• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I see your doge and raise you my satrap. Blind, kinslayer, homosexual, lunatic, drunkard, voice of satan + 6 deadly sins, arbitrary, cruel, craven. That you, Joffrey?

6605B2A6E1CF2B9F419216CA3CC9ADD6CA8D5DBB
Nah, this guy is Patient... but soooo close...
 
I've never actually seen a crusade initiated by Heresy. I assume Pisa has won Hungary (most of it, anyway) through an earlier crusade, which makes it quite ironic.

I had one two playthroughs ago, inadvertently caused by me. As Ireland, I didn't get along with the Pope, who was slightly lackluster (understatement), so made an anti-pope with a very good vassal of mine. A combination of that and a failed first crusade for Jerusalem lowered authority enough that most of Western Europe went to heresy. The French king defected, and in the midst of civil war over a still Catholic competitor the Papacy itself (now under a much more competent Pope) managed to size Aquitaine. By 1200 about 4/5 of 1066 France was under Papal direct control.
 
Just my playthrough from 800-1000 AD: (The Danish/Norse Britannian Empire is my doing)
2013-06-12_00001.jpg

Most interesting is that Orthodox religion is all but vanished and replaced by the Orthodox herecy of Iconoclast:
2013-06-12_00002.jpg
 
In both my 867 play throughs that has also happened.
Well, honestly I rather like that. It wasn't that long after the rule of Iconoclasm, so it could still easily happen again. Besides, Iconoclasm was more of a minor doctrinal difference within Orthodoxy that escalated due to political concerns. Basically the two branches were almost the same, with the difference iconography being the one significant difference. I wouldn't be surprised if there were currently both Orthodox and Catholic branches that have a greater difference from the mainstream path, but are still considered wholly within.
 
Well, honestly I rather like that. It wasn't that long after the rule of Iconoclasm, so it could still easily happen again. Besides, Iconoclasm was more of a minor doctrinal difference within Orthodoxy that escalated due to political concerns. Basically the two branches were almost the same, with the difference iconography being the one significant difference. I wouldn't be surprised if there were currently both Orthodox and Catholic branches that have a greater difference from the mainstream path, but are still considered wholly within.

Easily happen again... a third time? really? And I would not say at all that iconoclasts and iconodules were mostly just political! Granted, theology basically became what politics were for us...

"The whole city is full of it, the squares, the marketplaces, the crossroads, the alleyways; rag dealers, money-changers, food-sellers, they are busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten, if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask, "Is my bath ready?" the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing." - Gregory of Nyssa​


Iconoclasm is one of the most boring heresies in the game though, because they do not have a patriarch and thus cannot follow that old route. I have to manually add a Iconoclast Patriarch!
Personally I feel you are ignoring the theological implications of icons, but I do not understand what you mean when you say " if there were currently both Orthodox and Catholic branches that have a greater difference from the mainstream path, but are still considered wholly within" do you mean churches within the church? So, like you might say that the church under the Moscow Patriarchate has more differences with the church under the Alexandrian Patriarchate, compared to the Orthodox Church and the Iconoclasts?
 
Well, honestly I rather like that. It wasn't that long after the rule of Iconoclasm, so it could still easily happen again. Besides, Iconoclasm was more of a minor doctrinal difference within Orthodoxy that escalated due to political concerns. Basically the two branches were almost the same, with the difference iconography being the one significant difference. I wouldn't be surprised if there were currently both Orthodox and Catholic branches that have a greater difference from the mainstream path, but are still considered wholly within.

Ditto, it's rather historically accurate as the ERE when through a period of iconoclasm in, I think, the 6th century. I would like it though if a heresy becomes the dominant branch then it should be able to "switch" with orthodoxy so orthodoxy is the heresy and iconoclasm is the norm. It's a little annoying to have the patriarch as the only orthodox guy in the empire.
 
Okay, so we've all heard of things like Black Vikings, but how about the exact opposite?
66DJbR4.jpg

Yep, here we have an ethnically Norse man who has been raised Mande and into the West African (reformed) religion.

And yes, his liege is the still living West African Shia Caliph and Empress of Mali.

Also, dig that heart patterned COA.