I'm not an expert, but historically, when crusader influence in the holy land was low, muslim emirs quarrelled among eachother a lot.
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!Originally Posted by Oshidashi
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
"...so I found a fork in the road and stuck it on my helmet!"
"Hence your nickname?"
"As The Prophet is my witness, they had been calling me 'Admiral Forkhead' for some time..."
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
Bookmarks