Kingdom of Jerusalem

[unmerged(31994)]

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.

Sometimes....just sometimes, it infuriarates me how little people know of the Middle East and it's history.

The Mamelukes are out either way - so you can rest assured the Ayyubids theyll be replaced with are firmly toadies of the Caliph.

The Crusaders in the Muslim mentalitiy are the most wicked scum to walk the earth - desecrating the Holy Mosque in Jeruslem and slaughter the whole Muslim and Jewish population - it still rings anger in our hearts today and stains the region I live in.

Whilst I appreciate your efforts to give the Latin Kingdom space in the region - your emphesizing too much on economic perspectives - leaving out religious as well as ethnic tension. The Muslims living in Damascus or Palestine would refuse Crusader rule, and would have continued to rebel and riot whenever the chance came up. The assumption that the Kingdom had suddenly become tolerant - even by the course of the centuries - is perposterous and an insult to the thousands who were vanquished by the swords of 'Christian' crusading.

Most Muslim Lords and Monarchs were united in opposition to the Latin Kindom - except for a select few, and mind you - heretics and mercenaries no more. You also have to remember that the Latin Kingdom maintained itself by building Massive forts and castles everywhere - maintained by small garrisons. That is how they survived in Acre, Tyre and other regions since the countryside was dominated by Muslims.

As for this talk of the importance of the 'Red Sea' - loki , the Caliphate already has the greatest acess every concieved at the time - through the Arab Sea and the Spice routes. Historically speaking, Baghdad was the depot of the Silk Road, the richest and most glorious city, and had acess to the Oriental goods appleanty. The Sultans of Egypt also had access through the Red Sea and transported Spice through Alexandria.

Rivalry between Cairo and Baghdad is silly and ignorant of the region's politics - the Caliph had always been seen - weither a puppet or a real one - as the head of the faith, and thusly, no Sultan - NO SULTAN, could ever consider revolting without implications.

Regarding Mecca and Medina - their fall would technically mean the end of the Muslim faith - as the Prophet promised no infidel army would capture them - even before the armies of the Anti-Christ and the coming of Jesus and the Awaited one - the Mahdi. I dont feel comfortable with the idea , and maybe since most of you arent Muslims you dont share my sentiment, but Id rather have the Latin Kindom crushed or quartered to it's current location.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Rethinking the issue - I guess it is acceptable somewhat to have a tolerant Latin Kingdom respecting the Muslim beliefs and faiths.

However, I will refuse sternly having these notions of Egypt allying with Jeruslem Vs the Caliphate or this poppycock of Mecca and Media under crusaders or Red Sea issue(Really, it's quite silly and dosent make sense, Egypt already has acess and the Caliphate can go through the Gulf).

I might even be tempted to look through some books and help a bit.

 

[orimazd]

Rethinking the issue - I guess it is acceptable somewhat to have a tolerant Latin Kingdom respecting the Muslim beliefs and faiths.

However, I will refuse sternly having these notions of Egypt allying with Jeruslem Vs the Caliphate or this poppycock of Mecca and Media under crusaders or Red Sea issue(Really, it's quite silly and dosent make sense, Egypt already has acess and the Caliphate can go through the Gulf).

I might even be tempted to look through some books and help a bit.

This is pretty much what I was thinking, actually. I outlined a reason for the Caliphate and Jerusalem to not hate each other's guts a few times in this thread (though I wouldn't argue against a respectful rivalry, especially if the KoJ is actually run by the Knights Templar, an organization formed AFTER the conquest of Jerusalem, or possibly before the crusade but not in time to be of any use--its original membership was actually only about four or seven people, IIRC). Jerusalem would have no interest whatsoever in the conquest of Mecca and Medina, as they never had a sizable Christian population in the age of ignorance...lol, the beforetime. At the most perhaps Jerusalem would have interest in Yemen like Venice has in Morea in vanilla for trading reasons, but I would not really like that. They got the Holy Land already. I would, in fact, think of the KoJ as going Protestant when the reformation comes up to make it interesting, or to do something with them involving the Reform religion because of the odd mix of cultures after a few centuries.

Also, one last note here, when the slaughters of Jerusalem and other Muslim populations happened, the KT (who someone said was in power, or else all this crap about them I am writing would be for nothing) were not in power or even in the region, and the people doing the slaughtering were the same ones in cities like Trier and Koeln who wanted to slaughter the jews living in their backyards. Muslims live in the KoJ at this time, obviously, at the start of the game. This would not happen had the slaughters kept on, and we wouldn't be giving the place levantine culture, but more likely french. I wrote some good points in this post, but I have completely forgotten where I was going or what I was trying to prove.

 

[MattyG]

The Mecca and Medina issue is a very touchy one, because if you do a WC as Brittany, you conquer Mecca and Medina, yes? But doing so is not (necessarily) intended as an insult to Islamic faith.

I also had some discussions with Ahmed about this, and as you can imagine he felt very strongly about the issue as well. he wrote an event that basically said "You have done the impossible and captured Mecca, now go away " and the event returned control to one of the muslim countries.

I can't change the game structure and I would rather it become a source for education, so I'd like to propose the following:

Whenever a player of a non-muslim state controls either Mecca or Medina provinces, they get an event that explains the significance of this to the islamic world. It also warns that if they continue with this conquest and annex either province, there will be consequences.

Then, if they own the provinces, they go to war with every muslim nation, each of which gets an event for free troops and some slider changes.

On the matter of the crusaders, I actually think that you are all basically in a form of agreement. That the crusader kingdoms would have HAD to have evolved to have survived, as they were basically an armed foreigner, and much despised by the locals.

Perhaps the issue comes to a head in the early years of the game, when the king or his son choses a muslim as a bride, or has fallen in love with her and wishes to marry. I know, this sounds a little cheesy. It catalyses an issue that has been burning for years, which is the steady integration of the latin crusdaers into the levantine cultures. To that point no one of so high a rank had married a local woman of muslim faith, but now it had reached that high. Already most of the administrators of the realm were either muslims or jews, and 40 years before the paucity of new young knights from Europe had mean that muslims and jews were also being permitted as men at arms.

It becomes the turning point event: cast out the son and ensure that the Kingdom of Jeusalem is Christian, giving rise to a new order of knights and a renewed anti-Islamic straign; or else let go of the past and embrace the many faiths of the kingdom, the untimate result of which could be an eventual conversion to Islam by one of the monarchs.

I know, I'm a radical.

 

[orimazd]

I like the idea, MattyG. How would the pope react to a situation like that, however? Especially if it happens at the same time as the crusade against Cordoba.

 

[MattyG]

I like the idea, MattyG. How would the pope react to a situation like that, however? Especially if it happens at the same time as the crusade against Cordoba.

Heck, it ought to be one of the reasons for the crusade! Christianity melting before the twin Islamic forces of love and the sword!

The Pope's reaction would be little short of excommunication for the person, and possibly the monarch, resulting in a struggle for power and a break with Rome or the toppling of the monarch and forced ascendancy of that hawkish faction.

Sounds very very cool if you ask me.

Matty

 

[orimazd]

You think this could lead to a reformation coming sooner? (emphasis on COULD)

 

[MattyG]

You think this could lead to a reformation coming sooner? (emphasis on COULD)

Most of those type of events are being detailed by mikl in his new event series that I have received by him and am reviewing. The short answer is no, but it could add a good touch of flavour to it all.

The questionfor me is 'what would be action_a in such a scenario'? I guess the ai default ought to be the obvious, conservtive path.

 

[loki1232]

I think that in interregnum we will have many paths to the reformation.
Sure one of them could be where Jerusalem and the Church break, and they reform.
Another could be if the Hussites succeed. (gasp)

I agree with Matty. Maybe have it in 1419, and make relations with Caliphate better to avoid quick declaration of war. Maybe also remove Caliphate cores on KoJ. (and the Mameluk one?)

I think that the default option for the KoJ should be the more liberal path. Otherwise its basically doomed to destruction, and why would you want that?

Also, I think that the radical KoJ should take a part in the struggles of the region. If we made mameluks and Caliphate enemies (why would the Caliphate be willing to recognize the Mameluks as legit?) instead of friends, I would imagine that they would both want KoJ on their side. KoJ would however probably choose to stay neutral, since there will be serious unrest.
The first KoJ expansion I can imagine is in the 1440's. At this point they will face multiple provinces going sunni, and they will face a final uprising of the Knights Templar. (the KT was bankers as well, right?) This will shake the KoJ economy but give them plenty of confiscated gold, and they will decide that expansion into rich provinces is a good option (option B is to reinvest the money in their current provinces, restoring them somewhat). The caliphate and Mumeluks will still be staring each other down, so the most probable outcome is a KoJ-Caliphate treaty. KoJ gets control of alexandria and cairo, and the caliphate gets to annex the rest of Egypt or set up another caliphate. KoJ also gives military access. KoJ could make a mameluk alliance at this point instead, if so they make a defensive pact against the Caliphate and take over the Eastern Med together. This includes the KoJ getting the southern shore of Turkey.
The KoJ gets further split from the church by attempting Ecclesiastical reform in the 1460's. They stay catholic but gain innovativeness and confiscate church lands. Before further reforms can take hold more provinces turn muslim and they become and entirely muslim country (except for cyprus). This leads to a war with the Byzantine Empire, KoJ helped by Mameluk or Caliphate. If mamelukes, KoJ will go after the southern Muslim provinces while Mumeluks take ionia and rhodes. If caliphate, KoJ will force Byzantium to renounce turkish claims and the calphate and them can split turkey among themselves.

More later.

 

[Avernite]

Rivalry between Cairo and Baghdad is silly and ignorant of the region's politics - the Caliph had always been seen - weither a puppet or a real one - as the head of the faith, and thusly, no Sultan - NO SULTAN, could ever consider revolting without implications.

Regarding Mecca and Medina - their fall would technically mean the end of the Muslim faith - as the Prophet promised no infidel army would capture them - even before the armies of the Anti-Christ and the coming of Jesus and the Awaited one - the Mahdi. I dont feel comfortable with the idea , and maybe since most of you arent Muslims you dont share my sentiment, but Id rather have the Latin Kindom crushed or quartered to it's current location.

To the first, I can only say: The Arabs revolted well enough against the Ottoman Caliphs, the Cordobans can form their own Caliphate. In the end, they're all humans, really , and if sufficient reason shows they could obviously be rivals. Even if only discretely.

And your second point is even more interesting. I like Matty's solution, of the total war. I just imagine that indeed any christian should think thrice before taking those cities.

I still think I'd do it, but that's just me


As to the issue, I think that like the Kaliphate, there are inherent issues to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, that would make it EXTREMELY unlikely for it to go muslim. Some acceptance, sure, but going Sunni would send shockwaves through Europe like the fall of Mecca would through the muslim world. And imagine, it's not Muslim armies, but christian traitors doing it. It to me feels similar to the pope or Patriarch of Constantinople converting to Muslim.

It COULD be done, but the results should be massive revolts by angry nobles, essentially paralysing the KoJ unless the Caliphate or Mamelukes intervene to aid the muslim King. And even then, I can imagine Sicily, Savoy, Genoa and perhaps Byzantium getting a core on Jerusalem, and if the city falls to them christianity should be restored (Orthodox if Byzantium, others a bit trickier depending on the reformation).

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Also, I think that the radical KoJ should take a part in the struggles of the region. If we made mameluks and Caliphate enemies (why would the Caliphate be willing to recognize the Mameluks as legit?) instead of friends, I would imagine that they would both want KoJ on their side

Sigh....READ

The Ayyubid Sultan Salah ad-Din installed the Sunnah back in Egypt following the collapse of the Fatamid Caliphate and forced the Mosques to pray in the name of the Abbasid Caliph. Following the end of the Ayyubid dynasty and the Mameluke takeover - the Turks simply continued this tradition. The Caliph dosent recognize anyone as legitimate - they simply accept him and pray in his name. Some Kings prayed in the name of the Almohad Caliph, Andalusi Caliph, Ottoman Caliph - but in the end, they were the ultimate leaders of the spiritual world.

Also, I think that the radical KoJ should take a part in the struggles of the region. If we made mameluks and Caliphate enemies (why would the Caliphate be willing to recognize the Mameluks as legit?) instead of friends, I would imagine that they would both want KoJ on their side. KoJ would however probably choose to stay neutral, since there will be serious unrest.
The first KoJ expansion I can imagine is in the 1440's. At this point they will face multiple provinces going sunni, and they will face a final uprising of the Knights Templar. (the KT was bankers as well, right?) This will shake the KoJ economy but give them plenty of confiscated gold, and they will decide that expansion into rich provinces is a good option (option B is to reinvest the money in their current provinces, restoring them somewhat). The caliphate and Mumeluks will still be staring each other down, so the most probable outcome is a KoJ-Caliphate treaty. KoJ gets control of alexandria and cairo, and the caliphate gets to annex the rest of Egypt or set up another caliphate. KoJ also gives military access. KoJ could make a mameluk alliance at this point instead, if so they make a defensive pact against the Caliphate and take over the Eastern Med together. This includes the KoJ getting the southern shore of Turkey.
The KoJ gets further split from the church by attempting Ecclesiastical reform in the 1460's. They stay catholic but gain innovativeness and confiscate church lands. Before further reforms can take hold more provinces turn muslim and they become and entirely muslim country (except for cyprus). This leads to a war with the Byzantine Empire, KoJ helped by Mameluk or Caliphate. If mamelukes, KoJ will go after the southern Muslim provinces while Mumeluks take ionia and rhodes. If caliphate, KoJ will force Byzantium to renounce turkish claims and the calphate and them can split turkey among themselves.

Your not being realistic - What idiot of a caliph would give the Crusaders Alexandria and Cairo? even if they were damn tolerant of Islam?The largest Muslim cities in the world.....eck, I dont like your ideas about the Latin Kingdom one bit...too radical and too great a stretch for me to gulp at all

To the first, I can only say: The Arabs revolted well enough against the Ottoman Caliphs, the Cordobans can form their own Caliphate. In the end, they're all humans, really , and if sufficient reason shows they could obviously be rivals. Even if only discretely.

And your second point is even more interesting. I like Matty's solution, of the total war. I just imagine that indeed any christian should think thrice before taking those cities.

I still think I'd do it, but that's just me

The Abbasids had a special place in Muslim history - since they were the only ones to actually descend from the Prophet Mohammeds blood - well through his uncle but close enough.

The Mamelukes are going either way, and whats the point of a rivalry between Baghdad or Cairo?the Mosques in Egypt pray in the name of the Caliph, but in the end, the Sultan is the absolute ruler of all of Egypt - read a bit about our history before telling me 'Their humans' - it simply dosent make sense why the Mamelukes and the Abbasids would be at each other's heads. Perhaps later when the CRUSADERS were crushed....

PS : THE MAMELUKES WILL BE EXCHANGED WITH AYYUBIDS - YES THEY WILL BE RIVALS WITH THE ABBASIDS BUT ONLY MUCH LATER IN THE GAME

 

[unmerged(31994)]

I still think I'd do it, but that's just me

http://music.6arab.com/julia..wain-almalayeen.ram

Were the Revolution!Were the People of the Right! As Strong as the Mountains as numerous as the Sands!

Allah is with us bigger and greater than all our enemies

As Strong as the Mountains as numerous as the Sands!We are the Revolution!We are the People of the Right!

One day our banner will touch every land!Were stronger than any Stronghold and more powerful than the best armour!

There, now Im happy Had to get out my Julia Butress moment

 

[Avernite]

I should say, I did it once already. A patch or two/three ago, with the KoJ. I don't remember though whether they were catholic yet


As to a rivalry, yes, I believe it is quite possible. As far as the Ayyubids and Abbasids know, the KoJ is there to stay. Such things hit home after a few hundred years. The entire psych must be different. As you say, a policy of thinking 'just another neighbour' is impossible, but I dare say a policy of 'Kill them at all costs' can't exist either.

Thus, both muslim powers will, at times, have had 'surplus' power. This could be expended against minor powers in Africa, Arabia, etc. But it also means they will HAVE to keep a wary eye on their biggest competitor. Undoubtedly the Abbasids wouldn't mind adding Egypt to their realm, and I'm sure the Ayyubids dislike that idea. So, they will at times have to be wary, at other times they could be opponents, and they could be friends against the KoJ at other times. But relations as a static happy relationship since the crusades? I don't buy it.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

As to a rivalry, yes, I believe it is quite possible. As far as the Ayyubids and Abbasids know, the KoJ is there to stay. Such things hit home after a few hundred years. The entire psych must be different. As you say, a policy of thinking 'just another neighbour' is impossible, but I dare say a policy of 'Kill them at all costs' can't exist either.

Thus, both muslim powers will, at times, have had 'surplus' power. This could be expended against minor powers in Africa, Arabia, etc. But it also means they will HAVE to keep a wary eye on their biggest competitor. Undoubtedly the Abbasids wouldn't mind adding Egypt to their realm, and I'm sure the Ayyubids dislike that idea. So, they will at times have to be wary, at other times they could be opponents, and they could be friends against the KoJ at other times. But relations as a static happy relationship since the crusades? I don't buy it.

And neither do I accept the notion that Egypt and Iraq had always been in love and harmony - the Islamic World has it's share of competition - but never to the extent of actually letting Crusaders ruling Egypt or using the Franks against their competitor. Regardless, as long as the Kingdom of Jeruslem exists between them, what is the real point of conflict?

My rework of the Egyptians shows a Grecophile Sultan trying to wrest Syria from the Abbasids based on his Hamah blood, an invasion by the Abbasids on egypt and infinitim - conflict over spice and control of Yemen but notice - all this starts later on, and depends mostly ont he destruction of the Kingdom of Jeruslem.

Anyway, I dont see this as a bitter conflict between Jeruslem and the Muslims, but I dont see any possible engineering of a Rivalry between Egypt and Baghdad until they come into contact and this means the destruction of Jeruslem.

 

[Avernite]

Well, I am afraid the time for that would indeed be earlier. With the Il-Khan at his doorstep, the Caliph will be plenty busy, and the Ayyubids can happily engage Genoa over trading rights.

But I still dispise the idea that the KoJ should be gone for a rivalry to develop. In a sense, in the current setup, it's a nuisance. Have Sinai taken, maybe Damascus, and all you have is a holy city. Well, sure, some ambitious and devout Caliphs will want it. But others may want a monopoly on the spice trade, and for that they need to pummel Ayyubids.

So, I believ if Sinai is taken by either, and the KoJ thus clearly on the decline, they should take a different stance. Not 'the christians are between us, we have other problems', but 'hrm. Take the Christians out easy, but be weakened and lose trade, or engage the opposition and secure trade. Tough choice!'



And I also think it's silly if events count on the destruction of the KoJ. It's been around for *400* years, there must be some reason for that. That isn't changing overnight, and it should be modelled somehow.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Well, I am afraid the time for that would indeed be earlier. With the Il-Khan at his doorstep, the Caliph will be plenty busy, and the Ayyubids can happily engage Genoa over trading rights.

But I still dispise the idea that the KoJ should be gone for a rivalry to develop. In a sense, in the current setup, it's a nuisance. Have Sinai taken, maybe Damascus, and all you have is a holy city. Well, sure, some ambitious and devout Caliphs will want it. But others may want a monopoly on the spice trade, and for that they need to pummel Ayyubids.

So, I believ if Sinai is taken by either, and the KoJ thus clearly on the decline, they should take a different stance. Not 'the christians are between us, we have other problems', but 'hrm. Take the Christians out easy, but be weakened and lose trade, or engage the opposition and secure trade. Tough choice!'

It's not really that simple - most people tend to crush Jeruslem quickly - which makes sense strategically. And anyway, Egypt can always be a coveted prize for later. On the other hand....

I have an idea that is similar to yours....something like this :

"My Sultan, oh Glorious Ayyub - as you may have heard, the Abbasid Caliph's Imperial armies have captured Damascus and several major cities throughout the Levant...whilst this is a joyous news for the faithful there is one problem unfortunitly - the Abbasid Caliph had his eye on Egypt as well. The Franks (May Allah curse them to the deepest of Hells!) had served an unexpected purpose - they had sheilded us from the direct influence of Baghdad, and now...with the Abbasids sweeping them away, we would be exposed. In such circumstances , it maybe nessicary for us to support a lesser enemy to bar an even greater one...*Gulp*"

choice a "Support the Crusaders Secretly but also commend the Caliph publicaly"

choice b "Support the Crusaders with everything weve got!"

choice c "Nonesense, his holiness...wouldnt!Or would he?"

Something like that I suppose?

 

[Avernite]

yeah, seems like what I mean yes.

In the end we don't disagree THAT much, it seems

 

[MattyG]

I think that most of our disagreements in this area are in the finesse, not the big picture.

I really like the text and approach of Calipah's event.

I agree with Avernite that somehow the existence of the KoJ must have established itself as some kind of reality in the rgion. This doesn't mean that the Caliphate wouldn't crush them if they could - there are wealthy cities, Mediterranean trade and, most significantly, Jerusalem itself as prizes.

For me, the KoJ must be the Sick Man of the Levant as the game opens, or soon after. It has mostly lost its material support from Europe, and the tactic of building castles and supressing the muslims can only take you just so far. From within this sickness two opposing futures beckon.

The first is the emergence of a new order of knights committed to reinvigorating the crusades and militarizing the KoJ against what it deems as the inevitable final conflict with Islam. The other are the forces that see the writing on the wall and the need to somehow make peace with not only its oldest enemy, but the very people that are the majority in the kingdom.

Between them stands a monarch who is perhaps weak and inept, and whose son has fallen for a woman he cannot marry, unless he himself converts to Islam.

And so, it would seem that the Kingdom of Jersusalem is bound to collapse, rent apart as much by internal conflicts as any external enemies. Unless, of course, these conflicts can be resolved by someone. You, perhaps, dear player?

 

[loki1232]

Or perhaps the conflicts could be resolved by an outside force. The KoJ collapsing is a big thing. I think that Byzantium, Mumeluks, Caliphate, and even sicily should have the opportunity to take a stand in Jerusalem. (of course the pope gets a choice at this point, with an unlikely crusade in the Holy land precluding the one in Iberia.)

 

[orimazd]

It's not really that simple - most people tend to crush Jeruslem quickly

And playing As Jerusalem I was able to crush the Abbasids with few losses in one war ('ve done it the other way, too, and its far easier without all those extra troops people give you in the Jihad event). It goes either way here.