Crusading - Waste of time?

[Melichai]

Ive been playing a modified De Clare start from the 1187 scenario, a "what if" Gilbert De Clare had inherited Strongbow type scenario. So far things have gone great - grown from two counties to expanded lands in Wales, forming the Kingdom of Ireland and the grandson will inherit the crown of Brittany as well as that of Ireland and most likely Wales. And is 4th in the line of succession to England as well, but I amnt bothered. Gilberts had a decent life. Its 1220 now, all is secure, all the income is being ploughed into buildings.

Gilberts got the Crusader trait, hes about 46, and the Pope calls for a Crusade to liberate Antioch. It seems like a good way to round out a successful career.

Is it pointless though? The demense is raking in about 75-76 a month, I have about 700 in the bank.

The Kingdom of Egypt holds Antiocheia and can rally up 100,000 men. The numbers dont bother me - Id happily head over there with 20,000 and get the job done. But its effectively impossible isnt it unless you are raking in hundreds every single month?

Moving 20,000 men is going to cost me at least 1,200 gold. Its going to take 14-15 months to get there, during which I will take 20% attrition unless I spend 250 ish a month. So thats another 3,750 gold. 4,950 gold so far and Ive not even properly begun crusading yet.

I could go with less, indeed I tried. I went with 7800 men instead. 540 gold to transport (seriously? for scurvy and dysentry?) . 120 gold a month. 2,340 gold before I get started. Or, as I desperately tried to balance things, 1,700 dead from attrition by the time I reached Antiocheia. I won the first couple of battles and sieges, taking more attrition all the time, then got curb stomped by a stack of 16,000 Egyptians as I desperately tried to make peace, any peace, any peace at all. Obviously, none of the major powers (England, France, Germany etc) bothered crusading.

Essentially, I shouldnt bother should I? Id need about 3 or 4 times the monthly income before its possible to move a realistic amount of troops over there and support them. Or am I doing some really badly wrong? Should I have sent my troops by sea to the continent and gone by land? Is that even possible to breach neutral borders for crusading powers?

The only other alternative I can think of is to declare war on the Egyptians and stomp their armies as they come to me and hopefully break them before I send my own invasion? Or is it just a waste of time given the monetary resources I have and the epic manpower the egyptians have?

 

[Bobbins71]

Or you could use your vassals troops and pay nothing!

 

[sjones25]

Yes, from a financial perspective, Crusading is a wast of time and a huge wast of money. You do get a bunch of prestige and piety and some distant lands that you will struggle to hold on to for the rest of the game.

In order to save money you can call for a grand mobilization, then as soon as all your vassals have mobilized, demobilize your own troops. Your vassals, being AI, don't pay any upkeep on their troops, so you basically have an upkeep-free army at your command. Of course, it probably won't be as powerful as your own armies, so you'll most likely get stomped by the infidels anyway, but hey thats what happened to the crusader kings IRL!

 

[performer]

It's a waste of time, as it was in reality ;-)

 

[unmerged(84239)]

IRL these were important.


I mean what I know is that in 1396, even though the christian army was defeated by the ottomans, it was enough to keep the ottos out of northern balkans for 30-40 years.

This would have not been possible without the help of the pope and other christian kingdoms.


It is true that the french/burgundian knights were true arrogant and listen to reason, so the battle was lost, but the idea that christian realms must work together to counter the greater mobilization pool of muslim states is a good one.



EDIT:
also, on a personal level, a medieval ruler found it pretty cool to save the holy land.
Even if he went bankrupt.
Like the duke of Austria. He really was dirt poor in the end, but he was considered one of the greatest warriors during his time.
Also, if you could conquer something, you could get lots of power. I mean, who was the founder of Antiochea? A nobody...

 

[Kolonel]

Waste of time? Yes.
Waste of money? Yes.

But from a roleplaying perspective, liberating Antioch (or die trying) would be an awesome conclusion of his life, wouldn't it?
Look at Godfrey of Bouillon. He sold most of his lands, re-took Jerusalem for Christianity and gained immortality.

 

[DarthJF]

Smacking whole lot of infidels for huge amounts of piety and becoming PC can be rather good investment sometimes.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

People sometimes forget that this game covers 400 years.

Early crusading is expensive but after about 150 years or so when the AI has built all the improvements it can, crusading becomes very profitable. Since those Muslims and Pagans then have huge treasuries and fighting them can bring big gains (+15,000 gold f.e.).

 

[unmerged(7537)]

People sometimes forget that this game covers 400 years.

Early crusading is expensive but after about 150 years or so when the AI has built all the improvements it can, crusading becomes very profitable. Since those Muslims and Pagans then have huge treasuries and fighting them can bring big gains (+15,000 gold f.e.).

Unfortunately, in most games, 150 years in the nearest infidel territories (Sicily, Spain, Egypt, the Levant) have already been claimed.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Unfortunately, in most games, 150 years in the nearest infidel territories (Sicily, Spain, Egypt, the Levant) have already been claimed.

Somehow that always never happens in my games

 

[DarthJF]

I usually see crusaders taking Egypt and Levant within the first decades, then they usually rebel and go back to muslim during the decades following that. I've never seen AI crusaders manage to keep a permanent hold of muslim lands if you discount a few lucky counties.

 

[Ambigore]

I don't think it's a waste of time. In fact in most cases I find crusades too "gamey", especially with the add-on. You can force-vassalise Muslims left and right and own most of the Middle East after 40 years. I usually backup the crusader events file and delete everything in it. The Christian and Muslim kingdoms fight each other well without it.

 

[GaiusC]

I've never seen AI crusaders manage to keep a permanent hold of muslim lands if you discount a few lucky counties.

Do you include Spain/Al-Andalus in it?
Because, in my experience, it seems that, considering how close to Western Europe powerhouses it is, compared to distant Egypt and Levant, as soon as there's a crusade, a host of locusts fall upon the Taifas, who are soon wiped out and the bigger Christian kingdoms end up fighting each other for the spoils

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Do you include Spain/Al-Andalus in it?
Because, in my experience, it seems that, considering how close to Western Europe powerhouses it is, compared to distant Egypt and Levant, as soon as there's a crusade, a host of locusts fall upon the Taifas, who are soon wiped out and the bigger Christian kingdoms end up fighting each other for the spoils

Or, worse, Venice or the Papal States join in.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I love to send away my bastards as crusaders and give them the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Egypt, Mauretania... It's so RPG...

 

[Wulfram]

I usually find it necessary to intervene to stop the spanish muslims eating france

 

[DarthJF]

Do you include Spain/Al-Andalus in it?
Because, in my experience, it seems that, considering how close to Western Europe powerhouses it is, compared to distant Egypt and Levant, as soon as there's a crusade, a host of locusts fall upon the Taifas, who are soon wiped out and the bigger Christian kingdoms end up fighting each other for the spoils

No, I was talking only about the Middle-East. You never know what's going to happen in Spain. Sometimes muslims there fully beat Christian powers, other times France or some other crusaders conquer whole Spain.

 

[WankoStankins]

Its not a waste of time, but maybe my perspective is skewed, I normally play as the Germany, so I can easily muster troops and money to dominate the holy land. But unless you're a major power, then I'd recommend holding off on crusading, because noone else crusades. But it is possible if you base it off holdings in italy/balkans. In my game its 1090 and I'm now king of Germany, Italy, Burgundy, Bohemia, Croatia, France, Denmark, Jerusalem, Nubia without cheating. I have it set on 0 scrutage to avoid massive rebellions, and promoting everyone I can to ducal status gets me 20 prestige a month. Whenever the pope calls a crusade, I mobilise all my Sicilian and South Italian holdings and send them over to destroy whichever nation holds it. So far I've taken all of Egypt and Nubia, a large area of land surrounding Jerusalem and the Sinai, in two crusades. I wouldn't have been able to do it without vassals, so yeah, if you have to, donate more of your provinces to vassals to get the free upkeep. I don't even use my own troops for wars.

 

[Nyrael]

Yep, it is a waste of time. It was at that time as well.
So why crusade? For the same reason as before: it would make you feel cool if you win.

For example, you can make your goal to be destruction of Muslim kingdoms and then creating a Christian kingdom in its place. It would be even greater waste but it would be cool to see Christian coutnries in what were once Muslim lands.

 

[Morrell8]

IN one of my games I was playing as the county of holland later duchy of holland, waiting for the emirs of the kingdom of Egypt to rebel as they normally do since they are sunni and the king is shiite. I took the land, created the kingdom of Jerusalem by event then grabbed the titles and took the land back becoming the king of Jerusalem.