un-determinism that is key part of CK.

You can do mods to add them though.

 

[Damocles]

It's a game, who knows would Egypt fallen or not, if the First Crusade would have went for Alexandria instead? Christians are a bit too powerful, but that has little to do with Egypt specifically, they just most commonly end up there. Same with conversion events, there is no real reason for them to exclude Egypt.

Btw, while discussions about history and stuffs are interesting and all, it's preferable that they are important for the thread's context, since we do have a History forum too, which is the place for history discussions not really relevant for CK.

Thanks.

EDIT: Mamluks won't be spawning by event, neither will Ottomans or other groups except Mongols. Having Mamluks or Ottomans always pop up in certain area at certain time is directly conflicting with the goal of un-determinism that is key part of CK.

You can do mods to add them though.

The main problem is two-fold Bya.

The 'Crush This' event fires way too often. A seemingly strange event for a time in which religion was mostly static throughout the entire time frame with a few exceptions (where pagans are concerned, not so much between christian and muslim), and the religion of a province does not do anything anyways.

Secondly,

When a Christian kingdom goes to war, and conquer a province, they immediately make a vassal of it, so the muslims can't reconquer it. The muslims do the same on occassion to the Christians. THAT needs to be fixed for sure.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

The 'Crush This' event fires way too often. A seemingly strange event for a time in which religion was mostly static throughout the entire time frame with a few exceptions (where pagans are concerned, not so much between christian and muslim), and the religion of a province does not do anything anyways.

You mean the "Religious tensions are rising in your realm" events?

When a Christian kingdom goes to war, and conquer a province, they immediately make a vassal of it, so the muslims can't reconquer it. The muslims do the same on occassion to the Christians. THAT needs to be fixed for sure.

That's usually caused by AI allowing it's courtiers lead sieges, though afaik AI tends to declare war on those new vassals, it just seems poorer at actually capturing them back from vassals than the main enemy itself, but that's rather more to do with AI making stupid peaces with vassals in religious wars between two big realms (like Byzaz & Seljuks). So if AI becomes a little bit smarter, it hopefully fixes this problem without needing to change how things work, since that can make things even worse.

 

[Lord Costabella]

Off-topic

AFAIK the Coptic Church in Egypt predates the official break between East and West. Catholicism in the Middle East was never strong until the Crusaders came. And even after they did the local population much preferred whatever sect they followed over Catholicism anyway (the Crusaders treated non-Catholic Christians only marginally better than they treated Muslims). So I would agree that the spread of Catholicism in Egypt should be slow at best.

BTW is there the chance of religious conversion modified at all by province income? because the bigger and wealthier a city was, the more difficult it was to change the status quo in religious matters. If this is already the case then nevermind.

Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of churches established by the apostles. Currently, there are 24 different churches making up the Catholic or universal Church. The largest is of course the Latin Church or "Roman Catholic". Yes, the Coptic Church predates the official break because it was established early on by the apostles (not sure which one) which grants it perfect legitimacy to have its own rites and customs. As to the splits, there were always differences because as Catholicism spread, heresies would spring up. It is important to note that since Peter was the chief apostle, his See would have official authority. For those interested, you can read up on the early Fathers of the Church to see that St. Peter and his successors were always looked upon as the supreme authority or mediator in a dispute. The position of the pope is to maintain doctrinal purity. He merely keeps pure the teachings and revelation of Jesus. Contrary to popular thought, usually inspired by anti-Catholicism, the pope does not make up doctrine/dogma. He merely clarifies it and makes sure that doctrinal purity is maintained. Pope Benedict XVI is a good example of what the pope should be, the steward of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. While the master is away (Jesus), the steward makes sure the nothing happens to the lands or the people.

Just a little info.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Ok, just to sort out the religious discussion about Southern Egypt.

First off they're not actually Orthodox, those are Coptic Monophysite Copts and Nubians whom answer to the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria who's line in descendant of St. Mark and whom splitted from the ohter brach(es) of Christianity since the Council of Chalcedon. So technically, all Armenians, Copts etc. should be considered heretic Orthodox.

 

[Garbon]

It's a game, who knows would Egypt fallen or not, if the First Crusade would have went for Alexandria instead? Christians are a bit too powerful, but that has little to do with Egypt specifically, they just most commonly end up there. Same with conversion events, there is no real reason for them to exclude Egypt.

Btw, while discussions about history and stuffs are interesting and all, it's preferable that they are important for the thread's context, since we do have a History forum too, which is the place for history discussions not really relevant for CK.

Thanks.

EDIT: Mamluks won't be spawning by event, neither will Ottomans or other groups except Mongols. Having Mamluks or Ottomans always pop up in certain area at certain time is directly conflicting with the goal of un-determinism that is key part of CK.

You can do mods to add them though.

My point was that I don't think then that the Fatimids should be so prone to collapse as there isn't anything that could actually fill their power vacuum.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

My point was that I don't think then that the Fatimids should be so prone to collapse as there isn't anything that could actually fill their power vacuum.

Fatimid collapse during it's first ruler is quite historical, since he was quite horrible ruler. In game they collapse because he's quite over the demesne limit there, so he's encouraged to adopt gavelkin and then getting all kinds of bad events following.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

EDIT: Mamluks won't be spawning by event, neither will Ottomans or other groups except Mongols. Having Mamluks or Ottomans always pop up in certain area at certain time is directly conflicting with the goal of un-determinism that is key part of CK.

You can do mods to add them though.

What about relatively certain times instead of exact times and based on conditions?

The main problem is two-fold Bya.

The 'Crush This' event fires way too often. A seemingly strange event for a time in which religion was mostly static throughout the entire time frame with a few exceptions (where pagans are concerned, not so much between christian and muslim), and the religion of a province does not do anything anyways.

It does. Rarely does a year go by after 1075 without a crusade firing after one ends, unless the papacy fell and Rome is still in Christian hands.

Secondly,

When a Christian kingdom goes to war, and conquer a province, they immediately make a vassal of it, so the muslims can't reconquer it. The muslims do the same on occassion to the Christians. THAT needs to be fixed for sure.

This does affect things to an extent.

More to the point is the number of people with crusader. Everyone and their mom wants to be a crusader it seems.

Fatimid collapse during it's first ruler is quite historical, since he was quite horrible ruler. In game they collapse because he's quite over the demesne limit there, so he's encouraged to adopt gavelkin and then getting all kinds of bad events following.

Indeed, but since muslims can't create titles and can't give out vassalages, and Mamelukes won't form its just crying out "easy victory for chrisitans!"

 

[unmerged(21937)]

What about relatively certain times instead of exact times and based on conditions?

It would still be rather deterministic and those events would need significant troop events too, which would have large armies pop up from thin air, as to say.

Indeed, but since muslims can't create titles and can't give out vassalages, and Mamelukes won't form its just crying out "easy victory for chrisitans!"

I'd rather strenghten Fatimids a little bit. Besides, as a nitpick, it was Ayyubids that replaced Fatimids, not Mameluks.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

It would still be rather deterministic and those events would need significant troop events too, which would have large armies pop up from thin air, as to say.


I'd rather strenghten Fatimids a little bit. Besides, as a nitpick, it was Ayyubids that replaced Fatimids, not Mameluks.

They wouldn't need armies as much as they'd need some immediate boost to prestige. Perhaps medium-sized mercenary army, enough to keep a would-be ai nation from immeatly dowing them and annexing them right away.

As i said though, they'd need prestige more than armies to grab claims incase some fatimids were around.

The same could be done with other areas and might actually help solve the muslim-world-is-entirely-shiekdoms and all the downsides that entails.