Roman/Byzantine Representation in the Crusades?

[EU3NOOB]

Could we perhaps get a more accurate representation of how the first Crusade actually started?

You could have it be tied to the amount of De Jure land the Byzantines have lost to non-Christian realms could lead to a decision becoming available to the Byzantines to ask for mercenaries from the Pope, which then triggers the Pope to declare the First Crusade (the Pope could reject the idea of a Crusade; which would be rare, like a 1% chance of happening). However, if the Byzantines haven't lost enough Dejure land or if the Pope refuses to declare the Crusade, then the crusade mechanic unlocks after a certain date, like 1100 or 1120 or somesuch.

 

[Rags17]

At the very least could we please push back the start date for the start of the Crusades to at least 1000 rather than the current 900 ? It is a very disconcerting having half of Europe mobilizing for war at the behest of the Pope while also getting pop ups telling me about the Cadaver Synod...

 

[Gurkhal]

Well, the Crusades specifically were called to re-take former Byzantine territory but I don't recall them being asked to re-take Jersusalem nor that such was the first instances where military force joined forces with the Catholic Church. I do think that Charlemagne may have been potentially the first one to use the holy war argument in the case of spreading Christianity by the sword when he hammered the Saxons. Thus I don't see why, in an alternative reality, a call from Byzantium per necessity must be the thing to create the crusader movement in Catholic Europe. As such I don't think that I would agree with you in that there must be a connection to Byzantium.

But to add to the idea of the Crusades I'd like to see more options for non-Catholic Christians to interact with the Crusaders. As in allying with them, resisting them, allying with the target and so make the Crusades not just a Catholic+target show but also allow others to react to this rather important event of, potentially, a ton of jingoistic Catholics coming over and looking for a fight. And if it could work without being to open to exploits, that crusaders can also attack people in the vicinity of the target as to my understanding the Crusaders were not always entirely legalistic when deciding who to attack.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Well, the Crusades specifically were called to re-take former Byzantine territory but I don't recall them being asked to re-take Jersusalem nor that such was the first instances where military force joined forces with the Catholic Church.

The Crusades were called because the Eastern Emperor asked the Pope for some mercenaries and the Pope, the marketing genius that he was, labeled it as a Crusade to retake the Holy Land.

The Crusaders only retook bits of Anatolia because it just so happened to be on the way to the Holy Land. And they only gave it back to the Byzantines because the Byzantines had a contingent along side the Crusaders.

Also, technically the Holy Land IS former Eastern Roman territory...

 

[Gurkhal]

The Crusades were called because the Eastern Emperor asked the Pope for some mercenaries and the Pope, the marketing genius that he was, labeled it as a Crusade to retake the Holy Land.

The Crusaders only retook bits of Anatolia because it just so happened to be on the way to the Holy Land. And they only gave it back to the Byzantines because the Byzantines had a contingent along side the Crusaders.

Also, technically the Holy Land IS former Eastern Roman territory...

Sigh. Sure, I can play this.

No.

The Crusade was summon by the Pope because of the Byzantine emperor wanting mercenary support in Anatolia. The Byzantine emperor did never, ever, to my knowledge call for Catholic holy war in the Baltics or the Levant or Africa where Crusades also took place. As such the Pope took the request of the Byzantine emperor spinned it beyond recognition and into something else entirely that grew into the crusader movement and took on a life of its own.

Furthermore the Crusaders only took some parts of Anatolia to return them to the Byzantines, who kept a force with the Crusaders. That's a solid argument for my suggestion that non-Catholic Christians should get an option on how to position themselves to Catholic holy war conquests in the form of Crusades in their neighborhood. But anyway, this only happened because it was on the way to the Holy Land which was the Crusaders' ultimate objective in stark contrast to the needs of the Byzantines who would presumably have been happies to see the Crusaders keep fighting in Anatolia and other areas that the Byzantines could hope to hold and defend after the Crusaders were no longer there, and essentially keep hammering the Seljuks or such.

However, while the Holy Land was former Byzantine territory, the idea that conquering such and then holding it for yourself and not being part of the Byzantine empire, takes it far from any re-conquest or even helping the Byzantine empire and puts is squarly in the category of helping yourself to new land possessions.

 

[EU3NOOB]

The Crusade was summon by the Pope because of the Byzantine emperor wanting mercenary support in Anatolia.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!

Furthermore the Crusaders only took some parts of Anatolia to return them to the Byzantines, who kept a force with the Crusaders.

Again, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!

But anyway, this only happened because it was on the way to the Holy Land which was the Crusaders' ultimate objective

And again, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading comprehension, you should try some of that!

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!



Again, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!



And again, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading comprehension, you should try some of that!

You want the first crusade to be tied to Byzantium, but the other user points out and i will add some things myself:

- first crusades were summoned in more places than just the holy land and holy war could arguably be attributed to Charlemagne.

- secondly that helping byzantium was a thing because crusaders were on the way to the holy land, which crusaders planned on freeing for christianity, not gor the ERE who was suspiciously looked upon by the west, wasn't considered the heart of Christianity, and treated the crusaders pretty badly.

Are you saying that if italy was overrun by infidels and the Pope booted out, crusades wouldn't happen simply because the ERE is doing well.

The game right now presents a few starting conditions for crusades, not just loss of byzantine territory.
Even the specific 4th crusades, though calling back to history, has more generic conditions. For example, it doesn't require Venice, but any republic.

(i don't want to speak for Gurkhal, so sorry if i misunderstood what he meant!)

 

[Gurkhal]

You want the first crusade to be tied to Byzantium, but the other user points out and i will add some things myself:

- first crusades were summoned in more places than just the holy land and holy war could arguably be attributed to Charlemagne.

- secondly that helping byzantium was a thing because crusaders were on the way to the holy land, which crusaders planned on freeing for christianity, not gor the ERE who was suspiciously looked upon by the west, wasn't considered the heart of Christianity, and treated the crusaders pretty badly.

Are you saying that if italy was overrun by infidels and the Pope booted out, crusades wouldn't happen simply because the ERE is doing well.

The game right now presents a few starting conditions for crusades, not just loss of byzantine territory.
Even the specific 4th crusades, though calling back to history, has more generic conditions. For example, it doesn't require Venice, but any republic.

(i don't want to speak for Gurkhal, so sorry if i misunderstood what he meant!)

I will start with saying; Thank you. You got it more or less right to the letter of what I wanted to say.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I will start with saying; Thank you. You got it more or less right to the letter of what I wanted to say.

Yay :3

 

[EU3NOOB]

- first crusades were summoned in more places than just the holy land

Yes, well after the First Crusade.

holy war could arguably be attributed to Charlemagne.

How is that relevant? It's obvious that from a game play perspective the Crusades aren't attached to Charlemagne's conquest of the Saxons otherwise the Crusades mechanic would be activated at that point and they aren't. So that point is useless fluff.

- secondly that helping byzantium was a thing because crusaders were on the way to the holy land, which crusaders planned on freeing for christianity, not gor the ERE who was suspiciously looked upon by the west, wasn't considered the heart of Christianity, and treated the crusaders pretty badly.

It is a matter of historical FACT that the Pope was only spurred into declaring the Crusade after Emperor Alexios Komnenos' call for help. Having one of the triggers for the First Crusade being the Eastern Emperor calling the Pope for help in reclaiming lost territory makes perfect sense.

Are you saying that if italy was overrun by infidels and the Pope booted out, crusades wouldn't happen simply because the ERE is doing well.

What are you talking about?! I never said anything that could be construed as such? The loss of Rome to non-Christians is already a trigger for the Crusades in-game and I never said anything about removing content from the game! I'd have to be a raving lunatic to suggest such a thing!

The game right now presents a few starting conditions for crusades

And as I just said I never said anything about removing such conditions! I'm just talking about adding an additional condition involving the Eastern Empire!

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I'm sincerely confused then.
You are not saying to remove crusade triggers but to add a specific one for ERE?

When crusades start, sometimes you get a reference to that. Something like: Byzantium the bulk ward of christendom in the east is faltering.... His Holiness... Crusade!

I think i remember something like this, but I'll admit my memory is a bit foggy.

Are you proposing a "special" crusade, mimicking the historical 1st crusade, like we have the 4th crusade mimicking its historical counterpart?

 

[Tryvenyal]

I don't want "unlock - dates" by any means. Adding specific unlock triggers for certain religions is fine but I would like an general unlock trigger for any religion in game able to call Crusade/Jihad/Great Holy War. Starting at 769 as pagan, consolidate and reform, and then having to wait to 900+ to call GHW because of it not being unlocked before that makes no sense in a already massively a-historical setting. Then, if none of Catholics or Sunni is performing overly bad, it can wait another century to trigger...

I actually think a reformed paganism(Maybe with ability to call GHW) should trigger it within a year or 2, if close to one of Catholics or Sunni. This because the other triggers are redundant in an alt- history world with more than two religious groups competing. The tension could be far from the holy land or from the holy sites.

So what do I propose, really?

• no startdate
• no enddate
• an over time up-counting trigger chance(That on it´s own, unmodified, should trigger around 1050 - 1100)
• Historical modifiers boosting the chance
• Un-historical modifiers boosting the chance
  • A powerful third religion(from a third religious group) emerging should provide a massive boost to the chance