• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I definitely agree with you about Geoffrey. But I'm not sure such fanatism was uncommon at the time. Even if many crusaders -fortunately- were less prone than him to conquering, the lame and disastrous first crusade, the peasants' one, shows that there really was LOADS of faith involved.

Sure, the way Venicians directed the 4th Crusade to Constantinople is all the evidence we need to show that many, including some of the mighiest, had a much more secular point of view. But since very few "westerners" stayed in the Middle East after the conquest of Jerusalem was achieved, there was a lot more than mere sensible and rational economic reasons.

Let's not forget that even if crusading was economically disastrous for most crusaders, waging war was definitely in the nobles' mentality. I was taught all my childhood that the Church at the time wanted above all to limit private warfare between christian lords. Sending them wage war somewhere else was a rational choice too, and Jerusalem was the obvious target for religious reasons.

In short, mentality had a key role, faith was real in many cases, and crusades were partly rational from some points of view.

I just hope I'm not adding to a thread war... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The only proper 'crusades' being done are the ones by Muslims attacking all over Europe, from the heel of Italy to Scandinavia. When it should be vice versa. The attacks against Europe should be focused against the Iberian peninsula and against the Eastern Roman Empire, while the Christians should be far more inclined to go to the Middle East than they are now.
Some more friction of Catholic vs. Orthodox would be brilliant as well (could maybe lead to the kind of war that led to the sack of Constantinople in 1204 - that would make playing BYZ a horrendous challenge).

CK2? ;)
 
Try it again and force-vassalize all the sheiks that you can. It'll be a lot more rewarding.

And a lot less historical! I'm with the OP on this one...

I have no idea what went through the developers' heads, but I think it's utter BS, to be honest. Instead of getting hailed as "XX the Lionheart" by all of Christendom for going into the Crusades and retaking Jerusalem/Alexandria/Burgos/etc, you get lots of BB --> internal stability conflict because your vassels break apart.

There was nothing wrong with how this worked in CK (at least compared to now), and this annoying feature is close to making me sorry I got DV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.