Schism question

[de Clare]

So, it's 1130 and the Schism has yet to occur. My best bet why is this. Around the 950s, an Irish CoD conquered the western half of Byzantine and formed Greece. So proud of his achievements, he went west and took the entire empire. However, he was unwilling to make himself just another Byzantine emperor and instead created the Latin Empire in its place. As a Chacledonian. Does anyone know if this screwed up the Schism mechanics?

 

[Whizzer]

The bishop of Constantinople must have Greek rites or be Iconoclast. Sounds like the Schism has been prevented, for now, though that isn't certainty. In any case, you can check for yourself if that is the case.

 

[de Clare]

Two quick follow-ups, if you don't mind:

So, if I were to forcefully change the Pope to Latin Rites (the last one was maybe a century ago), that may help kickstart the Schism? I had the second to last Schism event happened right after the Latin Empire formed.

Second, this is about Chacledonian Crusades. The Crusade function kicked in a few centuries ago, but no one can join the Pope. It treats him as a mercenary so every twenty-thirty years, the Pope is fighting Egypt for a handful of years before he ultimately loses. Is it supposed to do that?

 

[Whizzer]

So long as the Pope (holder of k_pentarch_rome) and whoever holds b_hagiashopia have Latin respectively Greek rites, the schism can happen.

I thought I reverted the Holy Order funniness, at the risk of succession issues, a while ago. Are you using the latest version from the Master thread?