.png){kind=avatar}
Just a quick thread posting on an issue that I have thought about. In CK1, you have the option of vassalizing or annexing the territory of religious enemies. Some convert really quickly to your religion, others remain Muslims or Pagans, and these latter will occasionally send their children to your court to be fostered (and I always give them religious education, as part of my gradual conversion strategy).
There are, however, a few problems with this in terms of historical accuracy. First of all, I pick up a lot of these vassals by declaring war on their liege, then each one of them in turn. So if for example, the independent Emir of Jerusalem only has one county in his demesne (the Holy City itself), then all I have to do is declare war on his twelve vassals, take over their level-one-fort-provinces, and then mobilize them and move against their former sovereign (and in some cases kinsman). And the Kingdom of Jerusalem is mine, once I put down the 250 gold new royal title fee with my local college of arms. Is there something wrong here?
Second, should I count on Muslim or pagan vassals to be loyal, as some are, for four centuries? The best case that I know of is the paria system in XI century Iberia. Fernando I of Castilla-Leon exacted a heavy tribute in gold and rare goods (oriental carpets, spices, etc.) from the taifas, and he and his sons lived very well, at least when the latter were not plotting against each other. He also funded the construction of a grand chapel for the famous Cluny Abbey. This gold was a percentage of state revenue, in exchange for military protection from Christian and Muslim enemies. (My what a delicious thing to have in CK2!) The system fell apart under his son Alfonso VI when the new king raised the paria to an unprecedented level AND Muslim religious leaders began to speak out against their decadent rulers and the high taxes they had to pay to their infidel overlords. So in come the Almoravids. (Would be a nice balancing act for Kingdom of Leon to try, to be able to adjust tribute payments as high as you can without exceeding what the taifas are willing to pay.) So it should be a balancing act.
But as in the case of the Iberian taifas, should there be a special form of vassalage available for subject states like these, similar to a sphere of influence in EU3, with tribute included? You would have to balance tribute payments with military defense, as per the agreement that Fernando imposed, but also religious revival movements that would call Muslim tributaries to throw off the infidel's yoke (and you could not impose conversion on vassals who agree to these terms). So it would not be a harmonious existence, but perhaps profitable for the suzerain. But watch out, you might even get called out by the Pope or your own spiritual lord for getting too close to Muslims and not driving them out of your realm.
Third and lastly, how should religious conquests be handled? With the addition of baronies, how should conquering non-Christian lands be handled? Should you be able to drive all barons out, give them a convert or leave ultimatum, or be lenient? With infamy gone, what mechanisms should there be to prevent you from conquering half the map (the non-Christian half) in a season? In vanilla CK 1.01, you did not get infamy for annexing non-Christian lands, so I literally finished the Reconquista in three years. Then again, as historical lieges like old Fernando I knew, you gotta have loyal people to give that land to, because you can't rule it all yourself.
So, any comments or ideas would be welcome.
There are, however, a few problems with this in terms of historical accuracy. First of all, I pick up a lot of these vassals by declaring war on their liege, then each one of them in turn. So if for example, the independent Emir of Jerusalem only has one county in his demesne (the Holy City itself), then all I have to do is declare war on his twelve vassals, take over their level-one-fort-provinces, and then mobilize them and move against their former sovereign (and in some cases kinsman). And the Kingdom of Jerusalem is mine, once I put down the 250 gold new royal title fee with my local college of arms. Is there something wrong here?
Second, should I count on Muslim or pagan vassals to be loyal, as some are, for four centuries? The best case that I know of is the paria system in XI century Iberia. Fernando I of Castilla-Leon exacted a heavy tribute in gold and rare goods (oriental carpets, spices, etc.) from the taifas, and he and his sons lived very well, at least when the latter were not plotting against each other. He also funded the construction of a grand chapel for the famous Cluny Abbey. This gold was a percentage of state revenue, in exchange for military protection from Christian and Muslim enemies. (My what a delicious thing to have in CK2!) The system fell apart under his son Alfonso VI when the new king raised the paria to an unprecedented level AND Muslim religious leaders began to speak out against their decadent rulers and the high taxes they had to pay to their infidel overlords. So in come the Almoravids. (Would be a nice balancing act for Kingdom of Leon to try, to be able to adjust tribute payments as high as you can without exceeding what the taifas are willing to pay.) So it should be a balancing act.
But as in the case of the Iberian taifas, should there be a special form of vassalage available for subject states like these, similar to a sphere of influence in EU3, with tribute included? You would have to balance tribute payments with military defense, as per the agreement that Fernando imposed, but also religious revival movements that would call Muslim tributaries to throw off the infidel's yoke (and you could not impose conversion on vassals who agree to these terms). So it would not be a harmonious existence, but perhaps profitable for the suzerain. But watch out, you might even get called out by the Pope or your own spiritual lord for getting too close to Muslims and not driving them out of your realm.
Third and lastly, how should religious conquests be handled? With the addition of baronies, how should conquering non-Christian lands be handled? Should you be able to drive all barons out, give them a convert or leave ultimatum, or be lenient? With infamy gone, what mechanisms should there be to prevent you from conquering half the map (the non-Christian half) in a season? In vanilla CK 1.01, you did not get infamy for annexing non-Christian lands, so I literally finished the Reconquista in three years. Then again, as historical lieges like old Fernando I knew, you gotta have loyal people to give that land to, because you can't rule it all yourself.
So, any comments or ideas would be welcome.