Crusades and Jihads

[Suraknar]

Hello,

I have a small problem with the Fact that the game calls Crusades against other Christians, be it of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

Now the same can be said about Jihads, if only someone can confirm that a Jihad cannot be called against fellow Muslims, I personally dont have extended knowledge on that part.

But I do for Christians.

The First Crusade was called upon by the Pope yes, appealing to the western Catholic Kingdoms yes, but following the request by the Byzantine Orthodox Church for help retake back the Holy Lands.

Crusades were not called against other Christians plain and simple.

Yes there is the incident of the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinopole, however that happened because it was diverted from its original target, anbd for Political reasons, it was never called of formed against constantinopole, targets could never be other Christians, the fourth crusade's target was Jerusalem.

I feel the game fails at this original historic setting, by treating Catholics and Orthodox Christians like complete alliens towards one another, as if there is a complete lack of proper background knowledge to understand that the reasons of the Great Shism of 1054 are really based on human ambitions and tradition rather than being reallly divergeant in terms of faith.

Both orthodox and Catholics are of the Christian Faith, these are not two different religions they are two different Churches of the same religion.

Now, warfare for political reason amongst Christians are aboundant in our History, but not Crusades.

Thoughs opinions on this topic are welcome.

[GeorgeBush]

I'm not positive but didn't the papacy actually declare a crusade in France. Granted i believe it was a heretical splinter of the Catholic church. Still though I'm sure many Catholics and fellow Christians were killed in the fighting.

[Whacker]

Evenin'

The most famous of the crusades preached were against the Muslims in control of the Holy Land. Less well known but equally relevant was the Spanish Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula that lasted almost 700 years, to the Teutonic order minor crusades in eastern Europe. Crusades in general were not always against Muslims; their targets included heretics/apostates and pagans alike. I guess the logic in the game here is that when you're excommunicated, it somehow equates that with you being apostate or heretical (basically against the church since you didn't heed the Pope-o-matic's warnings) and as such you are now vulnerable to retribution. Crude by effective. This was used against the then-heretical Cathars in France and some parts of Spain. I guess the bottom line is I don't have a problem with this, in terms of the game and how it handles it. It's a useful feature.



Edit - Forgot to post this earlier like an idiot, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade...ambiguation%29

[Suraknar]

You are probably refering to Pope Clement VII of Avignon which was elected pope by the French Cardinals opposing Pope Urban VI.

There hae been instances in history where tehere were 2 Popes in the Catholic Church, the above being one of them, this resulted in Excomunication but never Crusades.

Maybe the game lacks that mechanic to better represent History. Excommunication was wiedly used as a weapon by the Church back then.

[Suraknar]

Evenin'

The most famous of the crusades preached were against the Muslims in control of the Holy Land. Less well known but equally relevant was the Spanish Reconquista of the Iberian peninsula that lasted almost 700 years, to the Teutonic order minor crusades in eastern Europe. Crusades in general were not always against Muslims; their targets included heretics/apostates and pagans alike. I guess the logic in the game here is that when you're excommunicated, it somehow equates that with you being apostate or heretical (basically against the church since you didn't heed the Pope-o-matic's warnings) and as such you are now vulnerable to retribution. Crude by effective. This was used against the then-heretical Cathars in France and some parts of Spain. I guess the bottom line is I don't have a problem with this, in terms of the game and how it handles it. It's a useful feature.



Edit - Forgot to post this earlier like an idiot, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade...ambiguation%29

And Evenin to you :)

While I agree with you about the lesser Crusades against Heretics and Pagans, it was never the less not against Christians.

Excommunication literally means, "out of communion" between the Churches.

It can result from Heresy but Heresy is not the only reason for excommunication.

The Great Shism between the churches was a disagreement during an Ecoumenical Synode (council meeting), which the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Constantinopole disagreed on restructuring the Hierarchy of the Church amongst other things, it resulted in Separating Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity.

The mutually excommunicated eachother, but they still viewed eachother as Christian Churches each withe their own view of how to do certain things.

The West Church restuctured in making the Pope of Rome the Representative of the Churche God on Earth, while the Eastern Church remained unstructured in continuing to considering Jesus Christ the Representative of the Church and God on Earth, according to the initial hierarchy established in the first Ecoumenical Synode of Nicaea (325).

The reasons for excomunication according to Western catholic Rite are:

1. Apostasy (canon 1364),
2. Heresy (canon 1364),
3. Schism (canon 1364),
4. Desecration of the Eucharist (canon 1367),
5. Physical violence against the Pope (canon 1370),
6. Attempted sacramental absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (canon 1378),
7. Ordination of a bishop without papal mandate (canon 1382),
8. Direct violation of the sacramental seal of confession by a confessor (canon 1388),
9. Procurement of a completed abortion (canon 1398), or
10. Being a conspiring or necessary accomplice in any of the above (canon 1329).

While Shism is one of them it only became Canon in 1364, in the Roman catholic Church.

Also, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are on equal ground in relation to eachother.

Both view themselves as "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", (Note: Catholic in ecclesiastical terminology means Universal, both these Churches view themselves as Universal, to differenciate between the Catholic Church and a Church that is catholic, big "C" and small "c" are used in written form).

So since both are right nor one nor the other are really wrong, and as such one cant consider the other a Heresy per se, there is a mutual view between the two, that since they failed to be in agreement with one another it is best to each go on their separate way, and simply out of communion, meaning priests of the one cant commune in churches of the other and vice versa.

But Christianity remains the interest of both.

I found a nice diagram to better represent the actuality between the two.

[Suraknar]

I addition I found some information of the Fourth Crusade.

This is what the then Pope Innocent III of the Roman Catholic Church said following the sacking of Constantinopole.

You rashly violated the purity of your vows; and turning your arms not against Saracens but against Christians, you applied yourselves not to the recovery of Jerusalem, but to seize Constantinople, preferring earthly to heavenly riches . . .

These 'soldiers of Christ' who should have turned their swords against the infidel have steeped them in Christian blood, sparing neither religion, nor age, nor sex . . .. They stripped the altars of silver, violated the sanctuaries, robbed icons and crosses and relics . . .. The Latins have given example only of perversity and works of darkness. No wonder the Greeks call them dogs!

(more on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade)

What does this tells us today? It tells us that even if the Churches had in fact each went their own separate way, the regard in terms of faith one had with eachother remained the same.

The wither it was West or East, Christians were Christians, and thus the game, I think should reflect that, if western Faction massacre Byzantine or Russian settlements and prisoners it should equally cause the wrath of the Pope as much as Russia and Byzantium doing this to western factions.

Again I think, maybe in the future devellopment of the engine, the act of excomunication is used by the engine to eleviate said negative effects in addition to remove Crusades being called upon other Christians.

I understand, it can be argued that when we do play the game we are in fact playing an alternate history, however, part of the series success has always been the Historical relevance as foundation of the initial setting a given game starts at.

In the mean time, this issue, presents a very apealling moding opportunity to say the least.

[Suraknar]

As well as some final thoughts on a possible engine here in the future concerning the "odd from a design perspective" Byzantine and Orthodox factions.

Till the Great Schism, Popes from all over Christianity convened and discussed matter of Faith in Ecoumenical Councils, such councils were usually presided by the Pope of Constantinopole, under the role of "First amongst Equals".

let us not forget that the Christian Faith became the official religion of the Roman empire under Emperor Constantine, and then Constantinopole not Rome was the capital of the Empire, it is why the Pope of constantinopole was considered "first", yet, prior to the Schism the Pope's role as we know it today did not exist. It is what it was "amongst Equals".

Also note that the terminology Pope and Patriarch is interchangeable, Pope is the latin equivalent of the Greek Patriarch.

Cardinal roles appeared after the Great Shism in the western Catholic Church, since the role of Pope/Patriarch changed, and the Patriarch/Pope of Rome became the highest Ecclesiastic authority in the West upon earth.

As such, a future improvement of the engine can include acts of excommunication/missions not only from the Pope/Patriarch of Rome but also that of Constantinopole affecting Orthodox Factions.

(I dont know yet if the Orthodox Clergy or Patriarch does give missions to the Byzantine or Russian player, thus far I havent received any, so correct me if I am wrong here please)

Historically the Byzantine Patriarchat continued to exist after the Fall of Constantinopole as the Byzantine Orthodox Church moved its HQ to Russia.

This can insure the continuation of such missions reprisals and bad relations even if the player is not playing the Byzantines and Constantinopole is conquered by the Turk or Other Factions.

And that is all I guess, please feel welcome to add your own comments ideas and discussion on this topic.

[sapi]

While you have a point historically, from a gameplay perspective CA's decisions make sense

[derfinsterling]

Crusades were not called against other Christians plain and simple.

Sorry, but they were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragonese_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades dealt mainly with the pagans in the Baltics, but there were some campaigns against Orthodox Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

So CA had at least some precedent to allow for Crusades against catholic factions ;)

[Suraknar]

Thank you for bringing these here,

All of these three instances, are very specific and localised Crusades intimatelly tied to Inner Politics (Of the Roman catholic Church), with the only exception of some of the Northern Crusades against Pagan Balts, this was a crusade against Pagan people not christian people.

Even if during that period the Teutonics thrusted in to Russia, backed up by the Vatican, this involves only one specific entity seeking religious aprouval for its military ambitions. It was not a Christian Crusade against Russia...which is the whole point of the above posts.

I think the Total War Series has always dealt in a larger scheme of history not being constrained to Localised Events, but rather the Big picture of covering a certain Era in our History.

As such, when we talk about "Crusades" I think we are refering to the Grand Crusades towards teh Holy Lands, the Crusades which gave their terminology to the subsequent lesser campaigns for power and inner squables of the Catholic Church.

these are Undertakings in the name of Christendom, it is just not accurate to assume that such an undertaking can happen against other Christians in any grand Scale, exceptions exist in all things in life and the exceptions you posted did exist, yet they were not Involving all of Christendom.

The Arguments I am bringing forth above have to do with the unilateral declaration of a Grand Crusade. That is what the Crusades in the game represent.

Now, we understand that they go a step further to also represent the desperate acts of a given Pope or the Political Corruption intertwining the Catholic Church, to depose a certain Monarch and Replace him with another that is more in line with the Church.

But that last aspect I think is poorly done so by being included in the generic form of a Grand Crusade and treated as a major Event.

In other words, in game terms and scale, the fact that One catholic Faction goes to War against another is where these politically motivated and lesser Crusades are included.

And they should not be treated as Grand Events for all Christendom.

When we say "All Christendom" all are included, Catholic an Orthodox alike, yet by portraying a Grand Crusade as a political means we innadvertently reduce Christendom to half of it, and Consider the other Half as some kind of Perversion, when in fact it is very far from being the case.

Althought I am not saying that CA did not do their Homework on this question (And I know many do beleive so), all I am saying is that the choice to implement these Historical occurences is very simplistic to say the least and gives represents reality poorly.

It is also the reason of suggesting that the act of excommunication be made in to a more robust mechanism.

In other words there can be 2 various degrees of "Crusades", representing Localised political and internal situations as well as Situations affecting all Christendom.

If that presents a higher degree of Complexity then give at least the same "possibilities" to both sides. While Muslims can declare Jihads, and catholics Can declare Crusades, why not have an equal mechanism of Crusades for the Orthodox?

There have been instances in History when the Eastern Orthodoxy has been intangled in the Religious Politics of the West by having its emperors or patriarchs at least convey a certain message by Publicly Excomunicating a certain Pope of the West.

Is that in the Game? As if we want to remain accurate with History in that Crusades were not called upon by Orthodox Christians, we can nevertheless offer the same functionality to teh Orthodox Factions as the Crusades by remaining accurate Historically through the process of Excomunication.

When the Orthodox excomunicate a certain Faction they could also declare the conquest of a certain settlement, just like a western crusade, which will prompt military mobilisation of Orthodox Factions towards that target.

I think this will ballance some of the Issue at hand and offset the Historically Innacurate Grand Crusade against other Christians, yet, necessary for gameplay functionality.

Thoughts?

[HoreTore]

Well, I don't see the crusades in the game as only the grand crusades. Is see them also as the one against the king of aragon. This game isn't about recreating history, it's about changing it. And to me, it isn't very unlikely that given the right conditions, a crusade greater than the one against aragon could have been called against an excommunicated catholic faction.

And also, when you call a crusade against an excommunicated faction, it won't be as large as the ones going to the middle east. Nearly everyone will join the crusades to the middle east, only a few against catholics.

As for orthodox crusades, well, as it stands, they never did anything as large as a crusade. Catholics undertook both small and large crusades, some against christians. The orthodox church never did anything closely resembling that. The byzantines made conquests to reclaim the old empire, their conquests were motivated by the lust for power, not because the church said anything. The Byzantines were schemers, not fanatics....

As for balance, russia and byzantines are more than good enough without the option of crusade/jihad. In fact, that they lack them is one of those things making them an interesting to play. With it, they would lose one of their biggest quirks.




PS: Only the first letter of a sentence and names are supposed to be in caps...It makes it confusing to read with lots of caps thrown in at random...

[KARTLOS]

ive never seen a crusade against an orthodox state, but i have seen them against excomunicated nations, that seems to roughly fit history to me.

[Suraknar]

Well, I don't see the crusades in the game as only the grand crusades. Is see them also as the one against the king of aragon.

I always saw the crusades as the grand crusades, in both MTW and this, however, your view of it is as valid. It is I guess one of the gretest challenges of game makers, their audiance have very varied tastes.

This game isn't about recreating history, it's about changing it. And to me, it isn't very unlikely that given the right conditions, a crusade greater than the one against aragon could have been called against an excommunicated catholic faction.

Then all the more reason to give such functionality to Orthodox factions, since its not about what they did historically but about a changed History and I equally see it as not very unlikelly that they could have started doing so as well if their empire continued to exist historically.

As for orthodox crusades, well, as it stands, they never did anything as large as a crusade. Catholics undertook both small and large crusades, some against christians. The orthodox church never did anything closely resembling that. The byzantines made conquests to reclaim the old empire, their conquests were motivated by the lust for power, not because the church said anything.

Umm..sounds like a contradiction with your previous statement about this being a game that changes history. How can you argue with history now?

I will agree that the Byzantines made conquests to reclaim lost provinces and were politically motivated for power rather than being incited to do so because of the lust for power by the church. I agree they were not fanatics aswell, and in par with any other power of the time in terms of political games and mashinations.

As for balance, russia and byzantines are more than good enough without the option of crusade/jihad. In fact, that they lack them is one of those things making them an interesting to play. With it, they would lose one of their biggest quirks.

Now this, I fully agree with, and it is a very good point that you make here. Variety in gameplay would supercede other considerations for me as well :)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

PS: And yes it happens to me when I type fast at times (some sort of Typo form we can say), fortunently, we are not here to debate grammar, its an open and public forum of fans of the series. :) But I will try to limit the typo of this sort in the interests of mutual comprehension and clarity ;)

[HoreTore]

Umm..sounds like a contradiction with your previous statement about this being a game that changes history. How can you argue with history now?

Well, in the first case, you have a basis of something. You have the grand crusades, and you have the crusade against aragon and the hussite wars. As for the orthodox, you don't have a basis at all, and IMO that would be stretching things too far. However, I see this as a matter of personal preference really, not something with a right and wrong answer...


PS: wasn't really criticizing too much, it was just that it actually took me some time to read your post due to those caps...it hurts me eyes... ;)