My curvy sword at your throat you son of a dog of the female persuasion!

Is it just me, or are the Muslim factions a bunch of backstabbing traitors?

My Turkish campaign was going excellent, I had secured modern Turkey and then some, and my only issue was the unpleasant Crusade called on me by the French to boot me from Constantinople. No suprise, I was ready for it and handily fended off no less than three sequential attacks by the Byzantines after I took Constantinople, or Istanbul as I like to think of it ;)
Thus far superior archery has reduced most Byzantine attacks to loads of corpses before or shortly after they break down the gates. Slavic mercenaries seem to be effective defensive units and can handle anything the Byzantines care to put in a tower/on a ladder. My own general will usually take good care of any enemy cavy rude enough to knock at the smashed-in gate.

Anyway, suddenly, out of the blue, a full stack of Egyptians marches into southern Jerusalem. I know what that means. The AI never marches a full stack into your territory for no reason.
Those pigdogs want my holy city!

Anyway, this was followed by a horribly bloody battle. Fourtunatly I had enough cash to load Jerusalem with mercenaries after I saw that army coming my way. I was immidiatly impressed by the scope of the Egyptian army. It was not, as with the western armies thus far, composed of %90 spear militia. It had tons and tons of mameluk archers and other unfriendly units, and here I was with one measly unit of javaliners backed up by lots and lots of moderatly inferior cavalry. It took a while, but clever use of skrimishing horse-bows and a few Siphai charges beat the dogs back, at the cost of half of my forces in the city.
Now Im frantically trying to reinforce both fronts while, at the same time, keeping the Ruskies from exploiting any weakness in my northern front.


Anyway, to cap this all off...
Is it just me, or does it seem like the AI is just a TAD overeager to betray you? I mean, I can see the Byzantines breaking our alliance. Im the Turks after all and Im squatting on land that was theirs for a thosand years or so.
But why would the Egyptians chose such a low tactic as trying to backdoor a fellow Muslim ally while he was fightint the much-hated Byzantines? It seems like the AI (as far as Ive noticed) doesnt betray other AI's nearly as much as it does me.

What relations did you have with the egyptians, i know you were allied but what was their feeling towards you? if the AI has poor relations with you and your next door why wouldnt it attack?

Maybe you had good relations and this is just a case of silly AI but if they dont like you much and they have no enemies nearby... well no point in an alliance that stunts your expansion.

And as for backstabbing muslims have you seen what the catholic factions get up to?, they're constantly kicking the stuffing out of each other while the popes back is turned!

Dont worry we europeans have to cope with the HRE backstabbing every 20 turns or so.

I'm not an expert, but historically, when crusader influence in the holy land was low, muslim emirs quarrelled among eachother a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oshidashi

I'm not an expert, but historically, when crusader influence in the holy land was low, muslim emirs quarrelled among eachother a lot.

---

This is quite correct, and in fact was often true even when Infidels DID have influence and or troops in the region. The islamic dynasties were almost as eager to ally with the outsider infidels as each other agains whoever was the enemy of the month... The Shiites hated the Sunni, the Persians, the Turks, and everyone hated the hashishim... unless they oculd prove useful!

An interesting recounting of some of this treachery can be seen in a western treatment of the subject by James Wasserman "The Templars and the Assassins" (2001, Inner Traditions International, Rochester VT), although there are many other sources for this point of view.


Al Jabberwock

Do you have to hold Jerusalem as a Victory condition ? Maybe the egyptians do...
Anyway Jerusalem, Bagdad, Antioch and Byzance are more attractive than Syria, if I were to play Egypt I wouldn't hesitate.

It seems backstabbing in a universal trait.
If your in Western Europe and some declare war on you expect other faction to take advantage and dogpile you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Debe2233

What relations did you have with the egyptians, i know you were allied but what was their feeling towards you? if the AI has poor relations with you and your next door why wouldnt it attack?

Maybe you had good relations and this is just a case of silly AI but if they dont like you much and they have no enemies nearby... well no point in an alliance that stunts your expansion.

And as for backstabbing muslims have you seen what the catholic factions get up to?, they're constantly kicking the stuffing out of each other while the popes back is turned!

---

My relations had just gone down to 'Good' on that turn because they moved that stack into my territory.

The alliance was hardly stunting my growth, the Greeks hardly stood a chance against my raiding tactics, I managed to take all three cities in Turkey within ten turns, using two armies, about half the size of the Byzantine forces.
I admit, Ive exploited the passive AI bug a bit, but not a whole lot. Actually, it kind of gives the AI an advantage to sit around and get shot up by my horse archers. Their men dont die tired ;)

Remember that, in 1099, when the First Crusade arrived in Jerusalem, it was actually held by the Egyptians (who had held it for most of the previous few centuries) as they had *just* finished taking it back from the Turks. The Egyptians had not treated the Christians all that poorly, at least, relative to the Turks -- it was the reports of brutality against Christians (disembowelment, leaving rotting dog carcasses in the temples, abducting women) that was one of the things which enabled Urban II to rouse the Europeans so successfully at Clermont.

Sort of a bum deal for the Egyptians, as they'd been more or less OK with religious diversity in Jerusalem (as Mohammed had been himself). They finally take it back only be slaughtered by the likes of Godfrey of Boullion and Raymond of Toulouse.

So by no means was it all smiles and cooperation between the muslim factions.

I'm playing as the Egyptians and me and the Turks have been friends for 30 turns now.

Aye the Christians did take Jeruseleam in an murderous rage. However, this behavior was relatively common back then. I had nothing to do with Christians being more brutal than Muslims.
Also remember that North Africa and the Middle East were at one point completely Christian until the Muslims had unjustly attacked out of Saudi Arabia. The Muslims had been attacking Christians for centuries and kinda had the crusades coming to them. No offense but its the truth.

@ backstabbing in Europe

When you have perfect relation with the Papal states, you can breathe down every faction's neck and the pope will *suddenly realise* that half the map is painted your colours.

@ Jerusaleum. I prefer to take out the Egyptian power base in Egypt first before going for the big jewel. A land sea push across the top of Africa works a treat. Playing as Spanish, i have so many Knights of Santiago ancilliaries and so many other crusading ancillaries that I have found it hard to get a character with dread :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Aye the Christians did take Jeruseleam in an murderous rage. However, this behavior was relatively common back then. I had nothing to do with Christians being more brutal than Muslims.
Also remember that North Africa and the Middle East were at one point completely Christian until the Muslims had unjustly attacked out of Saudi Arabia. The Muslims had been attacking Christians for centuries and kinda had the crusades coming to them. No offense but its the truth.

---

Islam was spread through africa. And the Romans + Spaniards were supressing them. Its logical that you fight against a supressor?

Ah but why were they suppressing them?

For example look at how the Muslims poured out of Asia Minor and conquered Egypt,Palestine, Syria and more. Carthage and Africafell a decade later. The Persian Empire fell next. Spain was conquered. And after that an Muslim army marched into France but was defeated at the battle of Tours...

@Sheogorath

Here are the faction standings for the beginning of the campaign in your area.

faction_standings moors, -0.2 sicily
faction_standings moors, -0.8 spain, portugal
faction_standings moors, -0.6 slave
faction_standings byzantium, -0.2 hungary, venice
faction_standings byzantium, -0.4 sicily
faction_standings byzantium, -0.8 turks
faction_standings byzantium, -0.6 slave
faction_standings turks, -0.6 egypt
faction_standings turks, -0.8 byzantium
faction_standings egypt, -0.6 turks
faction_standings egypt, -0.6 slave

CA made Egypt and Turkey 'natural' enemies. You would need a lot of diplomatic activities to get a better relationship with Egypt, and make them start a war with the Moors instead of fighting you to expand their empire.

Let's not refight the crusades on these forums, lads. ~:grouphug:
Discussion of which "side" was justified belongs in the Backroom or Monastery, not a game forum.

Any more off topic posts in this thread will be deleted.

Cheerful opportunism was always the name of the game those days. Whenever they thought they had something to gain form it Christians gladly attacked fellow Christians and Muslims other Muslims, suitable pretexts being pulled out of the rear end if need be as always with Realpolitik, and for that matter tended to happily employ representatives of the other major monotheistic faith as a blunt instrument for the job if those happened to be available. Heck, by some accounts at least way back when the Muslims first crossed the Gibraltar into the Iberian peninsula they did so on the invitation of one (presumably losing) party of an Ibero-Goth domestic scuffle... And Saladin certainly didn't "unify" much of the Levant against the Crusader States without fairly extensive armed 'persuading' of other Muslim princes first.

The sort of logic that Medieval foreign policy worked by dictates that the exact only reasons the Egyptians would need for backstabbing the Turks (and vice versa) are A) an opportunity B) the means to try to exploit it, both of which were clearly present in the situation described in the opening post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Aurelius

Ah but why were they suppressing them?

For example look at how the Muslims poured out of Asia Minor and conquered Egypt,Palestine, Syria and more. Carthage and Africafell a decade later. The Persian Empire fell next. Spain was conquered. And after that an Muslim army marched into France but was defeated at the battle of Tours...

---

The first muslims came from arabia. The Turks came from central asia. Sorry but i can't understand why you say that the muslims came from anatolia.

Quote:

---

Also remember that North Africa and the Middle East were at one point completely Christian until the Muslims had unjustly attacked out of Saudi Arabia.

---

I'm trying to keep the dispassionate lens of history here -- the only thing I know is that, while there were obviously Christians being oppressed in the Holy Land before the Turks got there (just as there were Jews being oppressed all throughout Christendom), it was the heightened degree to which this occured that allowed Urban to use it so successfully in his Synod at Clermont.

I'm not sure you can say anybody 'had it coming' at the time because it wasn't like Justice was ever really the primary motivation behind conquest. Urban had to get the Europeans to stop killing each other off because it put the church at odds with the nobles so often, even to the point of the Papal States going to war with Christian realms (one of the reasons Bohemond was in favor with the Pope was the he'd helped Urban out in one such war previously). So he gave them a common enemy and started the ball rolling on the whole idea that all your sins would go away if you made the pilgrimage (though this really took shape a bit later). It was a cunning political move, really. Any 'justice' to it was kind of after the fact; the Egyptians actually adminsitered the Holy Land pretty well, all things considered, so it's quite difficult to lump 'the muslims' into one group. They also hadn't been fighting for TOO many centuries, because Islam had only been around for a few centuries at this point.

So just to be clear:

Is the message of this thread akin to a unanimous conclusion like this:

"The diplomacy AI is just as bad/buggy/ludicrously unreasonable in M2TW as it was in MTW."?