CK2 should not maintain the Paradoxian worldview

[Brian Bóruma]

You are asko forgetting/are not aware of the whole snowball debacle

EDIT

Paradox outsourced the work on CK to a russian company called snowball (I think they are still responsible for russian localization of pdox games not sure). They failed horribly to keep any kind of schedule and pdox had to take over a mess of code and salvage what they could to make a playeble game, the very buggy first releas of CK. All this is IIRC

I thought Paradox started essentially from scratch after the Snowball debacle. There was a lot of whining about the announcement that they were dropping their attempt at customizable shields like, if you're the king of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, and Denmark and having it quartered a-la the UK or Spain.

At the end of the day, CK had the most potential out of any Paradox game, imo. It just didn't get to reach it due to the limited sales/support and the fact that it was at the tail end of the old EU engine. I have nothing but optimism for how a CK2 could wind up and I would gladly volunteer to help out in any way I could, as a Catholic and a medieval history buff.

 

[Drachenfire]

I want the game to reflect the era, not information screens but events to be ones that fit with the era, Laws and decisions and systems and mechanics to actually be representive of the Middle Ages, for the game to be SET during the time it covers. To have people who know what their talking about involved in the creation of the game.
Not just for flavour, but in the foundations of the game. To have it be a game ABOUT the middle ages, not just pretending to be. Victoria was built with the idea of capturing the spirit of the Victorian age, sadly the same was not true about Crusader Kings.

I would like a more dynamic simulation based on the era, sure. But I do not want to be pidgeon holed into that either.

For instance, I want to free the people from serfdom as early as I can, and I want to introduce full and equal cognatic primogeniture... alowing the eldest to inherit regardless of gender. Likewise, I may want to encourage a heresy that spawns into a new sect, prehaps sparking the protestant reformation hundreds of years before it did. There are pleantly of examples from which to draw from... the Cathars of the Aquitaine, the Celtic Christians of pre-Norman invasions Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Many others too.

 

[Orinsul]

those things had nothing to do with the reformation and the reformation couldnt have happened any time other than it did as it damn well shouldnt have happened anyway. but thats beside the point quibbling. Something not being catholic doesnt make it protestant, and something not being catholic also doesnt make it automatically good neither.

I am not asking for content or events, i know the wishlist is there for that and i have used that for that, the clue as to what this is about is in the title, WORLDVIEW. this isnt about railroading events or even flavour ones and its hard to understand why you lot keep jumping to that conclusion.

That the game from its very foundations should be built with its setting in mind. Victoria was, Hearts of Iron was and Crusader Kings almost was, and it only failed because the people trying while excellent programmers and doing their best they didnt actually understand the era they were trying to recreate or at the very least represent.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

I am not asking for content or events, i know the wishlist is there for that and i have used that for that, the clue as to what this is about is in the title, WORLDVIEW. this isnt about railroading events or even flavour ones and its hard to understand why you lot keep jumping to that conclusion.

I think this happens - at least it is true for me - because it is hard to understand what you want without examples.

 

[Azugal]

That's half the problem, he has been rather vague and generalistic about things.

Grosshaus makes a good point too.

 

[Count of Reval]

I am not asking for content or events, i know the wishlist is there for that and i have used that for that, the clue as to what this is about is in the title, WORLDVIEW. this isnt about railroading events or even flavour ones and its hard to understand why you lot keep jumping to that conclusion.

As I see it, if generalized and simplified, one can say that Paradox has a rational, skeptical, witty, and not very serious worldview... and not only concerning the Middle Ages. Yes, CK has a certain (deliberate) tongue in cheek style in it. Humor is reflected in details like portraits, choice of traits and styling of their icons, choice of events, texts of these events etc.
Undoubtedly lots of people besides developers like that exactly like this. When creating something, you can outsource relevant knowledge and know-how, but it would be bizarre to "import" a worldview you don't share.

 

[Drachenfire]

those things had nothing to do with the reformation and the reformation couldnt have happened any time other than it did as it damn well shouldnt have happened anyway. but thats beside the point quibbling. Something not being catholic doesnt make it protestant, and something not being catholic also doesnt make it automatically good neither.

I am not asking for content or events, i know the wishlist is there for that and i have used that for that, the clue as to what this is about is in the title, WORLDVIEW. this isnt about railroading events or even flavour ones and its hard to understand why you lot keep jumping to that conclusion.

That the game from its very foundations should be built with its setting in mind. Victoria was, Hearts of Iron was and Crusader Kings almost was, and it only failed because the people trying while excellent programmers and doing their best they didnt actually understand the era they were trying to recreate or at the very least represent.

I am not going to comment as to weather or not the Protestant Reformation should or should not have happened. Nor do I care to comment as to weather or not Catholicism is good or not. There are too many opinions on that subject and we all know what they say about opinions.

Nevertheless, what I will say is that the reality of the High Middle Ages cannot be accurately emulated in a game such as this. Crusader Kings is not a real world simulation, nor do any of us play simply to mimic history. Each of us play this game to reimagine history, recast history it in a new light. For me, plausibility is key.

As Grosshaus makes mention, the goal is to make the game enjoyable to play for the masses. With this, I agree. With this in mind, I know that players want flexibility, and what we as players should have is a settings options for a variety of features we would want to see in the game. Too many of us players want to have the option to play as Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and have as rich and a rewarding game play experience as we would otherwise. Too many of us want to play with distinct Christian sects, such as Celtic Christians, Cathar Christians, and others. Many want to play with female ruler ship without game ending consequences. Many of us want a way to play in or as Republics, or other military orders.

I know I do not wish to be constrained with one particular viewpoint of what the High Middle Ages was, because the experiences were wide and varied throughout Europe. Gays enjoyed more tolerance under Cathar Aquitainia. Woman too, but also in Wales and in Navarra and Spain. Religious differences emerged in a variety of locations of such significance that, with further refinement, it would be hard to see them as Catholic.

I want to end serfdom in my realms, "emancipate" women (women enjoyed a high degree of power and legal rights in Wales, Aquitainia, and Spain, prior to the 12th century. Women in Wales continued to enjoy wide freedoms denied in other cultures until the Edwardian Conquest in the late 13th century.), and welcome minorities such as gays, gypsies, and Jewish, into my lands.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Hm, the more I think about what I miss in CK, the more I want an other title from them. NOT crusader kings...


But an other game dealing with the clash of christianity/islam, the birth of medieval countries, the settling of barbarians/nomads...

It would be brilliant, as this era (Western Rome is doomed, and feudal states are not yet established, roughly between 500-900) is not very common in PC games.

The tribes of slavs, great moravia, Longobards, bulgars, franks, vikings...


The migration and the rise of islam/christianity wouldn't work with their present engines though, but would definietly be brilliant

 

[wobbit]

As I understand it, the complaint is that Paradox has imposed its view of how the middle ages functioned on CK and that the OP disagrees with this view because (amongst other things) it is overly simplistic and misrepresents the Catholic church. (Please correct me if I've misunderstood).

The problem, as I see it, is that you CANNOT create a game like CK without imposing some kind of "worldview" on it. It's grand strategy and a sandbox game. The first isn't really suited to the scripted events you'd need to recreate every historical event (I really didn't like this aspect of EU2) and the second certainly isn't. To this end you have to take some theory or other and use it as the basis of the game. And herein lies the problem. If you take 10 historians, it's a fair bet that you'll have 10 overarching theories (ok an exageration, but not by as much as you may think). It gets even worse when you try and come up with somthing that can deal with all the variations on your system that exist across the 500 odd year period and the massive geographical area. You will NEVER be able to please everyone.

On top of this, you need to conform to people's ideas about the period and deal with the fact that the middle ages were undeniably alien to modern society (or even to early modern or ancient society). You have to produce a game that will be accessible to a large portion of the population, not just history nuts (and, of course, one that will be fun). As mentioned before, the game is sandbox, so you also have to have a system that will let you do what you want to a certain extent. While I don't agree with the extent that Drachenfire would like, I can certainly see where she's coming from. (In fact, there's no reason why what she suggests should not be possible in game, as long as you were faced with suitable consequences for your actions. Only issue is programing time and the additional complexities these requests would cause for the engine). At the same time, you need to make sure you don't have ahistorical events happening on a regular basis. (Emirate of Scotland, I'm looking at you here).

Fundamentaly, CK is a rudimentary historical simulation (sorry Drachenfire, although I think my view is completely reconcilable to yours) which can be altered by human interaction and by random events. This is what I think games of this genre should be (although the extent of randomness and human interaction is a matter of personal taste). While it is not the most accurate representation possible and it certainly won't conform to everyone's tastes it's a step in the right direction from the total war series and other similar games.

@Galuska

I would love to see a game of the nature you describe... Haven't we had this conversation before? :rofl:

 

[Orinsul]

Its not that it misrepresents catholicism is that it ignores it, and ignores everything else along with it. I am saying that celtic christianity and manicheasim should be in there, that fuedualism should be in there, NOT just kings and dukes. For Serfdom to be serfdom and not slavery. For the mechanics and base philosphy of the game to driven by an understanding of history, not a denial of it.


Not that its an oversimplistic view of the middle ages, but that its an over simplistic representation of something else that has very little to do with the middle ages. Just that rather than programmes decied what the world looked like and try to represent it, that they hire HISTORIANS as consultants and from the get go have input from expects so they can actually get the game to what it was meant to be.

And i agree that it would be hard to get a universal view, but the problem is that in the first one and in the EU series they went with the line, the past is alien to people of to-day, to-day is good and people are happy. Therefore in the past things were bad and people were unhappy. There is no room to admit that the system worked at the time, that people defended it, not that it was imposed by an upper class as they propose but that the people who lived that way because it was a way to live.

It can be dynamic and still actually be set in the middle ages, have mechanics in place to show the barons, the duties of an office, the universalism of europe, to bondage to the land and the threats to the faith, for it focus on family not individuals and oh a hundred other things. It would be more dynamic, because there would be more directions to go.

------------------------------------------------------------in reply to other things, probably not worth reading.

And good dracenfire who takes everything about the past as bad because it has to fit in a liberal box i apologuise as you misunderstood and it was no insult against you, you get upset at the fact that my wording of the improbability of the reformation, meaning that it had no reason to happen, none of the people that caused it knew they were causing it that it was an accident and that roused you into fury, it didnt mean that the reformation was a bad thing, though i might, i meant that it was an accident and one that depended entirely on exceptional circumstances. ALSO how did you do that red letters thing?
and if you were the sort to emmicipate women you wouldnt get rid of serfdom. By getting rid of serfdom youre deny the rights of peasent in order to allow the rich more wealth. its not a liberal action. and gays arent a minority and by god thats an offensive thing, there is no idenity. you fall in love, there is no community that goes along with it, and back then that was understood and so it wasnt persecuted. DONT go forcing modern liberal discriminations on the past because that actually is offensive, thats the whole problem in the first place and thats exactly what the game doesnt need. BUT thats also beside the point but you roused me.

FOR a different title as galuska brought up, ive often thought 'the Lion and the Unicorn' as a nice one, though probably as the subtitle for an expansion. [in a were fighting for the crown context]

 

[Hawkeye1489]

I'm curious to your exact problem with the manner of the way the game represents Catholicism. At this time, the Church is going through a series of greater reforms and reorganizations. It is in such a flux, that why can't the player have a say? In the very nature of the game, anything and everything outside of 1066 is open for any series of plausible events. So, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have to develop a College of Cardinals, which wasn't truly established until 1130. I have had plenty of games were Hildebrand (Gregory VII) isn't even elected to the Roman Papacy. However, what is key here is that you remain vague in your criticism. So much so, that I really don't know what you are arguing against.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

@Orinsul:

I _think_ I understand now

Just that rather than programmes decied what the world looked like and try to represent it, that they hire HISTORIANS as consultants and from the get go have input from expects so they can actually get the game to what it was meant to be.

What you should consider here is the fact that paradox makes kind of niche products already, I think they cannot afford to cut their fanbase even more.

Even though the 'dark' part of the middle ages are stereotypes rooting in reneissance world view, the game has them to an extent.

I don't think that CK falls for this though! While the advances of the age are not really represented, it is because it is not the focus. CK is a dynasty sim, and things like the role of christianity in forming europe, or the european type of thinking are simply not considered important to make a good dynasty sim.

to-day is good and people are happy. Therefore in the past things were bad and people were unhappy. There is no room to admit that the system worked at the time, that people defended it, not that it was imposed by an upper class as they propose but that the people who lived that way because it was a way to live.

I think noone judges other ages in this forum, not healthy.

What you wrote is true. Men are not allowed to know 2 different ages deeply, and then choose to live in it. The middle ages serf didn't care that they didn't know antibiotics, as we - compared to a guy 300 years later - don't care about not knowing the cure of aids.
It is fully possible to live a full and happy life without continously guessing what we are missing with living now, not later.

European feudalism, and early middle ages - in my opinion - were advancements compared to previous antique civilisations.
No slaves, a surrounding what actully help advancements.

Later this changed, a kind of desacralisation to put the man itself (and the needs) in focus. Not necessery worse or better, different.

It can be dynamic and still actually be set in the middle ages, have mechanics in place to show the barons, the duties of an office, the universalism of europe, to bondage to the land and the threats to the faith, for it focus on family not individuals and oh a hundred other things.

I can only think of 1 actual thing from CK.
The fact that the influence of religion on europe is only touched.

I still don't know this could be represented though!

I know that the chosen religion was behind european countries becoming contract-law-rule based society, instead of the authoritarian societies of the middle east for example.

 

[wobbit]

@Orinsul

I think I understand your complaint now. But what tangiable effect would you attach to the different varieties of christianity? Or to serfdom being distinct from slavery? How should these effect the mechanics of the game? And would their effect be significant enough to warrant their introduction? Or are they just to be included as flavour?

I understand your concern about modern preconceptions being imposed on the middle ages, especially the "today is good therefore yesterday was bad" idea you describe. However, I don't think the game really does this. Popular law, by description probably the closest you'd get to democracy, has little advantage over other laws (although I suppose royal perogative is arguably the least desirable law and is also the most autocratic, so you may have a point here). And I don't feel the flavour text of the events puts the period in a particularly bad light, nor do the outcomes of the multiple choice events. If you've got examples then please share them.

@galuska

how could the church be fixed in CK? Well for a start they could do away with the papal controller nonsense. I have ideas of what they could replace it with, but they're very long winded. Representation of variants of christianity, islam, paganism and heresy (of any religion) would be good as well, maybe with counties having percentage information about the religions within them (although that's a lot of data for the map as a whole). Events could then be coded for the consequences of having different religions within your territory and maybe allowing for the spread of heresy. At the same time a chain of events for reform or degeneration of the church could be constructed with MTTH effected by the characteristics of the Pope, the number of bishops and archbishops and various other factors. There's certainly a lot that could be played with if enough time and programme space was available.

 

[almoravid]

Its not that it misrepresents catholicism is that it ignores it, and ignores everything else along with it. I am saying that celtic christianity and manicheasim should be in there, that fuedualism should be in there, NOT just kings and dukes. For Serfdom to be serfdom and not slavery. For the mechanics and base philosphy of the game to driven by an understanding of history, not a denial of it.

how do you do it? how do you introduce feudalism, or the complicated mess the church was and keep the game playable and enjoyable?

The problem is, Paradox makes strategy games. They are about power. Power and wealth is what you strive to gain. In every game of Paradox, manpower is just another resource.

For the purpose of power politics, serfs are people who work for you. They make food which feeds the guys who earn you money and sometimes they have to go help the knights at war. Sometimes, they are unhappy, either about their rights being abysmal, or, more often, about their barons being cruel - that's when you have to do something about it. Aside from that, why would the player care for the serfs when power is his goal?


Then, Christianity. In a game about power, only the parts where the church influenced power politics are relevant. I don't think the current situation is optimal - crusades, knightly orders and the Pope are still far from being represented meaningfully. I just can't come up with a better representation that works as a fun game.

 

[.Spartan]

I would like a more dynamic simulation based on the era, sure. But I do not want to be pigeon holed into that either.

QFT+++ I see CKII as the crowing jewel for PI if done correctly.

There are also a lot of very well educated players here that would love to be involved if given a chance. If properly managed a CKII project could offer a value well beyond any economic metric. The quality factor could be off the chart vs spent capital; labors of love are often such things...

I also believe a lot of people would "invest" or "prepay" to get the title going if given a chance assuming financing is an issue for PI.

 

[unmerged(22575)]

As much as I want see Crusader Kings II I kind of don’t want Paradox to make it, atleast not without a dedicated force of medievalists and historians and atleast a single catholic at their side to explain what the Middle Ages actually were and tell them what all the long words mean.

I hate to be the bearer of unfortunate news to you, but Paradox is a company in the business of making video games. You seem to want a perfect historical simulation--not only is this not possible, but the amount of work it would require, just to get the facts "right" would be cost prohibitive.

Not to mention you are never going to make everyone happy, there will always be people who complain about this or that being slightly off.

Paradox as a company, wants to capture as large an audience as possible for the least amount of money--people like me who like these historical games, but on whom getting "every detail" right would be lost.

It is for people like you, who care about these things, that the modding community arises with titles like these.

Crusader Kings covers Europeans Golden Age, the height of Christian civilisation and all the things that made it so are either ignore entirely or treated as barbarism.

You speak so romantically about the Feudal period, as if we should have never left it.This is not how history works. Nor would I care to return to "Christian" civilization as such. The very codification of the Western world in those terms strikes me as wrong. I have my problems with the Enlightenment, but I wonder if it is not on you whom the power of that secular move, and what it has meant for the benefit for humanity, is lost.

The great movements of the age are ignored entirely, the revolution of the Frairs goes unmentioned and the reforms of the church with it, the turbulence of the Manichean heresy and the albigensian crusade again is entirely skipped over.

You ask too much of a video game. So goes capitalism, I am afraid.

Feudalism is treated as mere tyranny, kings raised to the corruption and authority as was only ever seen long after the reformation once the system had degenerated completely, Serfdom is treated as though it were slavery with peasants rising against it where they only ever rose to defend it

True enough. Many people cannot see beyond the capitalist mode of production and the current epistemic frame. A lot is lost this way, many people being incapable of seeing the ways in which previous socio-economic arrangements of society provided something we lack. Particularly when it came to our relationship to the world, to our labor, and to the community.

That said you act as if the bourgeois revolutions were not founded on real critiques of Feudalism. You also seem to be suggesting here that Feudal monarchs and rulers did not have the capacity to act arbitrarily, and that nowhere in the history of the Western world were there ever peasant uprisings against monarchs in Europe.

And I understand that you are a catholic, but you seem to be suggesting that the reformation is what was ultimately responsible for any corruption and cleavages in the Feudal order generally, or the catholic church specifically. As if the reformation existed in the minds of only men like Luther, and wasn't a response to something palpable. Revolutions, ideological or otherwise, do not work that way.

Middle ages but in reality it is really only set inside the middle ages as presented in American cartoons.

This is because it is a game. Every historical grand strategy game is like this. Name the company, name the game. It has to be, by the very nature of our economic system, and by the amount of effort and money that would have to be thrown at a product to make it any different.

Not to mention to make the game playable in any real sense.

It was a world of nationalism

This is just flat our wrong. I don't want to get into an historical debate with you, but almost nowhere, and in no academic discipline, will you find codifications of "nationalism" predating the rise of the nation state. This doesn't occur until after Gutenberg, and comes with a particular conception of the state and sovereignty that is only really tangible in Europe with the treaty of Westphalia--when the Enlightenment is fully present in most of Western Europe.

You are imposing a modern concept of "nation" backwards through time and placing it in the minds of people who simply didn't have it.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Orinsul, I think it's you who has a wrong idea of what the Middle Ages were.

You seem to think of them as the Golden Age of catholicism, when in fact, even though some Popes were very powerful (Innocent III was de facto the ruler of Europe for as long as he lived, and he was made Pope being less than 40 years old), Catholicism was in frank decay. Jesus' teachings had been long forgotten, chaplains had concubines, Popes had children, bishops held terrenal power. The Medieval Church was an organization, a very well organized theocracy, the most direct inheritor of the Western Roman Empire, but look at the path they kept: it lead them to the Great Schism, then to Investidures Controversy, the creation of very violent factions all over Europe (Guelphs and Ghibellines), the Western Schism, and ultimately to the Reformation. At the same time, the Reformation brought puritanism to Catholicism, making it even more depressing.

The successive reformations to make Christendom "purer" utterly failed. The Gregorian reform didn't wipe out corrupt clergymen, neither did it remove simony or nicolaism, two of the major faults that Gregory tried to fight againt. The reform of the monks of Cluny also failed. It kept on for more than 50 years, but as they got more money from pious or hypocrite nobles and burghers, they went greedy and ended up being one of the richest branches of the Church. The same with the monks of Citeaux, the Cistercians. The same cicle with the Templars and the other knightly orders, especially the Teutonic Knights, which last Grandmaster converted to Lutheranism in order to keep his estates. Hence the duchy of Prussia and the House of Hohenzollern. Only the Franciscans succeeded in delivering a sincere message of apostolic poverty and purity that prevailed, because the Dominicans became also overwhelmed by wealth and, also, their job as inquisitors was not very popular.

Feudalism, although fully consolidated in the XIIIth Century, was not in fashion everywhere. Some places rejected it, some other places just adapted it partially, other places (England, France, Aragon) embraced it totally (maybe because it began there, in the mainland of Western Europe). But the peasants had certainly no conscience of being forced by God's will to be part of the lowest rank of society. They wished to be at the top. That's why we have so many notices of fleeing serfs, serfs that run away to the towns to try to become citizens, peasants revolting constantly...

While the Early Middle Ages had been times of relative liberality, cultural growth (the Carolingian Renaissance) and economical and social rising, after the XIIth Century the Church helps feudalism to consolidate, the little people gets definitely subject to the land they work in, servitude becomes the rule. Archaeology proves that alimentation patterns were far worse in the XIIIth Century than what they were in the XIth. Before the Church recovered the Roman law in the XIIIth Century, it was the man who gave the "dot", "dowry" (is it the English name) to the woman after the marriage, because a wife was a help and a support for the husband, and for in case he left her, she could have the dowry to be a guarantee. But the Romans considered the woman as a burden, not as a support, so she had to pay a dowry.

There is a turning point between the XI-XIIIth Centuries that mark the change of Western civilization forever. We're still feeling its consequences. But now I got a little off the topic.

My point: this game is the best depiction of the Feudal politics I've ever seen. Ccould it be better? Sure! It could be much better! But in political terms, this game is the best expression of Feudal politics. It lacks social treatment, economics, complexity in the military system, and the character issues have lots of bugs and weird issues, but it's an excellent start, if you ask me.

CK makes me feel like I'm there. Really

PS: By the way, they don't need any Catholic to capture the essence of popular religiosity. I don't think a Catholic could really grasp the religious diversity, the simplicity of the peoples' theology opposite to the complexity of dogma, the common and misunderstood little and local heresies, the large heresies... I am interested myself in theology although I'm no Catholic, or believer at all.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Orinsul, I think it's you who has a wrong idea of what the Middle Ages were.

You seem to think of them as the Golden Age of catholicism, when in fact, even though some Popes were very powerful (Innocent III was de facto the ruler of Europe for as long as he lived, and he was made Pope being less than 40 years old), Catholicism was in frank decay. Jesus' teachings had been long forgotten, chaplains had concubines, Popes had children, bishops held terrenal power. The Medieval Church was an organization, a very well organized theocracy, the most direct inheritor of the Western Roman Empire, but look at the path they kept: it lead them to the Great Schism, then to Investidures Controversy, the creation of very violent factions all over Europe (Guelphs and Ghibellines), the Western Schism, and ultimately to the Reformation. At the same time, the Reformation brought puritanism to Catholicism, making it even more depressing.

The successive reformations to make Christendom "purer" utterly failed. The Gregorian reform didn't wipe out corrupt clergymen, neither did it remove simony or nicolaism, two of the major faults that Gregory tried to fight againt. The reform of the monks of Cluny also failed. It kept on for more than 50 years, but as they got more money from pious or hypocrite nobles and burghers, they went greedy and ended up being one of the richest branches of the Church. The same with the monks of Citeaux, the Cistercians. The same cicle with the Templars and the other knightly orders, especially the Teutonic Knights, which last Grandmaster converted to Lutheranism in order to keep his estates. Hence the duchy of Prussia and the House of Hohenzollern.

You only highlight the bad parts (schism, guelphs-ghibbelins, etc.), but you forget that the christian church had lots of good things too.

For example agricultural techniques were spread by the church, they taught the people these.
Also, the fact that the main religion of the era was kind of contract based (you behave good and then you will go the heaven) influenced the populace so much, that contracts became common all over the place.

edit:

1. Also, the fact that there was something to unite Europe (religion), and Europe didn't become a place of scattered small cults, helped greatly to help against invaders (who were already united).

2. Also, were the places where there was no catholic church (North Africa, middle east, steppes, balkans) better? No.

Only the Franciscans succeeded in delivering a sincere message of apostolic poverty and purity that prevailed, because the Dominicans became also overwhelmed by wealth and, also, their job as inquisitors was not very popular.

Inquisition is not this era mainly (early medieval).
Also, it was a trial at least. I mean it was an advancement and an important step from the earlier law and punishment ('hang him' without trial).

Also, the king had to request inquisitiors. In Hungary there was none, and IIRC England had none...

But the peasants had certainly no conscience of being forced by God's will to be part of the lowest rank of society. They wished to be at the top. That's why we have so many notices of fleeing serfs, serfs that run away to the towns to try to become citizens, peasants revolting constantly...

Serfdom was better then slavery, don't forget that!

True some folks entering the ranks of serfs 'from above' felt the problems of it, but who entered the ranks as former slaves, got a better position. The achievement of serfdom is that it was - compared to earlier ranks - something which had fixed rights and duties.


I don't know of the major non-hungarian revolts.
But in Hungary, revolts happened not because of 'low ranks'.
They happened either when:
- there was a real .ssh.le ruling over them. (1437, the Transylvanian revolt was caused by double taxes from the voivode)
- when the serfs felt that nobles cannot defend them anymore, so they shouldn't serve anymore. (when the hungarian nobility couldn't defend part of the country from the ottomans, the most famous is 1514)

My point: this game is the best depiction of the Feudal politics I've ever seen. Ccould it be better? Sure! It could be much better! But in political terms, this game is the best expression of Feudal politics. It lacks social treatment, economics, complexity in the military system, and the character issues have lots of bugs and weird issues, but it's an excellent start, if you ask me.

CK makes me feel like I'm there. Really

I concur!

 

[unmerged(76802)]

2. Also, were the places where there was no catholic church (North Africa, middle east, steppes, balkans) better? No.

I'm pretty sure the Byzantine Empire was about as good a place to live as you could get in the medieval period.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

I'm pretty sure the Byzantine Empire was about as good a place to live as you could get in the medieval period.

Most likely you are on the other side of the spectrum, I always think of Byzantium as a bully, who never left other nations alone in the name of 500 year old claims, and in the end, got what it deserved. Also the land of oppression, demagogy, populism, political snitchers and stagnation.


I know that what I wrote is biased, but you are already aware of the good sides of the empire. (culture, arts, administration, etc.)