It's certainly arguable that Elephants should be weaker in this game than in RTW, since the elephants the Timurids would be fielding would be the smaller Asian elephant, whereas Carthage's elephants were the bigger, nastier African elephants.
Printable View
It's certainly arguable that Elephants should be weaker in this game than in RTW, since the elephants the Timurids would be fielding would be the smaller Asian elephant, whereas Carthage's elephants were the bigger, nastier African elephants.
What's your source on that? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
It's courteous to state your counter-example when criticising someone else's citations.
It's non-evangelical nature, presumably. It was not closely associated with politics during this period either (with one exception, already noted in this thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
About Wikipedia? I thought that was common knowledge.
Quote from the book Battle by R.G. Grant, the Mongols, in the siege of Baghdad, didn't massacre Christians, who were seen as allies to the Mongols. The sacking of Baghdad was from Jan. 11 to Feb. 10 in 1258.
The good news is that we will have several modifiable options for religions, as long as we keep Catholic, Moslem, and Heretic because of their hardcoded use for jihads, inquisitors and crusades. That gives us a lot of leeway when it comes to making the Horde pagan and adding in Judaism. We just have to wait for the patch and the very much needed unpacker before we can begin, sadly.
No comment about the status of internet "common knowledge". I was referring to your factual statement, not your hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
What would be the advantage of making the hordes pagan? Except it would make it harder for them to hold territory due to the religious unrest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
I also am not sure what Judaism would add to the game. Another religion to slowly get eroded?
Modding in Paganism and Judaism would make the game more realistic, plus it would add some of the religiously cosmopolitan flavor many cites of the Middle East possessed. The Muslim of medieval Egypt and Outremer were known for their religious tolerance, and the populations of the people they ruled reflected this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
Yeah that would be awesome, specially Moors, Egyptians (in the beginning) should have all major monotheistic faiths represented in their government, and military (and later the Ottomans). You should see Johns, Yitzaks, and Abduls.
If we went further I'd LOVE to see Coptics in Egypt and Sudan. That would be fine detail.
Just for flavor basically.
Later with the Inquisition there could be specific missions for certain factions like go save some Jews from Iberia for the Ottomans, you have to send a fleet to southern Spain, and the back to Constantinople, which will increase your population, trade, and give you 2 new merchants.
(WOW! KEWL!!!)
There's a lot more important things to change naturally, but you know, we want it ALL ! and we want it NOW !!!! ~;) (joke)
Realistic in what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Paganism already exists as a religious affiliation in the game. However it cannot be espoused by any of the factions and acts as a penalty until territories are forcibly converted.
Judaism did not have a major impact on the level of the other religions modelled in the M2TW system. If it was not regularly "boosted" it would atrophy and disappear entirely, however it is is boosted to remain in the game then it would act as constant penalty to Public Order. I don't see how any additions to either of these religions enhances "realism" at all.
Now I like this idea. But isn't this achieved by editing the lists of names. Or does name selection really take into account the "culture" of structures and the religious affiliation percentages in each settlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Perhaps if it was possible to incorporate Judaism as a religion that does not, somehow, cause unrest it might be useful but I don't really believe this. All my Turkish provinces are well on the way to 100% Islam (provided I kill all the priests I see...) and this was with minor administration by me. I don't see what is realistic about attempting to model Judaism, only to have it eradicated by mid-game.
I don't have a paricular source, per se. I took a class on medieval Russia. So, I guess if you need a footnote, you will have to come look at my notes.
I don't think that I need to provide a source because I said that Wikipedia is worthless. It is the same body of information that once proclaimed that my brother was John Kerry's running mate. I don't think I need to explain any further about Wikipedia.
As for sources...I don't think I need to go and do a bunch of research, citing sources, to counter what somebody copies and pastes from a Web site.
Well yeah it could be done without adding new religions, simply by adding names and avatars I suppose.
Any faction can get any unit... All you have to do is bribe a stack of troops to join your squad. Maybe this is what the mongols did.
I agree with Trithemius there. The way the game is, it is not possible to allow for polyculturalism.
If you take say Jerusalem, and let it be 50% Christian 50% Muslim like it starts as (and like it pretty much was back then most of the time, no matter who held political/military power there), it will simply end up revolting all the time. Medieval mechanics don't allow you to be an oecumenist, heterodox, tolerant ruler, you *have* to convert your regions to your religion if you want them to "work".
Besides, I'd say Judaism is included in the global "Heresy" religion, which encompasses pretty much every kind of faith that's not strictly orthodox/muslim/catholic. Heresy is a very wide concept in M2TW, much wider than it was historically... If you ask me, paganism was only set apart from heresy in the first place because it's used as a specific trigger for the Teutonics, and nothing else.
Correct me if I'm wrong (Cue, Orda) but I thought that the Mongols never had an official relgion when Temujin took over.
That's a tragic story...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
A wikipedia article is as good as the people that wrote it. If its been well-researched and written and referenced then it is quite useful. If it has been tossed off idly by undergrad pseudo-scholars then its less so. It's just like any source, you need to critically evaluate it before you take it seriously.
The trouble is, you have no idea which was the case for any particular piece of information, which makes it utterly useless as a reliable source of information. Quoting wikipedia is as reliable as saying "it must be true, a bloke down the pub said so".Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
As for the whole muslim horde thing, i think that given a choice it would be more entertaining if the horde were pagan, just for a bit of variety. I suspect that changing religions was left out on purpose to stop the player from immediately changing every catholic faction they played into othodox or something, so they could ignore the pope - which would be kinda unbalancing.
The better Wikipedia articles quote their sources extensively. The less good articles are generally notable for their lack of attributed sources.
That said, we once had the other side try to argue a point of law with us based on an article they'd found on Wikipedia. That was entertaining.
Quoting sources adds weight to an argument, even if only listing the text book used in a class. Much better than any links anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
As for Wikipedia I must agree that this has to be one of the worst sources. As with all internet sources it is extremely difficult to substantiate its origin. Wikipedia is usually put together by volunteers who could be anyone from a 12 year old to political extremists. A written reference at least has an author usually with a relevant qualification and usually with extensive experience on the subject.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't African bush elephants traditionally considered too large and unruly to be used in battle? Carthage was supposed to have used a much smaller (some now say extinct) breed of forest elephant that inhabited North Africa and even parts of Southern Europe. Those would be the very small, one-man elephants you could get in RTW. The Indian ones were the war elephants (which even Carthage could recruit) and the armored ones were African bush elephants (which were the only ones the Selecuids could have).Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi
At first the catholics were happy to hear about the Mongols dealing out punishment. For to them it seemed like they were God's fury on the Earth gainst the eeeeviiiill muslims. And further to the point, a few monks had traveled to Karakorum (I believe) and found that the Mongols were partly shamanistic but also nestorian christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by dacdac
The catholics jumped at this, and began calling the Khan Prestor John and all that crazy stuff, while deftly avoiding he issue that nestorianism had left the west because it was prosecuted as herecy rather heavily.
In any case, the point is that the Mongols had a connection to nestorianism. But in gameterms I would just prefer them as pagans, as that seems to have been their main religious connection. While the christianity they had taken was, as in many other pagan societies, just another part of the pagan world. Just like Christ was considered first just another god, then the top god among the old Norse before finally becoming what is close to what he is today.
I'm not positive about this, but it's looking in my current game like the Mongols behave as though they are pagan up until they settle. In my current game, they've spent the last 70 or so turns in the mountains of Armenia, moving back and forth continuously sacking Tbilisi and Yerevan. They are at war with the Turks and the Russians, though they have yet to meet a Russian unit in battle as far as I know. A Turkish imam has called for a jihad against Iconium, which had been held by the Turks but revolted a few turns back. Egypt is confined to Jedda only, so they probably can't spare an army, the Moors are gone, and the Turks are too busy with the Mongols. However, the Mongols have 10+ stacks in the region, and none have joined the jihad.
I don't know for certain, but it could be that they don't get the option until they settle, which could simulate them adopting Islam after conquering the area.
It would also be pretty anti-semitic if that was indeed possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Azzole
Not really if I remember my history right. The Jews WHERE good traders and such like. It was because they got so wealthy from this that they became so hated. Thus it would be simpile historical accurracy.Quote:
It would also be pretty anti-semitic if that was indeed possible.
Regardless of Berke (first Chingisid to convert to Islam) the Qipchaq Khanate did not become officially Islamic until Uzbeg.
There were other members of the Mongol ruling class that converted though Pagan beliefs, Nestorianism and even Buddhism were practiced. Turkic took over as the official language and was used on coins etc and as has already been stated, Islam became their faith.
It has been argued (and I tend to agree) that Berke's conversion was more out of convenience than any new found faith. The southern Caucasus area was a disputed area with many Qipchaq Khanate/IlKhanate clashes. It was part of the original Ulus of Jochi and its annexation by Hulegu threatened a particularly rich source of trade for Berke. This dispute continued with brief periods of peace until the end of the IlKhanate.
It was this dispute more so than the Mameluks that prevented Hulegu from advancing further and it was not helped when Princes from the Ulus of Orda, commanding their tanma troops in the IlKhanate army were executed.
I suppose CA had the choice to go with Pagan or Islam, I expect they went with Islam due to what happened historically (though many years after)
Personally I would have preferred Paganism since by the time they eventually converted, most players would have seen them off anyway.
A Mongol Jihad? It may prove challenging or fun but it sounds silly.
On the Wikipaedia argument, I think it is not bad for general information but for in depth research there is no substitute for books and historical journals. Unfortunately such books are very expensive
........Orda
Considering there are more muslim semites than jewish ones, I would say that would be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by derfinsterling
I personally do recognize drawbacks of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. However, the information found there can be good and it can be quite bad (same as any published encyclopedias) Recognizing that, in this particular instance, what Wikipedia said, related well to what I had read and it was the quickest source I had at hand sparing me running home and looking up the books on history of Mongol invasion in my library.
And... in this particular case, besides just generically denouncing Wikipedia, no one really has countered the Mongol related facts I had quoted from this source. As to Lord Condormanius, sorry, I was not quoting Wikipedia information about your brother being referred to as John Kerrry's running mate, I was quoting timeline information about Mongol horde leaders converting to Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
It's serving to a cliche that's derogative of a whole religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
The original statement implied that jews should be better merchants simply because they are jews - when in fact the reason, as you state yourself, for many jews to become involved in the money loaning and trade business was simply that there were little other venues open to them. Didn't mean they were "better" by default.
Mind you, I'm not trying to imply that the poster is anti-semitic or intended his comment to be taken this way; however, I doubt that there'd be an official patch or add-on adding such a trait to a character because CA or Sega would have to deal with possible ramifications.