I think that CK3 should delete Jihad

[KoukuraAsahi]

First of all, Jihad does not simply equal to holy war. Many of the players (many of whom are Muslims) have already known that Jihad means striving and struggling in Arabic, and is far more than just fighting against infidels.
Secondly, Muslims can always spend 1000 piety to invade a whole kingdom, not to mention the Seljukids who can invade at no cost. Aside from those unreasonable CBs, the Caliph can also subjugate a Sunni Muslim once per lifetime! Think of 769 bookmark where players must deal with HUGE Abbasid empire, that's really a nightmare for Catholic counts and ERE. I believe that great holy war should become a privilege of Catholicism and Paganism, otherwise Muslim can use all kinds of CBs (as well as using Jizya tax to buy mercenaries), which is almost invincible.
Furthermore, the Caliphs never organized such a united invasion against the west throughout the medieval history. It is also very ridiculous that the Umayyads can even join the Jihad called by the Abbasids, regardless of the fact that latter is actually a usurper of the Umayyad Caliphate. But since I am not very good at middle east history, you are welcome and greatly appreciated if you can give such an example where the Caliph (not Saladin or other sultans) called for a great Jihad after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

it's to balance the game across the map. i've seen the mongol empire stretch to the pyrenees. what's wrong with that? it's CKIIworld.

i'm not a muslim but a few friends of mine are, and the word that sounds right to me is 'sacrifice' so i don't think there's anything wrong with the word. but that's just me.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

Furthermore, the Caliphs never organized such a united invasion against the west throughout the medieval history.

They did, twice. They just kept hitting a brick wall in Constantinople.

 

[Mackus]

They did, twice. They just kept hitting a brick wall in Constantinople.

Weren't both of those just ordinary invasions by unified empire? Caliphate hadn't collapsed yet.
This is just typical use of muslim_invasion CB, not great holy war equivalent.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The GHWs are an awful mechanic to begin with. Crusades can stay for obvious reasons (but should be reworked to be something coherent), and Muslims have invasion as mentioned. I don't see why there should need to be an equivalence with other religions, especially since a bunch of vanilla religions never had GHWs anyway (Orthodox, Nestorian etc.).

 

[famaouz]

They did, twice. They just kept hitting a brick wall in Constantinople.

They did not, those wars were not the equivalent of 'Crusades'. The caliph did not call any 'Jihad' to various Muslim leaders, they pretty much did the war themselves, which is the equivalent of 'Invasion' in-game.

 

[Rupmalya.K]

They did not, those wars were not the equivalent of 'Crusades'. The caliph did not call any 'Jihad' to various Muslim leaders, they pretty much did the war themselves, which is the equivalent of 'Invasion' in-game.

There were GHW called by caliphs.
Even my liberal Muslim friends agrees.
But I agree Jihad does not only mean holy war however neither do Crusades.

 

[IanReSc]

Since we get to tweak religions and heresies in CK3, what is stopping anyone from modifying ones religion to one that allows GHW?

I don't know what history actually has to say about this part, but it's not like the game could prevent you from implementing it.

 

[famaouz]

There were GHW called by caliphs.
Even my liberal Muslim friends agrees.
But I agree Jihad does not only mean holy war however neither do Crusades.

I'm referring to the two wars against Byzantine for Constantinople, I'm not against whether GHW in the game or not for religions other than Catholic.

 

[kviiri]

There were GHW called by caliphs.
Even my liberal Muslim friends agrees.
But I agree Jihad does not only mean holy war however neither do Crusades.

No one is disputing that a Caliph called wars that were great and (from their point of view) holy. But there is a fair case for reconsidering whether Islam needs to have a "crusade" symmetric to that of the Catholics.

 

[lazprune]

A good middleground would be to allow the Caliph to set up a "holy target" for wars. Launching war on those targets would cost much less piety.
Historically, the conquest of "Rome" (Byzantion) was a sacred goal for the Ummah. We could as well include the kingdom of Jerusalem and any other non-muslim realm established in the islamic land as examples of "holy targets".

 

[vandevere]

Fine. If that's allowed, though, there is something I would like to see. In CK2, Asturias can be hit by multiple different Holy Wars. We have the Emir of W, X, Y, and Z, each doing a separate Holy War for Asturias. But I, the player, even if I'm playing as Charlemagne, can only offer to join one Holy War at a time.

So, I join the Holy War against Emir W, and beat him. Meanwhile, the other three are whaling away at Asturias. Even if I cheat like a mother, one of the Emirs *Will* win, and Asturias will go poof.

If the devs are going to allow multiple different entities to go to war for the same target, any ally who wishes to help should have the option to "Join All"...

In short, if I want to, I should be able to join the wars against Emirs W,X,Y, and Z...

 

[DPS]

First of all, Jihad does not simply equal to holy war.

Maybe not in Arabic, but that's pretty much what it means in English.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

They did not, those wars were not the equivalent of 'Crusades'. The caliph did not call any 'Jihad' to various Muslim leaders, they pretty much did the war themselves, which is the equivalent of 'Invasion' in-game.

There really weren't "other" Muslim leaders at the time. The Caliphate *was* Islam.

 

[Kaiserjagen]

Jihad as a type of religious war of conquest was definitely a thing. The entire Byzantine\Arab front was in a state of war for hundreds of years. Complete with its own 'no man's land'. While only the Umayyads and earlier Caliphs made concrete efforts to conquer the empire, it was definitely an explicit political objective animated by ideas of religious war. This changed a bit in the Abbasid era where it became more of a type of ritualized raiding and a proving ground for young Muslim warriors, but this practice was still very much steeped in religious significance. This is clear because Muslims from around the Caliphate flocked to the "House of War" and important staging posts in Cilicia and Northern Syria to join the raids which were given legitimacy by the Caliph himself as religiously permissible.

The later period I'm less familiar with, but I'm sure various Muslim leaders used "jihad" in the sense of religious conquest when it suited their needs. Partially to justify war and partially to mimic the actions of their caliphal forebearers.

As far as it is represented in the game, I think it's fine as a sort of counter to Catholic crusades for Muslim characters. That said, I'm always down for more flavour and mechanics to make it play differently.

 

[famaouz]

There really weren't "other" Muslim leaders at the time. The Caliphate *was* Islam.

Exactly, that's why it's in-game-'Muslim Invasion', not Muslim equivalent of 'Crusade', i.e. 'Jihad'. In CK2, even if you unified all of Islam and then declare Jihad, your vassals can still join your call.

 

[Black Turtle]

The "crusades" weren't any more real than jihads were. It's just that in modern times we collectively think of them as a coherent thing. If Muslims did that too and called wars in the past with Christians as "jihads", then they'd probably be in the same position discussing the same dumb thing.

The reality is that there are no real "holy wars", people just go to war because that's what people do.

 

[guinea prince]

Ngl, I'm intrigued by the potential in removing crusade equivalents from non-crusading faiths.

If it's a question of balance, we have Catholic crusades for kingdom-sized titles. But if we don't let other religions have the same, that leaves us with... kingdom-sized subjugations, kingdom-sized prepared invasions, and so on. It wouldn't be "the entire coreligionist world unites with you to invade the heathens", but toss a few marriage and culture ties allies and a bevy of tributaries... Would probably have to tweak things to ensure those tributaries and allies are there, and probably nudge aggression to where we want these invasions to be, but we've got those counterparts to crusades already.

As for the crusades themselves staying relatively as is, I can be cool with that. Unlike Great Buddhist Holy Wars for x, crusades actually happened. But the events leading up to the historical crusades likely won't follow perfectly in any given game, so it firing as it does is cool.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Jihad does not simply equal to holy war

Similarly, crusades were situational, and every time different. Great Holy Wars are ahistorical in general (and sadly a popular fantasy among the alt right, hence the "deus vult" nonsense etc).

Muslims can always spend 1000 piety to invade a whole kingdom, not to mention the Seljukids who can invade at no cost

... in CK2. I don't think we know yet exactly how it works in CK3.

the Caliphs never organized such a united invasion against the west throughout the medieval history

But Jihad aren't necessarily organized, united invasions against "the west". In game, they can be quite different things. Due to the tendancy of muslim realms to blob, in the end it's usually one of the big muslim empires attacking either the ERE or Spain/France with their vassals. Or it can be desperate attempts to reclaim collectively lands invaded by christians.


I'm never been a fan of great holy wars before holy fury and the cool new crusade window, which feels more like a big quest, and I would like to see something like that in CK3 - expanded to other faiths and other types of quests. GHW are very gamey elements anyway, so they should probably be more about fun than historicity. I don't think I would like scripted crusades in a CK game, and GHW are a good opportunity for fun character building, unique melting pots and other stuff like this.

 

[Achab]

First of all, Jihad does not simply equal to holy war. Many of the players (many of whom are Muslims) have already known that Jihad means striving and struggling in Arabic, and is far more than just fighting against infidels.

But it means "fighting against infidels by sword" and that meaning was vastly prevalent in the CK timeframe. "Crusade" today also doesnt always mean "armed struggle for the cross" .... should we consider dropping the "C" from the "CK"?