Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Who call out the Crusade?

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.
unmerged(9167)

unmerged(9167)

Imperator Universalis
May 4, 2002
1.339
0
Visit site
I have 2 questions related to the Crusades. I hope that u can answer those.

1. How do the Crusade started? Was it Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's cry of help. If so will we have event where if he lose all of Asia Minor then he cry but that seems not right to me. Also, when turks took the Holy Land, they oppressed Christians, whom cried to Pope for help. Or is it Pope solely, to used as the way to channel the aggression in europe against "infidels", right? But the best way would be having Turks oppression of Christians as a trigger, that way, even if Byz won Manizert and kept Asia Minor, there will still be a crusade.

2. The second question is that who lead the Crusade? If u accept, that make u lead or will be it more like EU's alliance system? Also, how do the Crusade travel to Holy Lands? If I decide to not go there msyelf but send a group of warriors, will they be moved to someplace like Constantionople or Venice? Even if I go, how do I cross all those land, would I gain a 'Crusader' status in order to move freely. Can I decide who rule a "Kingdom of Jerusalem" I mean like,would I move my capital there and give up my ancestral lands or I say, my cousin shall be a Baron in Jerusalem? What about the supply line? Say, I am from HRE or Cologne, how get to Holy Lands?

Sorry about the long post.
 
First Crusade was influenced by all the things you listed. Alexius' cry for help fit with the Pope's ideas.

On the leadership question, there wasnt ever really a specific leader of each Crusade. For the 1st, it was generally upper nobility that went, but no kings; they each led their own contingent and cooperated when they wanted to and argued the rest of the time.

After the success of the 1st, the kings jumped on the bandwagon. Again, though, there was no 1 leader; Conrad III led the Germans, Louis VII the French, etc. Same story for the 3rd. Barbarossa took the Germans, Richard I the English, Philip II the French, and so on. Coordination and cooperation between the different hosts was always a problem due to national rivalries and disagreements on strategy/tactics, which was further compounded by disputes with the "native" Franks of Outremer.

The only Crusades that really had a unified leader were Henry VI's German Crusade (1197), the 6th (Frederick II), and Louis IX's Crusades.

Routes: The Germans always took the land route through Hungary & the Balkans into the Byzantine Empire and then across the straits to Asia Minor and across it to the Holy Land, beating off or being decimated by the Turks along the way. This was also the route of most of the French. They both eventually got smart though; Henry VI's troops & Frederick II took the sea-routes from southern Italy, while Philip II & Louis IX sailed from southern France/northern Italy. The English & Scandinavians obviously went by sea. The Normans of Italy took the land route with the rest of the 1st Crusade, but thereafter they launched fleets directly from Sicily and Apulia.
 
Good questions.

The coordination of a crusade is a question that really puzzles me. If it is like the alliance system in EU then it will be more of a mess than any of the RL crusades. You know how it is impossible for allies in EU to get it straight just what the objectives are in a war - well the crusades were more coordinated than that. At least in the major crusades they settled on an objective so that all the forces had the same idea. Sure, there was lots of in-fighting and arguing etc. but once an objective was set everyone (almost) proceeded toward that objective.:)
 
Sonny, what about something like this: A Crusade is called and every king receives notice; his Crusade is not tied to anyone else's, ie, he can leave when he wants and take any route he wants. This is the chaotic uncoordinated part.

However, he's also informed what the primary target is, like "Capture Jerusalem" (1095), "Retake Edessa" (1147), "Eject Saladin & Recapture Jerusalem" (1188), etc., to represent the major focus of the Crusade (there was always one).

Along the way, he would receive other messages updating him on the campaign's course, like "The Franks of Outremer, the English, & the French are joining forces to beseige Acre" (1189), or "Edessa has been abandoned and the Christians are advancing on Damascus" (1148). That way the historical course of the Crusade could be followed since it frequently differed from the stated objective (2nd & 4th).

Also, even though theyre separate hosts, if say the Germans march into a province in Asia Minor where the French are battling the Turks, they should join the battle, just like Raymond of Toulouse arriving to rescue Bohemond at Dorylaeum. This way they could remain independent but join up for sieges and battles.

Any other suggestions?
 
That sound reasonable to me. But still, how do the player get to holy land, over everybody's lands. I suggest that if the player join in the crusade, they gain the status of Crusader, which enables them to go to holy land across everybody's land.
 
ewright,

Sounds like it is very workable. Having the Pope set the objectives is a great idea. Don't know if it would get as complicated as switching objectives after the crusade was called, but certainly through events it should be possible. As you pointed out, everyone would find their own way to the objective and as long as the AI recognized the objective it would work pretty nicely.

Deciding who got to control any territory which was taken during a crusade might prove difficult unless the leaders are ranked as in EU.:)
 
Zhai I hate to to correct you but, Muslims never oppressed the Christians in the Holy Land, not for some time after the 1600s.;) Thanks to Saladin and many others who let it be that way.;)
 
E-M, Christians were not exactly oppressed but they had to pay the special tax, and go only to the designated area for pilgramilage. It was started at 1080 or 1090's I am not sure when. Maybe I am wrong about Jerusalem but I rmbr that Turks was not kind to Christians as Arabs had been.
 
Originally posted by Zhai
E-M, Christians were not exactly oppressed but they had to pay the special tax, and go only to the designated area for pilgramilage. It was started at 1080 or 1090's I am not sure when. Maybe I am wrong about Jerusalem but I rmbr that Turks was not kind to Christians as Arabs had been.
Click to expand...

Yes they were.;) Only for a while though....:(

You are correct about the special tax and designated areas though, but they still weren't "oppressed." ;) It went on and off until the Europeans established Crusader states there, and then it remained until they were oppressed by the Turks in the late 1500s.;) Jews however, were protected in the area for a very long time though.;)
 
Originally posted by Zhai
E-M, Christians were not exactly oppressed but they had to pay the special tax, and go only to the designated area for pilgramilage. It was started at 1080 or 1090's I am not sure when. Maybe I am wrong about Jerusalem but I rmbr that Turks was not kind to Christians as Arabs had been.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was not just the Muslims who imposed this type of tax on other religions. In what was eventually to become Spain, while the various different Christian kings were reconquering lands from the Muslims, they imposed a special tax that had to be paid by all Muslims and Jews, and eventually expelled all who did not practice Christianity from Spain.
 
Well, Rome wasn't always pleased with some of the crusades.... and that should be reflected... excommunication should be a threat.

M
 
Originally posted by Zhai
E-M, Christians were not exactly oppressed but they had to pay the special tax, and go only to the designated area for pilgramilage. It was started at 1080 or 1090's I am not sure when. Maybe I am wrong about Jerusalem but I rmbr that Turks was not kind to Christians as Arabs had been.
Click to expand...

Oppression of Christians was the propaganda used against the Turks throughout the ages. It is fascinating to see that it did not go extinct and some of it still lives in this forum.
 
Oppression of Christians was the propaganda used against the Turks throughout the ages. It is fascinating to see that it did not go extinct and some of it still lives in this forum.
Click to expand...

Well, we may never know for sure, what is history but a progandaga for victor? (For most part, not all of the time.) You are right about the progandaga by Christians, they said that Muslim murdered most of Christian on the way to Jerusalem. Or that they are taxed to death, many of those kind. It is interesting actually, because of the capability of human to believe even the most outrageous progandaga, or exaggaerted version of what is going on. Accord to some people, special tax and designated area are a form of oppression. By the way, it is also progandaga that Muslim never oppressed Christians, just as it is progandaga that Muslim oppressed Christians.;)

Well, Rome wasn't always pleased with some of the crusades.... and that should be reflected... excommunication should be a threat.
Click to expand...

Like, Fourth Crusade, Pope excommited them.
 
It was probably easier being a Christian in the Holy Land... because no one was going to torture you for heresy... as heresy was considered worse by the church than being of an entirely different faith.

M
 
True! Very True! That is sad:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back