The Crusader States: culture, diplomacy and viability

[Incompetent]

At the moment we have two major crusader states: the Teutonic Order, which is supposed to be a real major, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which is expected to last maybe a century at best unless played by the player. Similar states may be formed during the game, eg in Iberia. However, there are a lot of difficulties in modelling such states.

1. How can we represent a state that is militarily strong but with a narrow and intolerant ruling culture?

2. These states were created specifically to secure Catholicism in that region; this task is incomplete in 1419. Should we make them better at converting provinces than say if Bavaria or Sicily happened to randomly conquer the same area?

3. Obviously, such states were usually hated by neighbours of a different religion, resulting in frequent wars. However, they also received major outside support from the Church and devout Catholics across Europe, and this meant they could get away with more without making the Catholic world come down on them. How can we model this diplomatic dichotomy?

4. We have to imagine that these states have been around for centuries; it's not plausible to have them permanently 'on the verge of collapse' or 'doomed to fail' in 1419, because if they were, it would have happened already. (Incidentally, 'doomed to have low infra/trade tech' amounts to 'doomed to failure'.) In particular, they must have done some things right that the historical states did wrong. How do we see the internal politics and economy of these states evolving prior to and beyond 1419? How much wealth and ability to keep up technologically?

 

[MattyG]

Have you read the updated KoJ file? I think it answer many of those questions.

As for the TO, for me the problem is that it appears in 1419 to be the same as it was politically and culturally soon after it was formed. Which is fine, as the Tannenberg-that-didn't happen wasn't THAT far off in historically, so there's no great stretch to have them 'on the verge of facing reality' very early in the game.

But the TO does not. It keeps on with its Germanic crusading ways for another 200+ years until it gets a civil war that is partly about an internal struggle for political-cultural change.

Such a struggle needs to happen much earlier, though it need not be a civil war. But somehow the Order has to update itself to be more than a core of elitist german knights in armour trying to still control a vast territory while being disdainfull of the locals for another 250 years. It just doesn't gel for me.

 

[Avernite]

At the moment we have two major crusader states: the Teutonic Order, which is supposed to be a real major, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which is expected to last maybe a century at best unless played by the player. Similar states may be formed during the game, eg in Iberia. However, there are a lot of difficulties in modelling such states.

1. How can we represent a state that is militarily strong but with a narrow and intolerant ruling culture?

2. These states were created specifically to secure Catholicism in that region; this task is incomplete in 1419. Should we make them better at converting provinces than say if Bavaria or Sicily happened to randomly conquer the same area?

3. Obviously, such states were usually hated by neighbours of a different religion, resulting in frequent wars. However, they also received major outside support from the Church and devout Catholics across Europe, and this meant they could get away with more without making the Catholic world come down on them. How can we model this diplomatic dichotomy?

4. We have to imagine that these states have been around for centuries; it's not plausible to have them permanently 'on the verge of collapse' or 'doomed to fail' in 1419, because if they were, it would have happened already. (Incidentally, 'doomed to have low infra/trade tech' amounts to 'doomed to failure'.) In particular, they must have done some things right that the historical states did wrong. How do we see the internal politics and economy of these states evolving prior to and beyond 1419? How much wealth and ability to keep up technologically?

1. is easy. Extremely narrowminded, with events continuously pushing them there unless they abandon the crusader-state principle, as both the Teutons (to Baltland?) and KoJ can do. Maybe add land-focus too, but that's not entirely it. Of course, monarchs with high military skill and low admin adds to it, too.

2. I think not. Perhaps some events for forcible conversion for narrowminded states, rather than the 'free-of-charge' conversion of heretics event. But I don't think such a crusader state is much different than other states that are horridly narrowminded.

3. ties in directly to 4. They live by the grace of the church aiding them, essentially, and if the church falls away they need a new path. Settlement by pious supporters, or (especially for the teutons) reconciliation with the neighbours.

In my opinion, their lives are also quite different. Jerusalem lives, in 1419, by the aid of the church and obvious non-alliance between Egypt and the Caliphate area. If those two unite, they're in trouble, barring direct aid from the church/Sicily/Byzantium. If the two continue to squabble, they're good with the normal influx of pilgrims and crusaders. (which might be better represented by manpower rather than groups of troops. Jerusalem needs a BIG army at all times, or the Caliphate would snack on them.)

Also, I think they should clearly have more catholics in their realm. They're mostly stable, and EU2 can't model that in a realm with all 3 early religions.

The Teutons, however, are doing great. The pagans are shattered, the orthodox divided, and Poland as good as dead. Sure, the locals get uppity from time to time, but much of their land is properly christianised so should be ok. They'll eventually suffer an aristocracy-peasantry breakdown, which will also run along cultural lines (German-Baltic), but nothing too severe.

 

[Incompetent]

Have you read the updated KoJ file? I think it answer many of those questions.

Hmm, I have had a glance. The events are quite good, if extremely challenging (though to be fair, they should be!) I'd change some of the details, as they are illogical in places (in some cases events need to be extended to all Christian states, as otherwise any random Christian state could come along, annex JER, and do a better job than JER itself simply because they bypass the bad events!), but I like the overall feel.

One thing I would say though is that Judea itself should start Crusader Catholic; there is absolutely no way Muslims would have any serious political power left in the cities of that area after three hundred years of immigration and intolerant Crusader rule.

Muslim religion is fine for the other provinces though (except Lebanon and Cyprus of course).

As for the TO, for me the problem is that it appears in 1419 to be the same as it was politically and culturally soon after it was formed. Which is fine, as the Tannenberg-that-didn't happen wasn't THAT far off in historically, so there's no great stretch to have them 'on the verge of facing reality' very early in the game.

But the TO does not. It keeps on with its Germanic crusading ways for another 200+ years until it gets a civil war that is partly about an internal struggle for political-cultural change.

Well... First of all, the TO has been more successful than JER, in that they have actually converted most of the locals to Christianity. Secondly, they don't have any big external enemies left. The danger is more from within.

Such a struggle needs to happen much earlier, though it need not be a civil war. But somehow the Order has to update itself to be more than a core of elitist german knights in armour trying to still control a vast territory while being disdainfull of the locals for another 250 years. It just doesn't gel for me.

They need to have some reform events, certainly. The picture I had was that on average, by the time of the civil war in the 17th century, the Order makes extensive use of local 'auxiliaries' (actually of a quality approaching the 'regulars' by the 17th century), and in the cities it is possible for locals to obtain some measure of prosperity and minor office (eg tax collector or priest), but the very top ranks (bishops, generals, mayors of important cities etc) are reserved for members of the Order, which still has a very small membership, resembling the high nobility of ancien regime France. Unfortunately, it seems I overlooked making events for this (my original focus was 17th century onwards; I basically left the early stuff in place). I'll have another look. Maybe I'll do an 'opening up to the Balts' series similar to the 'Education' series for Scotland; no individual reform is necessary, and there will be options, but the overall direction chosen will have consequences when the crunch comes.

To be honest, I think a lot of LAT's event file needs a revisit anyway, because of ugly code by me. For one thing, I didn't know how to use flags properly at the time.

 

[siafu]

One thing I would say though is that Judea itself should start Crusader Catholic; there is absolutely no way Muslims would have any serious political power left in the cities of that area after three hundred years of immigration and intolerant Crusader rule.

This is a good idea, especially given that this is a tool we are not currently using at all.

 

[MattyG]

One thing I would say though is that Judea itself should start Crusader Catholic; there is absolutely no way Muslims would have any serious political power left in the cities of that area after three hundred years of immigration and intolerant Crusader rule.

What immigration?

That's the problem for the KoJ. Few of the Frankish and Italian families really settled there. It was a lot of young knights seeking fortunes before returning home, and absentee nobles. The actual composition of the Levant did not change much, and I have posited that this has remained the case in the 200 years of additional history. While it is true that it could have been different, I chose not to have it so, because all the choices about direction and change should in in the game, not out of it, because that's all the fun storytelling and challenging stuff.

 

[Incompetent]

What immigration?

That's the problem for the KoJ. Few of the Frankish and Italian families really settled there. It was a lot of young knights seeking fortunes before returning home, and absentee nobles. The actual composition of the Levant did not change much, and I have posited that this has remained the case in the 200 years of additional history. While it is true that it could have been different, I chose not to have it so, because all the choices about direction and change should in in the game, not out of it, because that's all the fun storytelling and challenging stuff.

Actually, while there was a high turnover due to both death and departure, quite a few did settle and have kids over the course of the 12th century. According to Wikipedia, the population of the KoJ was 25-35% 'Frankish' on the eve of Saladin's successful campaign to take Jerusalem. That's certainly enough to be culturally dominant. Granted, the RL KoJ on its own (as opposed to KoJ + closely allied Christian states in the region) was smaller than our KoJ, but it'd be enough to justify Crusader culture in one province. I'm all for choice, but as I say, I find it hard to believe the choice won't already have been made by 1419. Perhaps the KoJ can later choose to encourage Muslim immigration to the kingdom later and/or grant more power to the ra'is, which would possibly flip Judea.

The situation is in some respects similar to French Algeria 750 years later: the French were a minority overall, but not an insignificant one in numerical terms, and concentrated in certain key cities, so that they actually made up a large proportion of the population there. Also, they had started to identify themselves as 'outremer': still Westerners, but with emotional ties to the land they now lived in, and increasing adoption of aspects of culture and dress native to that region. It was also possible for Muslim locals to improve their status considerably by converting to this culture and religion; a few did so. Finally, in both cases you have a large population who are neither Muslim nor Western, principally Jews, who had to decide which of the other groups was likely to offer them the best deal. In both cases a large proportion backed the Westerners when the 'outremer' state was at its height.

Of course, I'm not saying life in French Algeria was the same as in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But rather similar cultural dynamics were at play.

 

[siafu]

I think I may have been confused here; I thought that you were suggesting using Counter-reform Catholicism (renamed "Crusader Catholic") for the state religion of the KoJ at start. I think this would be a good idea, given the especially militant nature of religiosity in the Crusader states, and given that we aren't using this religion tag for anything, as yet. The bonuses/parameters also make sense with the concept we have for the KoJ, IMHO.

 

[Avernite]

I think we're getting back to the old question:

What DID the KoJ do to stay stable? Some more immigration, allying with local christians, or a massive constant influx of new troops from catholic Europe to deal with thew locals?

If the first, Judea could well be crusader catholic, and possibly some other states too. If the second, it seems reasonable for the KoJ to have the culture of its christian subjects, orthodox or maronite. And if the last, the KoJ should have some serious upped manpower in Judea to represent the continuous influx and availability of troops, at least initially.


Basically, there must be some reason they survived, and even a serious emnity between Egypt and the Caliphate can't prevent the state from breaking up into the (sometimes squabbling) minor fiefdoms that came about in reality.

 

[Incompetent]

I think we're getting back to the old question:

What DID the KoJ do to stay stable? Some more immigration, allying with local christians, or a massive constant influx of new troops from catholic Europe to deal with thew locals?

All three, but the first two more so than the third.

If the second, it seems reasonable for the KoJ to have the culture of its christian subjects, orthodox or maronite.

Well, we have an event series for the KoJ to acquire Levantine culture. But it's never, ever going to happen unless it is player-run, and even then it's one of the most difficult event sequences in all of Interregnum.

Basically, there must be some reason they survived, and even a serious emnity between Egypt and the Caliphate can't prevent the state from breaking up into the (sometimes squabbling) minor fiefdoms that came about in reality.

Yup. I think the KoJ was a little more pragmatic than people give it credit for, and the local Muslim states had a variety of motives too. The later (post-1187) Kingdom of Jerusalem was integrated into the diplomatic and military shenanigans of the region, albeit as a minor player, and often allied with some Muslim states against others. Even so, it finally got conquered by the Mameluks in the 13th century. The KoJ didn't collapse internally, it was conquered by its more powerful neighbours, though internal weakness may well have played a part.

So what happened differently in our world? Well, firstly the KoJ only briefly lost Jerusalem. In our story, the Fourth Crusade actually went to the Holy Land instead of Constantinople, and was successful in retaking Jerusalem and much of the other territory lost. Secondly, it appears they have absorbed the crusader states of Tripoli and Antioch (Edessa, on the other hand, has not survived). These two would have made it a much stronger state militarily. But thirdly, it must have developed internally over those extra 150 years. Can we really believe that this development has all been narrow-minded and religion-obsessed, so that the 'levantine' option is the radical one in 1419?

 

[MattyG]

Actually, while there was a high turnover due to both death and departure, quite a few did settle and have kids over the course of the 12th century. According to Wikipedia, the population of the KoJ was 25-35% 'Frankish' on the eve of Saladin's successful campaign to take Jerusalem. That's certainly enough to be culturally dominant. Granted, the RL KoJ on its own (as opposed to KoJ + closely allied Christian states in the region) was smaller than our KoJ, but it'd be enough to justify Crusader culture in one province. I'm all for choice, but as I say, I find it hard to believe the choice won't already have been made by 1419. Perhaps the KoJ can later choose to encourage Muslim immigration to the kingdom later and/or grant more power to the ra'is, which would possibly flip Judea.

The situation is in some respects similar to French Algeria 750 years later: the French were a minority overall, but not an insignificant one in numerical terms, and concentrated in certain key cities, so that they actually made up a large proportion of the population there. Also, they had started to identify themselves as 'outremer': still Westerners, but with emotional ties to the land they now lived in, and increasing adoption of aspects of culture and dress native to that region. It was also possible for Muslim locals to improve their status considerably by converting to this culture and religion; a few did so. Finally, in both cases you have a large population who are neither Muslim nor Western, principally Jews, who had to decide which of the other groups was likely to offer them the best deal. In both cases a large proportion backed the Westerners when the 'outremer' state was at its height.

Of course, I'm not saying life in French Algeria was the same as in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. But rather similar cultural dynamics were at play.

Hmmm. OK.

My source was Calipah who has proven pretty strong on his history of the Middle East. But, one must also accept that maybe his sources are a little less reliable: the victors view of history and all that.

OK, I'll change Judea to Crusader culture, and I'll need to update the event for the capture of Jerusalem to reflect "What is to be Done with these Accursed Franks".

 

[MattyG]

I think we're getting back to the old question:

What DID the KoJ do to stay stable? Some more immigration, allying with local christians, or a massive constant influx of new troops from catholic Europe to deal with thew locals?

If the first, Judea could well be crusader catholic, and possibly some other states too. If the second, it seems reasonable for the KoJ to have the culture of its christian subjects, orthodox or maronite. And if the last, the KoJ should have some serious upped manpower in Judea to represent the continuous influx and availability of troops, at least initially.


Basically, there must be some reason they survived, and even a serious emnity between Egypt and the Caliphate can't prevent the state from breaking up into the (sometimes squabbling) minor fiefdoms that came about in reality.

That question was answered in the history section and in the text of many events, both KoJ and Caliphate.

Basically, the mode of politics of the 11th century continued for another few: shifting alliances that permitted various states/factions to rise and decline. However it was compounded with the arrival of the Mongols. Although the Mongols sought the cooperation of the Catholics to crush the Muslims, they chose the opposite, principally out of fear of the Mongols and preferring the devil they knew. The result was the successful defeat of the Mongol armies outside Baghdad. This not only saved the one of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world, but earned the KoJ a long reprieve from the Caliph and enabled the KoJ to centralize authority over the various atholic principalities.

But the Il-Khanate did not let up and over the interveening 150 years until our game begins the alliances shifted between the various players: Seljuks, Caliph, KoJ, Byzantium, Il-Khanate and the many minor states who vied for semi-independence and the favour of the larger states. However there was a cost for all the players, which was a certain moribundity of politics and culture, especially for the Caliphate, largely landlocked and stuck at the centre of any conflagration.

 

[MattyG]

All three, but the first two more so than the third.

Well, we have an event series for the KoJ to acquire Levantine culture. But it's never, ever going to happen unless it is player-run, and even then it's one of the most difficult event sequences in all of Interregnum.

Thank you.

So what happened differently in our world? Well, firstly the KoJ only briefly lost Jerusalem. In our story, the Fourth Crusade actually went to the Holy Land instead of Constantinople, and was successful in retaking Jerusalem and much of the other territory lost. Secondly, it appears they have absorbed the crusader states of Tripoli and Antioch (Edessa, on the other hand, has not survived). These two would have made it a much stronger state militarily. But thirdly, it must have developed internally over those extra 150 years. Can we really believe that this development has all been narrow-minded and religion-obsessed, so that the 'levantine' option is the radical one in 1419?

No fourth crusade in Interregnum. Never has been.

 

[MattyG]

Ahmed write:

"1. How can we represent a state that is militarily strong but with a narrow and
intolerant ruling culture?
----------
Do not give them culture, but give them barrack(s) (supportlevel and
manpower)and weapon manus to keep good land tech.
After losing prov barrack and manu disapears.
And in war they recieves some troops and leaders from europe."


This is a pretty interesting approach. Another would be to increase the MP for Kurland by about 4 to represent its ability to recruit young German 'knights'.

 

[MattyG]

1. is easy. Extremely narrowminded, with events continuously pushing them there unless they abandon the crusader-state principle, as both the Teutons (to Baltland?) and KoJ can do. Maybe add land-focus too, but that's not entirely it. Of course, monarchs with high military skill and low admin adds to it, too.

The only trick here is to do it without avoiding extremely player irritation. The model used for Eire is by necessity forced to prevent a player for altering the centuries-old Eire legal system at the touch of a DP slider button.

The way to do it for the TO might be like this. Please excuse the lack of flavour in the text.

event = {
	id = who cares
	random = no
	country = TO
	trigger = {

		OR = {
			AND = {
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 }
				NOT = { year = 1450 }
			}
			AND = {
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 3 }
				year = 1450
				NOT = { year = 1490 }
			}
			AND = {
				domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 }
				year = 1490
				NOT = { year = 1530 }
			}
		}

		NOT = { flag = openness }

	}
	name = "A Reform within the Order"
	desc = "Now that you have shifted Innovative this high you have effectively changed the core ideoligical structure of the Order and begun to open it to new ideas. However, the traditionalist faction is atempting to wrest control of the polity."
	date = { year = 1419 }
	offset = 1000
	deathdate = { year = 1529 } #after which point something is forced on them ...

	action_a = {
		name = "The old order is being swept away"
		command = { type = domestic which = quality value = -3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -2 }
		command = { type = domestic which = serfdom value = -1 }
		command = { type = add_countryculture which = baltic }
		command = { type = setflag which = openness }
		command = { type = ADM which = 2 value = 60 }
		command = { type = DIP which = 1 value = 60 }
		command = { type = MIL which = -3 value = 60 }
                command = { type = provincemanpower which = -2 value = -4 } #reversing the value for Kurland if we give it that
                command = { type = sleepleader which = xxxxx } #various German leaders no longer appear, especially some good ones
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "The traditionalists seize power"
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 60 value = 3 }
		command = { type = desertion which = -1 value = 1000 }
		command = { type = ADM which = -2 value = 60 }
		command = { type = DIP which = -1 value = 60 }
		command = { type = MIL which = 3 value = 60 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -2 }
                command = { type = wakeleader which = xxxxx } #various Baltic named leaders, maybe overall of lesser quality as there needs to be a 'price'
	}
}

In this way the player can chose to step back from the brink rather than presuming that their increasing of innovative was done with knowledge aforethought.

The opennes tag would be critical for many subsequent events, including leadership changes, revolts (or lack therefof) and, y'know, other stuff.

There would need to be repeat versions of the event incase Inno increases again before 1530.

Finally, there would need to be an event for this same issue by the time of the reformation.

 

[Avernite]

That question was answered in the history section and in the text of many events, both KoJ and Caliphate.

I've read the story, but it never was quite convincing enough with the monolithic Egypt and Caliphate that easily overrun both Jerusalem AND the Il-Khanate. It's just that the Caliphate is not clearly enough much stronger or weaker than it's ever been, so there's certainly no reason for a centuries-old divide to suddenly be bridged.

I mean, the maronites, part of the Arab world for just a bit longer than it has by now been part of Jerusalem, but they're integrated by the Caliphate like it's nothing. Likewise the Levantine culture, granted to the Caliphate with a single 'sure, let's cooperate' which gives similar penalties to what the KoJ has (reversed conversions), but the KoJ does not get the culture for it.


I mean, geesh, these guys have been ruled by Catholics for 3-4 centuries, possibly nearing 5 when they're taken. That should have some serious effects on the populace.

 

[MattyG]

I've read the story, but it never was quite convincing enough with the monolithic Egypt and Caliphate that easily overrun both Jerusalem AND the Il-Khanate. It's just that the Caliphate is not clearly enough much stronger or weaker than it's ever been, so there's certainly no reason for a centuries-old divide to suddenly be bridged.

I mean, the maronites, part of the Arab world for just a bit longer than it has by now been part of Jerusalem, but they're integrated by the Caliphate like it's nothing. Likewise the Levantine culture, granted to the Caliphate with a single 'sure, let's cooperate' which gives similar penalties to what the KoJ has (reversed conversions), but the KoJ does not get the culture for it.


I mean, geesh, these guys have been ruled by Catholics for 3-4 centuries, possibly nearing 5 when they're taken. That should have some serious effects on the populace.

It's interesting, because that was my original feeling on the matter as well. Calipah (an extremely well-educated man not given to assume the RW means the Alt World) felt very strongly about the matter of the crusader never having converted the locals or having sown anything except mistrust among them.

I can see that we need to revisit this, but if the result is making a KoJ that can easily survive in the hands of the ai, then I am not for it.

 

[Avernite]

It's interesting, because that was my original feeling on the matter as well. Calipah (an extremely well-educated man not given to assume the RW means the Alt World) felt very strongly about the matter of the crusader never having converted the locals or having sown anything except mistrust among them.

I can see that we need to revisit this, but if the result is making a KoJ that can easily survive in the hands of the ai, then I am not for it.

Well, they survived for 300 years already; why should they not survive?

 

[unmerged(31994)]

The Kingdom of Jerusalem could never be viable enough to expand and survive in the Middle East. I come to this from a historical perspective. There was never any normalization of relations between the surrounding states and Jerusalem(aside from a few princes in Syria during the first crusade) as well the fact that even up to 1291, the regions that were still in Crusader hands still had a huge muslim population.

The Christians were the landlords, the Muslims were the peasants generally speaking. No attempt was made to convert them, and I assume that by the 13 or 14th century, the crusading spirit would have died down. Coupling that with the fact that in actuallity the crusaders were being 'easternized', I dont find it a great stretch to say that most of the Kingdom was still Muslim.

 

[Garbon]

The Kingdom of Jerusalem could never be viable enough to expand and survive in the Middle East. I come to this from a historical perspective. There was never any normalization of relations between the surrounding states and Jerusalem(aside from a few princes in Syria during the first crusade) as well the fact that even up to 1291, the regions that were still in Crusader hands still had a huge muslim population.

The Christians were the landlords, the Muslims were the peasants generally speaking. No attempt was made to convert them, and I assume that by the 13 or 14th century, the crusading spirit would have died down. Coupling that with the fact that in actuallity the crusaders were being 'easternized', I dont find it a great stretch to say that most of the Kingdom was still Muslim.

So then how is that they actually managed to get by in this timeline?