Inter-religious relations

[Olaus Petrus]

While I love CKII, I think that it simplifies relations between religious groups bit too much (also EUIII does this). Inter-religious relations weren't just holy wars, but there was actually friendly relations and even alliances between members of different religious groups. Here's some examples:

In Spain Taifa states were often allied with Christians against other Taifa states.

While Rus princes often fought against Steppe nations they also allied with Steppe leaders when it served their purposes and marriage alliances were relatively common with Turkic and later with Mongol chieftains.

Byzantines also have history of allying themselves with the Steppe tribes, for example during the Battle of Levounion (1091) they were allied with the Cumans against the Pechenegs.

Kingdom of Makuria (in Nubia) paid tax and had military alliance with the Fatimids.

Pagan Lithuanians formed alliances with Christian principalities, like Novgorod and Poland.

It eventually was a failure, but French actually tried to form an alliance with Il-Khanate against the Muslims. In alternative history that alliance might become reality.

I think that it should be possible to form such alliances, because currently it limits your options that you can't unite against common enemy, just because you don't share the same religion. Inter-religious alliances would be a really cool feature in Pagan DLC or in patch.

 

[Voy]

The Russian princes married cuman princesses to prevent the cumans from continuously raiding their lands. Also upon marriage the wives always converted to their husbands religion and this is the only way an alliance could be maintained. Also these kinds of alliances isn't impossible just a bit harder to do as there is a great mistrust between pagans and Christians.

 

[leksu]

It is possible to marry someone of a different religion and thus ally yourself with them, though.

 

[Zoston]

I do think Olaus has a point, right now the game doesn't differentiate enough between standard inter-religious relations and those between actual neighbouring states. Imo the game could do more to make clear that neighbours often worked together regardless of religious difference. For example, what about having an event where if you neighbour an independent state of a different religious group, you can get an event which gives you a 'tolerant' trait, which cancels out the religious differences opinion penalties, making it more common for both players and AI to ally with neighbouring states of different religions?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

It is possible to marry someone of a different religion and thus ally yourself with them, though.

Yes, it's possible to marry insignificant courtiers of different religion, but it's practically impossible to marry your sons to daughters or sisters of Turkic chieftains, because the penalty of being member of different religion is so huge, even if the dynastic alliance between kings would benefit both parties. AI rulers don't usually accept marriage of their relatives to members of other religion.

 

[unmerged(327823)]

The Russian princes married cuman princesses to prevent the cumans from continuously raiding their lands.

Yes ... and russian princes (well, some of them) honored their alliance with the Cumans against the Mongols just to prevent the Cumans from their raiding.

And another example — Harald Hardrade was mercenary in service and friend of great prince Yaroslav the Wise. He even married the Yaroslav's daughter, who became his queen. No conversions, I suppose.

Nice example already mentioned — possible alliance between IL-Khanate and Christians before battle of Ain Jalut. Well, some Christians (Armenians) actually aided the Mongols, and some (the Templars) aided Mamluks. And note — no Templar had married any Mamluk.

Maybe we need that diplomatically advanced rulers enable to forge advanced alliances without usual requirements, why not?

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Maybe we need that diplomatically advanced rulers enable to forge advanced alliances without usual requirements, why not?

It would be nice if competent ruler could forge unusual alliances, even with members of another religion. However one big problem is that not every alliance was marriage alliance and occasionally princes even allied themselves with republics and bishops. I don't know if there ever was marriage alliance between Makurian royal house and Fatimids, but they had an alliance with Egypt which lasted for centuries. Loyal Nubians even attacked against Saladin when Ayyubid dynasty took control of Egypt from Fatimids. In game you never see the close friendship between these dynasties and starting relations between Fatimid Caliph and Nubian King are negative, despite the fact that they were historical allies.

 

[arothuris]

Actually u would wed ur daughters or sisters to kings of another religion and get and alliance. I once had both RE, the 3 Scandanavian nations, and Rus as my allies, while playing Oghuz Turks. They won't let u take their female relatives though, possibly because it might give u a claim. U would only wed insufficient female courtiers if its from another religion. But yes, I think an advance diplomatic options are good to be added to the game. Really, u should be able to ally yourself with someone else without marriage.

 

[grumphie]

how about making synical a sort of tolerant rait, that basicly removes the INFIDEL! opinion modifier with non-zealots and allows for easier allying?

 

[Theddude]

how about making synical a sort of tolerant rait, that basicly removes the INFIDEL! opinion modifier with non-zealots and allows for easier allying?

I'm pretty sure not all rulers who formed alliances outside their religious group weren't necessarily all that tolerant. Some were probably even zealous, but I'm sure they could reason themselves into an alliance with infidels that would serve their cause.