Mediaeval warfare between Christians and Muslims wasn't as straightforward as the game sometimes makes it looks.
There were alliances with both Christians and Muslims on either side.
There were cross-religion vassalages (look at Antioch, Cilicia, Trebisond, even the Nikaian empire itself at one point had to provide troops to Rum against the Mongols).
There were Byzzies in Catholic crusades.
And there were Byzzies making separate peaces.
There were diplomatic deals, e.g. Kaiser Frederic II and Sultan Al-Kamil of Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kam...Malik_and_Frederick_II_Holy_Roman_Emperor.jpg
(Frederick recovered Jerusalem by treaty without taking it.)
There was some talk about the emirs of Egypt rebelling against the local regime and choosing their prisoner, the King of the Franks (Louis IX) to be their next sultan instead (there was a palace coup in Egypt during his captivity, and he supposedly talked to people about the possibility).
The Templars basically had their own practically sovereign diplomacy (and not necessarily the hawkish kind the Kingdom of Heaven film makes it look like).
The reasons for crusades were:
No warfare was necessary if none of the above four occurred. And perhaps without strict insistence on leaving Byzzies alone.
So here's my proposal:
More advanced solutions — perhaps available as highly advanced decisions on par with forming the HRE or mending the schism or restoring Old Rome — could include arrangements where:
While at it: Designating holy sites on a temple-barony level could make it possible for Christians to control the Church of Holy Sepulchre and Muslims to control the Dome of the Rock. Same county, one bishop and one sheikh/mullah/imam.
Depending on the arrangements and the balance of power, they could have the same liege or be independent, or perhaps the sheikh controlling the Dome of the Rock in c_Jerusalem could be a vassal of the Fatimids or the Abbassids. This could give rise to tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites for who gets the temple from the Christians. Likewise there could be some tension among Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite and other Christians. Not just cross-religion holy wars.
Any Muslim ruler bound by this sort of treaty would be immune to crusades unless and until he violated it. Or else the Christians would end up being truce breakers.
Truce breakers could become shunned by their own respective religions to a point of being fought against by rulers of both religions (allying up against individual troublemakers in the interest of keeping the big-picture peace).
Conditions could involve Diplomacy stat and Tolerance tech. This would actually make Tolerance tech somewhat useful.
***
Also BYZ should be allowed to have Muslim vassals. The balance of power was quite dynamic until the decline in 14th century, and individual sultanates did at times recognize the Basileus as their (nominal at least) liege. I suppose a hard-pressed Rum should have the option to bend knee and join BYZ as a king-level vassal mostly intact rather than being holy-warred out of existence over the course of several decades.
Perhaps the same situation could there be in Spain, where also the emirs often ended up being vassals of Christian kings, not that Christian lords weren't sometimes vassals of the emirs.
***
I would really appreciate this sort of thing after all the warfare I've done in the Levant, Egypt, Armenia, Spain, Africa and so on, often experiencing the feeling of being railroaded by the game into binary solutions (0/1, either or).
There were alliances with both Christians and Muslims on either side.
There were cross-religion vassalages (look at Antioch, Cilicia, Trebisond, even the Nikaian empire itself at one point had to provide troops to Rum against the Mongols).
There were Byzzies in Catholic crusades.
And there were Byzzies making separate peaces.
There were diplomatic deals, e.g. Kaiser Frederic II and Sultan Al-Kamil of Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kam...Malik_and_Frederick_II_Holy_Roman_Emperor.jpg
(Frederick recovered Jerusalem by treaty without taking it.)
There was some talk about the emirs of Egypt rebelling against the local regime and choosing their prisoner, the King of the Franks (Louis IX) to be their next sultan instead (there was a palace coup in Egypt during his captivity, and he supposedly talked to people about the possibility).
The Templars basically had their own practically sovereign diplomacy (and not necessarily the hawkish kind the Kingdom of Heaven film makes it look like).
The reasons for crusades were:
- attacks against Byzzies
- mistreatment/non-allowance of pilgrims
- attacks against churches
- oppression against local Christians
No warfare was necessary if none of the above four occurred. And perhaps without strict insistence on leaving Byzzies alone.
So here's my proposal:
- Access to pilgrims
This would affect moral authority at least for the religion gaining access (some %%, but less than for holy sites being held by someone Christian vassalized to a Muslim) - Non-prosecution/non-conversion of local Christians (1. your exact religion; 2. your broader group as a more advanced concession) — this would eliminate Demand Religious Conversion, free title revocation from Christians etc.
- Promise of no jihads, invasions or holy wars against Christians — this would make the Muslim ruler a truce-breaker, so it would basically be a truce negotiated at peace instead of ending a war
More advanced solutions — perhaps available as highly advanced decisions on par with forming the HRE or mending the schism or restoring Old Rome — could include arrangements where:
- arrangement where multiple religions have temples in Jerusalem (Damascus if Jews are involved), Antioch/Rome/Santiago (for the Christians, if controlled by Muslims) or Cairo/Cordoba (if held by Christians) or Mecca/Medina/Baghdad (in the unlikely case a Christian lord has conquered them)
- alliance against Mongols
- alliance with Mongols against the other party
- alliances versus truce-breakers, excommunications against them, option for their allies to refuse to join the war at 0 prestige cost (or prestige penalty for joining a truce-breaking war)
While at it: Designating holy sites on a temple-barony level could make it possible for Christians to control the Church of Holy Sepulchre and Muslims to control the Dome of the Rock. Same county, one bishop and one sheikh/mullah/imam.
Depending on the arrangements and the balance of power, they could have the same liege or be independent, or perhaps the sheikh controlling the Dome of the Rock in c_Jerusalem could be a vassal of the Fatimids or the Abbassids. This could give rise to tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites for who gets the temple from the Christians. Likewise there could be some tension among Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite and other Christians. Not just cross-religion holy wars.
Any Muslim ruler bound by this sort of treaty would be immune to crusades unless and until he violated it. Or else the Christians would end up being truce breakers.
Truce breakers could become shunned by their own respective religions to a point of being fought against by rulers of both religions (allying up against individual troublemakers in the interest of keeping the big-picture peace).
Conditions could involve Diplomacy stat and Tolerance tech. This would actually make Tolerance tech somewhat useful.
***
Also BYZ should be allowed to have Muslim vassals. The balance of power was quite dynamic until the decline in 14th century, and individual sultanates did at times recognize the Basileus as their (nominal at least) liege. I suppose a hard-pressed Rum should have the option to bend knee and join BYZ as a king-level vassal mostly intact rather than being holy-warred out of existence over the course of several decades.
Perhaps the same situation could there be in Spain, where also the emirs often ended up being vassals of Christian kings, not that Christian lords weren't sometimes vassals of the emirs.
***
I would really appreciate this sort of thing after all the warfare I've done in the Levant, Egypt, Armenia, Spain, Africa and so on, often experiencing the feeling of being railroaded by the game into binary solutions (0/1, either or).
Upvote
0
