Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Kingdom of Jerusalem

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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'll change the fortress drop and add the MIL decrease, but not remove the sleepevent commands and here's why.

1. In Interregnum one of our themes for designing events/countries is there need to be alternate paths and storylines.

2. Actions and choices need consequences: this is what really makes a choice in an event juicy, especially when the consequences can be felt later in the game, even sometimes a long time into the future.

3. The Kingdom has now been in existence for over 300 years and has at various times been at war with the Caliphate and also their ally. The old us versus them nature of the KoJ has matured somewhat. There are definitely those within the kingdom who are all for peace and trade with the Arabs: we have Jerusalem, we don't want Mecca, let's get rich and live in peace.

4. The Templars need to represent the 'old school' of thought. Us versus them, Christians versus saracens. They are the ones on the mission from god and need to be definied differently by that to stand out within the context of the culture of the KoJ.

5. As we build events/ideas to represent this element of the KoJ, the decision of the King (the player) to side with and take advantage of the Templars needs to be represented by a number of elements, including DP sliders (Offensive up, Innovative down, for example) but also events. One of these ought to be how the Christians pursue war with the Muslims. The ai for KoJ would change to be more aggressive and name CAL as a foe.
In addition, it ought to alter what happens when Baghdad is taken (if, I should say, the Caliphate is going to be a tough cookie to crack).

6. The game already models the pillage of cities: the province makes no taxes for a year and your coffers go up a little once you occupy a province. So, these Pillage events represent a MAJOR ransacking and destruction of the city based on historical vengeance and extreme hate. Hundreds of thousands of people will be killed etc, not just the city looted outrageously. On the act of someone who was possessed and wanted blood, not territory. We currently have them for the Il-Khanate sacking Baghdad (as happened historically) and the Order of the Crescent sacking Byzantium, plus some minor versions for Genoa sacking Alexandria under Andrea Dorea.

7. Such major pillage requires two events each time. If we say that one country can do it, why not any country that captures the provinces. Two more events each time, with each version needing to sleep the others. And if Baghdad and Byzantium, why not every other city? So, these need to be very specialized events, redicated on extreme prejudice.

8. Accordingly, I want to keep the sack of Baghdad to just Hulagu III in the Il-Khanate file, and to the KoJ when under the influence of the hawkish Templars. It has the right flavour/justification, and also gives some 'benefit' for taking that course as the KoJ.

Matty
 
One problem with what you wrote there: the Templars (assuming this is the same one that won the first crusade, I might have missed that) was a rather liberal organization; it was not formed to conquer Jerusalem for Christianity, as it had been conquered a few years before they came to the City. They also had strong ties with the cathars back before the albigensian crusade and the abolishment of the knights templar...and the muslim Assassins (all this is IRL, of course).
 
Ahhh by the way, the Europeans who intermingled with the Syrians and bred a new class of Christians in the levant were called 'poulians' , they also called themselves 'Galilean' - perhaps a better term than 'Levantine' ?and more representative of the now 'native' Euro-Syrian Christians.
 
Last edited:
orimazd said:
One problem with what you wrote there: the Templars (assuming this is the same one that won the first crusade, I might have missed that) was a rather liberal organization; it was not formed to conquer Jerusalem for Christianity, as it had been conquered a few years before they came to the City. They also had strong ties with the cathars back before the albigensian crusade and the abolishment of the knights templar...and the muslim Assassins (all this is IRL, of course).
Click to expand...


Hmmm, never encountered the idea that they were 'liberal' in my very limited reading about the Templars.

In what sense do you mean this?

How do you see the Templars working within the KoJ?

Of course, we could instead postulate a separate order, rather than be tied down by an original and famous order like the Templars.
 
Calipah said:
Ahhh by the way, the Europeans who intermingled with the Syrians and bred a new class of Christians in the levant were called 'poulians' , they also called themselves 'Galilean' - perhaps a better term than 'Levantine' ?and more representative of the now 'native' Euro-Syrian Christians.
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting.

Maybe Incompetant chose Levantine in part because no one there would have called themselves by tht name, so it encompasses the amazing mix of cultures and people there who somehow managed to weave together into a functioning society?
 
MattyG said:
Hmmm, never encountered the idea that they were 'liberal' in my very limited reading about the Templars.

In what sense do you mean this?

How do you see the Templars working within the KoJ?

Of course, we could instead postulate a separate order, rather than be tied down by an original and famous order like the Templars.
Click to expand...
The fact that they had ties with the cathars in languedoc should say something about how...tolerant they were of other religious beliefs. I would actually suggest that the KoJ should start out with a royal marriage or something like that with Languedoc, though this isn't IIRC the same KoJ as what was left after the first crusade.

Add to this the fact that the KoJ and the Caliphate have at times actually been allies, especially in the recent past when the game starts should say that while there might have been a rivalry, both sides respected each other in a way that fundamentalist groups do not--especially after seeing what could be called a manifestation of the Manichaean unGod or anti-God in the eyes of both groups--you know, the mongols, the Ilkhanate, whatever you want to call it, and their style of destruction. Both sides seeing that the other in their long conflict is not the worst they could be dealing with would definitely give some way to a society tolerant of both Muslims and Christians. And that's just in aberrated history; my readings on the templars mostly deal with accusations and rennes-le-chateau and all that, but some of what was written in these books cannot be ignored just because most of the books were full of BS.
 
MattyG said:
Hmm, interesting.

Maybe Incompetant chose Levantine in part because no one there would have called themselves by tht name, so it encompasses the amazing mix of cultures and people there who somehow managed to weave together into a functioning society?
Click to expand...

Actually, the native 'Christians' - the children of the first Crusade who intermarried with the Syrians refered to themselves as both poulians and Galilean. I suppose the infusion of new waves of Crusaders may have distrupted that, but the new and more Middle eastern culture had emerged by then.
 
orimazd said:
The fact that they had ties with the cathars in languedoc should say something about how...tolerant they were of other religious beliefs. I would actually suggest that the KoJ should start out with a royal marriage or something like that with Languedoc, though this isn't IIRC the same KoJ as what was left after the first crusade.

Add to this the fact that the KoJ and the Caliphate have at times actually been allies, especially in the recent past when the game starts should say that while there might have been a rivalry, both sides respected each other in a way that fundamentalist groups do not--especially after seeing what could be called a manifestation of the Manichaean unGod or anti-God in the eyes of both groups--you know, the mongols, the Ilkhanate, whatever you want to call it, and their style of destruction. Both sides seeing that the other in their long conflict is not the worst they could be dealing with would definitely give some way to a society tolerant of both Muslims and Christians. And that's just in aberrated history; my readings on the templars mostly deal with accusations and rennes-le-chateau and all that, but some of what was written in these books cannot be ignored just because most of the books were full of BS.
Click to expand...


Hmm, this brings up the intriguing possibility of a KoJ NOT at war with the Caliphate. Could it work? What could this Kingdom aim at? Trade to oppose Genoa? Defeating the Fatimids? Taking Turkey from whoever has it?

I'd fear they have very little room to expand on land, but theycould perhaps launch new crusades in America or so.
 
Avernite said:
Hmm, this brings up the intriguing possibility of a KoJ NOT at war with the Caliphate. Could it work? What could this Kingdom aim at? Trade to oppose Genoa? Defeating the Fatimids? Taking Turkey from whoever has it?

I'd fear they have very little room to expand on land, but theycould perhaps launch new crusades in America or so.
Click to expand...

Maybe they could choose their path from several?
1. The already existing war with the Caliphate.
2. Rebelling against the church and leading the reformation (i see this as possible because they will be an innovative mix of muslims and christains who see the centralized rule of the pope to be tyrannical)
3. Creating a Merchant nation and acting as the port connecting the Caliphate with Europe. They could expand south and control the Indian ocean trade as well as making an Italian alliance and colonizing America (the italian alliance would probably come with an Italian enemy, unless Genoa and Sicily are allies).

I think that any of these paths would be interesting, and if well developed could make the KoJ into an interesting player control power, instead of the less interesting thing it is now.

What do you think?
 
1. The already existing war with the Caliphate.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt say they are at war with the Caliphate - rather with much of the Muslim World, as dare I say - Muslims were banned from Jeruslem and the Mosque of Nocturnal Journey.

2. Rebelling against the church and leading the reformation (i see this as possible because they will be an innovative mix of muslims and christains who see the centralized rule of the pope to be tyrannical)
Click to expand...

Well, most Muslims resided in the countryside with the Jews - so I suppose if the Crusader Kingdom allows Muslims to resettle in Jeruslem , allows Muslim pilgrims to return, and hands over the Al-Aqca and Dome of Rock Mosques back to the Muslims - the problems would be somewhat less severe, but I doubt seeing that in a Crusader Latin Kingdom.
3. Creating a Merchant nation and acting as the port connecting the Caliphate with Europe. They could expand south and control the Indian ocean trade as well as making an Italian alliance and colonizing America (the italian alliance would probably come with an Italian enemy, unless Genoa and Sicily are allies).
Click to expand...
This I have a problem with - expanding south?By land that means overruning Medina and Mecca - which to Muslims would mean a crises of faith and something Id oppose freverently - for religious as well as cultural reasons.Anyway, even the notion of advancing on the Holy Cities would mean every Muslim from Cordoba to Indonesia would be up in arms to get rid of the Crusaders, not to mention internal revolts - not pretty eh?
 
Calipah said:
This I have a problem with - expanding south?By land that means overruning Medina and Mecca - which to Muslims would mean a crises of faith and something Id oppose freverently - for religious as well as cultural reasons.Anyway, even the notion of advancing on the Holy Cities would mean every Muslim from Cordoba to Indonesia would be up in arms to get rid of the Crusaders, not to mention internal revolts - not pretty eh?
Click to expand...
Oh true, i forgot that one side of the red sea is very important to the muslims. Of course, if they really have a tolerant society where muslims have equal rights with christians and the holy city is open, i could imagine that the muslims might not be too concerned with them takeing the red sea. Especially if say the mamelukes backstab the caliphate and take mecca/medina, KoJ could join the caliphate to pwn mameluks and take the red sea (and allow caliphate merchants easy access through jerusalem to the west).
These aren't typical crusaders if they follow this path.
 
Your comments bring me to a point I have not researched...


Are there events if the KoJ takes Medina/Mecca?
 
There are currently no events or mechanisms for Mecca and Medina in the way that there are for Rome. When Rome is owned by someone other than the Papcy, all Catholic nations get a CB against them.

It would be good if the game modelled these cities in the same way, and Jerusalem too. But it does not. We can do it by giving cores, but core work no matter who owns it, so the Mamelukes would have a CB on the caliphate if they owned Mecca. And it also lowers relations between the two, also not appropriate.

The only way to do it cleanly is that whenever one of those provinces is owned by a non sunni/shiite religion country, it triggers events that give a CB to each of the muslim nations.

Jerusalem is - as always - a slightly special case. Not certain how best to model this place. But I don't see access and tolerance as historically accurate. There were certainly periods where the Caliphate was more accepting of Jews and Christians (and others) than the crusaders ever were of muslims, but do we really want to propose that this kind of regime could last the 400 years of the game?
 
loki1232 said:
I would argue that only a sufficiently tolerant regime could last that long.

Referring to the KoJ of course.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea.

Please reveal a full slate of arguments.
 
I don't really know much about the KoJ, but here goes:

The KoJ did best when it was either very supported by the church (crusade) or it was tolerant, open to muslims, and peaceful.
The church in interrergnum at this point is going to be very pre-occupied with Bavaria, cordoba, and the reformation. No help for the KoJ there.

So they will have to be accepting of muslims to keep the Caliphate from pwning them.
There are a couple of reasons why a tolerant KoJ would have peace with Caliphate. First is that neither KoJ nor Caliphate wants a very expensive and destructive war. Second, we could make it so mamelukes and Caliphate are contesting the red sea and KoJ gives sinai to Caliphate for easier access to Egypt. Third, Jerusalem not Iraq qould be the regional CoT, because it is the gathering place of Europeans and muslims. If caliphate took it then the europeans would stop coming, and they don't want that.
Finally, the KoJ has mediterranean navy, while the Caliphate doesn't, so the KoJ can really help them.

I think that with a few events this could turn into a plausible tolerance scenario.
 
Ahmed writes:

"Well, I do not believe in such co-exist. At first, KoJ is just ports, but Baghdad is that time NYC, so while Baghdad is not destroyed, it is not possible that it is not trade center. Ofcource we should remember that historicaly Iraq strategic importance lowered when trade switched from persian gulf-iraq to red sea-egypt... And Caliphate did not create problem for nonmuslim merchants, but talking about another countries merchants - no more, no less than any other country... And Caliphate willl not create any problem for christian piligrims, if this is mean by "If caliphate took it then the europeans would stop coming, and they don't want that.". And I do not believe in tolerant crushader state...

I think that KoJ vs muslims (Caliphate, Mamlukes) is just case of who
will survive and dominate. If KoJ (player) destroys Cal and MAM, then they
live with those rebels and ethnic cleasings... "
 
I also think that Baghdad must keep the CoT ahead of Jerusalem.

There are a lot of wealthy east med seaports that would vie for control of trade in the region. But I think that Alexandria gets the nod, and of course there's also Constantinople, which surely includes not only the Black Sea, but also the Adriatic region.

Baghdad is the most glorious city in the world in 1419, and people are drawn to its size, majesty and wealth. It is also the centre of the muslim political world. In a region that is predominantly muslim, this counts a lot for where merchants might go. But its the sheer weight of population that makes it the CoT. It probably represents 10 % of the market for the entire region of the near east.

Unlike Ahmed, I think a more 'tolerant' KoJ is fully possible. Tolerant for the period, not necessarily tolerant compared to modern concepts of tolerance. And the KoJ is no longer just a crusader state. They have survived too long and MUST have transformed themselves into something other than mere crusaders, as the reality of their permanent control of Jerusalem and the 'holy land'.

This feeds well into the planned internal political tensions between the king and the more conservative, anti-Islamic order of knights we are going to design.
 
I figured that they would be at each other's throats until the mongols came; after all, isn't one of the things about them that they were allies against the Ilkhanate? Sure, pre-ilkhanate they would both be intolerant assholes seeking to cut each other down as often as possible (in a chivalric way, of course), but seeing the sheer destructiveness of the Mongols might have done something. But if you want an eleventh century crusader state in the fifteenth century, its not my call.

EDIT: @Ahmed; an alternative would be an option on january 1, 1419 about this between your way and a more tolerant rivalry.
 
I kind of get the feeling, though, that it's, in Interregnum, usually the Caliphate that is gung-ho, declaring a jihad and all. A sufficiently tolerant KoJ might even unite the Orthodox christians and muslims behind its banner if the Caliphate is seen as being too agressive.

Perhaps, should the KoJ choose the tolerant path, the Mamelukes should switch from their semi-eternal Caliphate alliance to allying with the KoJ to keep the Caliph from gaining power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back