Russia / Ethiopia

[unmerged(4271)]

Let me start by saying that I know the game is ahistorical in many areas, and that I think that's okay. If the game followed history perfectly it wouldn't be much of a game. I like that it allows many alternatives of what COULD have happened.

But, one thing that does bother me a little is certain alliances that the AI seems to create time and time again that really shouldn't be that probable.

Specifically, I am talking about alliances where religion is the uniting force. The Orthodox alliance of Russia and Ethiopia has occurred in every IGC game I have played. It's not that I believe such a thing is impossible, but while Ethiopia was a christian land, I don't think its fair to say they shared strong religious ties to the Eastern and Russian Orthodox churches.

Maybe the answer is more diversity in religion: just as there are different sects of Catholics and Protestants, maybe there could be different strains of the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc) ?

I know that Russia, as an Orthodox nation, is in a religious minority, and does not have too many options for religious allies, but it just seems wrong that they can easily create an African vassal nation when it really is so ahistorical (AFAIK).

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by heagarty
Let me start by saying that I know the game is ahistorical in many areas, and that I think that's okay. If the game followed history perfectly it wouldn't be much of a game. I like that it allows many alternatives of what COULD have happened.

But, one thing that does bother me a little is certain alliances that the AI seems to create time and time again that really shouldn't be that probable.

Specifically, I am talking about alliances where religion is the uniting force. The Orthodox alliance of Russia and Ethiopia has occurred in every IGC game I have played. It's not that I believe such a thing is impossible, but while Ethiopia was a christian land, I don't think its fair to say they shared strong religious ties to the Eastern and Russian Orthodox churches.

Maybe the answer is more diversity in religion: just as there are different sects of Catholics and Protestants, maybe there could be different strains of the Orthodox Church (Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc) ?

I know that Russia, as an Orthodox nation, is in a religious minority, and does not have too many options for religious allies, but it just seems wrong that they can easily create an African vassal nation when it really is so ahistorical (AFAIK).

I even inherited ethiopia once...

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Someone mentioned this before.... maybe Coptic and Orthodox should be separate branches. (Similar but distinct, since each regarded the other with suspicion.)

 

[unmerged(4828)]

Well come to think of it they had a pact in my french game .
I solved it by divulging etiophia
Ok this might be a bit unrealistic,but it's no biggie for me since russia do need
some allies.
T.

 

[unmerged(1302)]

In my game Ethiopia became a vassal of Georgia. That's even scarier

 

[Demetrios]

I always thought that my RMs between Ethiopia and Russia were rather amusing. Jus think about the culture and climatic shock for the poor prince/princess, no matter which country they went to...

 

[unmerged(2685)]

Oh Dogface...yoo-hoo...

Any thoughts on this one?

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by amrush
Oh Dogface...yoo-hoo...

Any thoughts on this one?

This could be handled in a similar fashion to the Papal States never accepting RMs in the first game, which would be for Ethiopia to never form alliances/RMs with the other European powers...

This is a good solution in terms of historicity, but I am not sure how "legit" of a solution this is really, as there is every possibility that some European power may WANT to have alliances with Ethiopia, etc. and it doesn't necessarily make any historical sense for there to be NO possibility of an alliance ever.

I kind of think that the a-historical (useless ) alliances with Ethiopia are a lesser evil than having an Ethiopia that is diplomatically wooden.

 

[unmerged(4566)]

when you think about it, an ethio-russian alliance isn't too farfetched. For one, the had a common oft-enemy in the ottomans and while the ethiopians were poor economically and militarily, they could have provided a nuisance to the turks in one of the numerous russo-turkish wars.

On the other hand, while playing ethiopia, i once vassalised Georgia. Now that's farfetched

 

[unmerged(2238)]

I see far too many alliances form based solely on religion rather than common enemy alliances. I'd like to see more alliances based on actual calculation than on Russia saying "Ethiopia is orthodox! Let's ally!"

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by John_Keats
I see far too many alliances form based solely on religion rather than common enemy alliances. I'd like to see more alliances based on actual calculation than on Russia saying "Ethiopia is orthodox! Let's ally!"

You see alliances based on religion?

I wish I did. I see too much of this: CRC Spain, C Poland, Calvinist Palatinat and Lutheran Kleves or the ever popular: C Portugal, L Hanesatic League and Islamic Hafsid Empire. For my money, these mutli-cultural love-fests, while deeply appealing to my 21st century sense of inclusivness, seem grossly out of place in a world focused deeply on religious differences. The game needs to make religion more a factor in diplomacy rather than just being a factor in domestic stability in addition to making some realpolitik decisions.

 

[unmerged(3993)]

Priest John

lliance of Russia and Ethopia is ahistorical, but not improbable as christina country allways dreamed of an alliance with Priest John's country which is supposed to be Ethiopia. So one can imagine that the Czar decided to folow this chimerous dream.
OK that is just a justification of a game, I know, but I like to try and find historical grounds and explanations to what happened in EU game.
@+

warl

 

[unmerged(2810)]

Here's the problem:

Relations between the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox throughout the EU period were not friendly. The problem is that most Westerners are utterly ignorant of the fact that these two groups are different from each other. To give an idea how wrong that is, it's like considering England to still be "Catholic" in EU terms even after she converts to Protestantism and then to Reformed. After all, the Anglican Church calls itself "Catholic and Reformed".

Non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (Ethiopa, Armenia, Egypt, Persia, India--yes, there were Orthodox Christians living in Western India during the entirety of the EU2 period) and Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (Greece, Russia, Anatolia, the Balkans, Mitteleuropa) did not consider each other to be the same religion at that time, and many people of each Communion do not consider each other to be of the same religion to the present day.

The Chalcedonians would call the Non-Chalcedonians "Monophysites" (a heresy condemned by the entire West) while the responding accusation hurled back against the Chalcedonians and the Roman Catholics would be "Nestorians" (a heresy condemned by all Christianity).

Thus, Russia and Ethiopia should no more be considered the same religion than should be Russia and Spain. As the centuries have passed, positions have softened and many Orthodox of both stripes are considering the possibility that what was being argued over was actually a matter of different evolution of a few philosophical terms, but at the time there were some truly extreme Monophysites (more in the East) and Nestorians (more in the West) running around and making everybody too nervous to give too much ground.

Even today the stains of Monophysitism (that Jesus the Christ--it's a "cosmic office", not a last name--does not have both full and complete human nature and full and complete Divine nature, usually downplaying, ignoring, or simply denying full humanity) plague Eastern Christianity, and Nestorianism (that Jesus the Christ is in some way a lesser being than the Father, either partaking of the Divine partially, in an "adoptive" fashion, or not having Divinity from before birth--aquiring it later in life) keeps making new warrens in Western Christianity.

Diagram *that* one Mrs. Hoxie!

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by John_Keats
I see far too many alliances form based solely on religion rather than common enemy alliances. I'd like to see more alliances based on actual calculation than on Russia saying "Ethiopia is orthodox! Let's ally!"

Exactly my point! I think Ethiopia could be set up just like the Knights or Papal States where alliance are possible with other nations, just not royal marriages.

Just hard to imagine the sun-deprived dukes of Moscow showing up on the shores of the Red Sea for a royal inheritence...

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by heagarty


Exactly my point! I think Ethiopia could be set up just like the Knights or Papal States where alliance are possible with other nations, just not royal marriages.

Just hard to imagine the sun-deprived dukes of Moscow showing up on the shores of the Red Sea for a royal inheritence...

I'd trade Tej and Zigni Wot for Vodka and Borscht any day of the week though!!!!

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Dogface
Here's the problem:

Relations between the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox throughout the EU period were not friendly. The problem is that most Westerners are utterly ignorant of the fact that these two groups are different from each other. To give an idea how wrong that is, it's like considering England to still be "Catholic" in EU terms even after she converts to Protestantism and then to Reformed. After all, the Anglican Church calls itself "Catholic and Reformed"

Non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (Ethiopa, Armenia, Egypt, Persia, India--yes, there were Orthodox Christians living in Western India during the entirety of the EU2 period) and Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (Greece, Russia, Anatolia, the Balkans, Mitteleuropa) did not consider each other to be the same religion at that time, and many people of each Communion do not consider each other to be of the same religion to the present day.

Actually, real Orthodoxy, as opposed to the Monophysites, is far closer to Catholicsm -- the Orthodox and the Catholics both recognize each others priests and rites as fully legitimate. They see the other Church as seperatists NOT heritics. In the Council of Nicea, the bishops of the Christian Church agreed on the dual nature of Christ, namely that Jesus the Christos was both all man and all God. There were two heresies, the Monophysites in the south argued that Jesus was all God and not human at all. The Arrians in the north argued the opposite, that Jesus was all man and not God at all.

While Catholicism mostly accepts the Council of Nicea, it did brake from the Council of Nicea by inserting the phrase "and the Son" after the section of the creed that reads "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father". That disagreement is far less central to the messsage of Christianity than the Monophysites' rejection of Jesus' human nature or the Arrians' rejection of His divinity. (There are a few other diagreements, but, with the exception of the whole issue of the Papacy are even more esoteric.)

the responding accusation hurled back against the Chalcedonians and the Roman Catholics would be "Nestorians" (a heresy condemned by all Christianity).

While I'm not sure what theology distinguishes the Nestorians, they are a distinctive church which still exists in the Middle East.

Thus, Russia and Ethiopia should no more be considered the same religion than should be Russia and Spain. As the centuries have passed, positions have softened and many Orthodox of both stripes are considering the possibility that what was being argued over was actually a matter of different evolution of a few philosophical terms, but at the time there were some truly extreme Monophysites (more in the East) and Nestorians (more in the West) running around and making everybody too nervous to give too much ground.

Not in the Orthodox Church hierarchy. But, its possible that the Monophysites, almost all in Moslem-dominated lands are feeling presure to adapt to the dominant views in the Christian-majority countries.

Alexandre