Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

need urgent advice on research (+)

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.
Show only dev responses
hmmm, I had a very good history of the Sovreign Military Order of Malta AKA the Knights of St. John but I lost it... It had a nice bit about how all the other crusaders left the Holy land and turned their fortresses over to the Knights and then simply left and didn't help the Knights at all...

I have to find that again... it might be quite helpful for this...
 
Originally posted by Count of Flande

And Raymond of Toulouse was tricked twice by his brothers in arms, first Bohemund took Antioch from him and later Godfrey snatched Jerusalem from poor old Ray.
Click to expand...
Err... "Snatched"? Godfrey was elected by the other lords - I wouldn't call that a betrayal... :rolleyes:


Second crusade:
The crusaders that lived in the holy land more or less "sabotaged" (with apathy more than actions) the european crusader army when they tried to take Damascus, an ally of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
The decition to march on Damascus must take the sole responsibility for the failure of the second crusade. It was agaisn the advice of the ones who knew the land (Raymond of Tripoli (and Antioch) adviced to attack Aleppo - the main stronghold of Nur ed-Din and the keypoint to Muslim resistance agains the Franks. Why Damascus was chosen we'll never be able to understand - it was on the only major muslim city in the area still hostile to the newly risen power of Nur ed-Din. By attacking them they managed to drive them into Nur ed-Din's arms, sealing off the muslim alliance around them...
 
The actions of the Christian lords in Palestine can be easily explained if you remember that they were primarily motivated by personal gain. The closest analogy in my mind are the actions of the Conquistadors in the New World. A few of them (especially those who commanded in the military orders) were religious fanatics, but in hind-sight that caused as many, if not more, problems.
 
Noble Sires, thanks so much -- am thinking that actually we should post the original (implied) question here to get more accurate suggestions... Am sending a courier for the Duke to consult with.
 
Originally posted by sergei
Noble Sires, thanks so much -- am thinking that actually we should post the original (implied) question here to get more accurate suggestions... Am sending a courier for the Duke to consult with.
Click to expand...
Indeed - accurate questions is needed for accurate answers :)
 
Originally posted by Havard
Indeed - accurate questions is needed for accurate answers :)
Click to expand...

Nah! It is more fun to make up answers to the question you imagine Sergei was asking. Look at the broad spectrum of crusading history we have learned on this thread just because Sergei did not have a more specific question!:)
 
Agreed!

I leanred alot about the crusades in this thread! :)
 
Thank you, my knights, for all the interesting information, though I have to advise you that mostly it was not exactly what we need.

You've named plenty of lords that were doing things other than they'd been ordered or asked for, while we are looking for a lord not doing anything (at least, at his will) :)

Thus, Raymond III of Tripoli (the one that escaped from Saladin at Hattin) may suit rather good. Except that he would be probably mixed with glorious Raymond I of Tripoli :)

Could you think of someone else of that behaviour? If you'll manage to find someone acting like this in Europe Motherland itself - it will also help. Maybe some lord of English war between Stephen and Matilda? Maybe some idle-oriented lord of the Empire too busy with huntings and family matters to participate in Emperor's battles with Lombardians?
 
Just to make the question even clearer: You as for examples of vassals disobeying their liege lord? I'm not sure if I see a difference between "doing things other than they'd been ordered or asked for" and "not doing anything (at least, at his will)"...
 
When John de Balliol was King Scotland, just about all the nobility did nothing for him. When Edward dethroned and Wallace led the revolt to restore him. Most of the nobilty did nothing to help Wallace and their legitimate King. The de Bruce family is possibly a classic example of a vassal doing nothing for their King.
 
Originally posted by Havard
Just to make the question even clearer: You as for examples of vassals disobeying their liege lord? I'm not sure if I see a difference between "doing things other than they'd been ordered or asked for" and "not doing anything (at least, at his will)"...
Click to expand...

Not disobeying actively per se, only doing nothing, I think. Example, the King of France levies the oriflamme in war against the Kingdom of Aragon, but Duke B stays at home and doesn't levy its troops for the ost, or levies its army but do a very lazy job.

Drakken
 
Ouch... I hate to break this but... All right, all right. A clarification:

1) you can choose a particular type of tactics for your lords

2) tactics are named after the famous lords who behaved in this way in real history

3) we are looking for a lord who didn't do anything on his own, who was known for *not doing a thing* unless directly asked to do it... i.e. the "idle" mode :)

Suggestions?
 
If you are not nitpicking, the whole Conclave to elect the successor of pope Clement V did nothing and didn't even reunite for two whole years, from 1314 to 1316. They were so divided on the issues of whom shall be the next pope and where he shall reign (Rome or Avignon) that they stayed separated in little cliqs, either in Avignon, Carpanthra or elsewhere in the region.

Only the regent Philippe, count of Poitiers (later Philippe V) succeeded to lure then in Lyon to force the Conclave, by a mass in memory of Louis X. He had them imprisoned in the Church and had the issues sealed by masonry, without food but daily bread and water, and menace of open the roof of the Church if they didn't come to an agreement. After a while, at the suggestion of the regent, they elected the eldest Cardinal present, who was faking to be in agony. They thought they would elect a dying man and that they could go out very quickly, but they elected Jacques Duèze, whom becomed Jean XXII.

Drakken
 
I am currently tring to track down information on a Hohenzollern, Otto the Idle who not only never actaully entered the land he ruled, but even tried to sell it.
 
Sergei, Charles of Valois, brother of Philippe IV, was a pretty idle man unless pushed around nicely.

Philippe V had to bribe with 100 000 livres tournois (a colossal sum) to have him present at his Coronation. Afterwards, to make sure that he would stop to support Robert III d'Artois in his overt revolt for the county of Artois, he had the 1316 annate of the counties of Valois and Maine to be given to him instead of the Treasury (ca. 10-15 000 livres).

He made the Papacy pay for a Crusade, levied troops that he used instead in the seize of the Duchy of Aquitaine and the siege of La Réole. Afterwards, he asked and received compensation from the Papacy for levying his troops (another 100 000 livres)

And this is only from 1316 onwards.

However, for most noblemen they remained idle unless they saw their interest in what the King was doing. Obedience to an overlord in a fealty relation was linked to many pragmatical factors, but did certainly not respect the theory. :)

Drakken
 
Charles IV of France did nothing to help his sister Isabella of France when she came to join Mortimer in France, officially to come for the duchy of Aquitaine in the name of her husband Edward II. Not only he did not rise a finger to find a solution, but the King enjoined her to go back to his husband (and the Despensers) in London, signing what was known even then as her death warrant. Instead, she fleed in Flanders with her lover and organized her rebellion against the Despensers and, quite directly, her husband.

Drakken
 
Originally posted by sergei
Ouch... I hate to break this but... All right, all right. A clarification:

1) you can choose a particular type of tactics for your lords

2) tactics are named after the famous lords who behaved in this way in real history

3) we are looking for a lord who didn't do anything on his own, who was known for *not doing a thing* unless directly asked to do it... i.e. the "idle" mode :)

Suggestions?
Click to expand...

Sorry you had to (sort of) give something away to get us dullards to understand what you wanted. But it is a nice tidbit of information.:D

I'm back to being excited about the game.:D
 
Originally posted by sergei

2) tactics are named after the famous lords who behaved in this way in real history
Click to expand...

Yeah! That way I can brag about it oldstyle by saying : "Hey! the bastard pulled off a Etienne de Blois!" or accuse my MP partner in trepident way by saying "Stop doing a Bohemond I!"

:D:D:D
 
Originally posted by King
I am currently tring to track down information on a Hohenzollern, Otto the Idle who not only never actaully entered the land he ruled, but even tried to sell it.
Click to expand...

By name this guy sounds like what Sergei is looking for. If the game period went further you could have the Stanleys for this tactic - just wait around until you see which way the battles goes before joining in.:D
 
Originally posted by King
I am currently tring to track down information on a Hohenzollern, Otto the Idle who not only never actaully entered the land he ruled, but even tried to sell it.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Richard Lionheart saying that he was ready to sell London to anyone? IMHO Domestically speaking, Richard Lionheart would be the example of "idleness" in administration. He went in England only for a short while and found it boring, he didn't even care enough about the kingdom to learn the language. He stayed in France his whole life except for the Crusade. :)

Drakken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back