Historical inacuracy of sort in Religious Oder's modeling

[Mori-mori-mori]

This particular qoute:

Members of religious orders, they are called to their tasks. As such, they are fighting for a cause that
does not necessarily place payment for their services in such a high priority, and their upkeep is
somewhat reduced.

That's very simplistic and literal approach. Yes, a simple members of these orders were tight with obligations and oath (what didn't stop the Templars from becoming reknown for strong love of wine and carnal pleasures, for example ), but Orders iteself were more policitical than religious institutions. They had enormous privileges from Popes and Kings, they have the rights to took lands and treasures, captured from pagans for yourself, etc. So, as their service to the faction could have looked as a gratuitous help, they shurely would have got their share of loot and land after all, and a quite a big share. Templars due to their enormous richs and power became at the end so sinister financial (they even founded some sort of early bank system of yourself) and military force, that it had became necessary to get rid of them.
So, as their upkeep and recruting can be not so expensive, they should demand a substential part of trophys for their order to prosper (I don't know what to do with lands aquired, though) in case of successful campaign.

[k/t]

Individual Templars weren't allowed to own property. They weren't sinister, but someone didn't want to pay his debts to them and thought it would be better to take everything else they had instead so he came up with a bunch of BS.

Their upkeep should be the same as any other Early Professional unit of their caliber's, though, because their landholdings in the West's main purpose was to raise revenues for the war in the East. Just because they weren't paid doesn't mean they weren't expensive.

[Caesar Clivus]

Yep. Still had horses and equipment to maintain which was not cheap

[Ichon]

Yep. Still had horses and equipment to maintain which was not cheap

Yeh actually I think religious order should be more expensive and no free upkeep. The lands most religious orders controlled were very rich though they did not demand payment in coin they took loot in the name if the order. In SS they are usually amongst the best troops with good armor and horses. I think they could be slightly cheaper than equivalent knights in upkeep but no free upkeep.

[Point Blank]

Noted.

EDIT: In my current EDU they are not free upkeep. Will look at upkeep costs, from memory they are the same as Early Professionals at the moment.

RC 2.0 has improved modelling of all unit types such as Religious Order.

[k/t]

And someday we hope to try it out.

[Cyprexinia]

Sinister? Lol no. Both the French and the Papacy were annoyed at how well the Templars were doing, they basicly set up the first banking system but also had some power within the Papacy. The problem was, the French didn't want to pay back their debt and several within the Church didn't want to lose their positions so they came up with a bunch of crap to make them look bad. Templars were completely innocent and the released transcripts from the Vatican vaults proves it. Think there may have even been an apology. Basicly the group was targeted because they were rich, didn't have much trouble with anyone and both a reckoning force in military and in the papacy.

[VINC.XXIII]

yes, Philippe the Handsome didn't limited its depredations to Jews and Templars, also bankers from Italia and Cahors had individually stories with him. And quantities of little feudal lines on the decline have been finished by its agents.

Great idea to get malus for the royal treasury when a commandery is located in the province. Idem for Hospitallers and iberic orders.
Because Templars weren't only useless, they parasited South France, I means, they didn't paid taxs, and after 1250 the possibility of a muslim invasion was close to 0.
Templars and Hospitallers maintened their proper fleets, and had the responsability to organize the defense of their fiefs. Thats their only real must. Otherwise they were happies like the bishops...

[k/t]

"they parasited South France, I means, they didn't paid taxs"

So because they weren't slaves they were parasites? Good one.

[VINC.XXIII]

How call you a useless knight, who don't fight, don't pay taxs in despite of enormous(euphemism) financial ressources of its Order?

[Ichon]

How call you a useless knight, who don't fight, don't pay taxs in despite of enormous(euphemism) financial ressources of its Order?

All the churches and monasteries were like that. Church owned more land than the King most of the time. Templars fail was to loan huge amount to King and make Pope distrust them so Pope saw their fall as getting rid of an enemy.

[k/t]

How call you a useless knight, who don't fight, don't pay taxs in despite of enormous(euphemism) financial ressources of its Order?

Smart.

[RollingWave]

these are of course all debatable, for example I might debate why Urban militias are free upkeep units? if they are premenantly standing units it was very likely that they had some sort of a fix wage.

Their advantage over say.. levy units probably should be that because they're usually police / garrison units of sorts, they should have better effect in terms of that, this is easily doable , the rather underutilized "is_peasant" trait in the EDU does percersively this, units with this trait only count as half towards the garrison effect, so it is stand to reason that all levy type and a good portion of the other free upkeep types in general should get this effect(for example the sergeants not directly under you may be as much of a deterence to maintaining order as an aid...), thus forcing you to build more militias to be able to reasonablly hold settlements , espeiclly those further away.

[Ichon]

these are of course all debatable, for example I might debate why Urban militias are free upkeep units? if they are premenantly standing units it was very likely that they had some sort of a fix wage.

Their advantage over say.. levy units probably should be that because they're usually police / garrison units of sorts, they should have better effect in terms of that, this is easily doable , the rather underutilized "is_peasant" trait in the EDU does percersively this, units with this trait only count as half towards the garrison effect, so it is stand to reason that all levy type and a good portion of the other free upkeep types in general should get this effect(for example the sergeants not directly under you may be as much of a deterence to maintaining order as an aid...), thus forcing you to build more militias to be able to reasonablly hold settlements , espeiclly those further away.

Well religious order knights did not pay taxes while feudal knights did. Urban militia get free upkeep since they represent the townsfolk who trained a couple times a month and the city armory stocked their weapons but they paid taxes and went about their business unless under siege. If a campaign stretches out and they marched away from the town then they do get paid a fixed wage which works perfectly with the free upkeep.

Florence in particular had this happen historically. Where constant battles led to the militia paying less taxes while busy away and also demanded wages for their lost time. The city realized that mercenaries were cheaper in the long run although the use of mercenaries gave much more power to whoever paid them and less to the citizens... and it was the beginning of the end for the Florentine republic.

Venice as an oligarchy that drew funds to pay first its sailors and later mercenaries from clear city funds was the only Italian state to not become subject to rule be tyranny for any length of time. Genoa and Ancona tried but were overwhelmed by stronger powers (Milan/Venice and Papal States respectively).

Half effect for garrison is an interesting idea for militias. I think that would probably work well as often the militias were acting like rioters if there was not a good commander- not that they burned down the city since most of them were men of some standing in the city but the militia often sought the opportunity to balance the scales with the more wealthy citizens and nobility of the surrounding area as they could make excuses of the necessity in time of war.

I'm not sure about feudal units getting the trait... in some cases it makes sense as they were quite undisciplined but they were also used to raiding and subduing the working classes. I think low recruitment cost and free upkeep in city but high upkeep in campaign works well enough for them. Mercenaries with a very high recruit cost but low upkeep while militia with relatively high recruitment cost(state pays for their equipment), free upkeep(they work normal jobs when not called up providing their own wages), medium upkeep in campaign(state had to pay them eventually but often stiffed them or in exchange for service offered relief from taxation or other benefits instead of coin), and half garrison effect would be good.

[VINC.XXIII]

@Ichon
not as the templars and hospitallers, also the french king of the time was probably the most unscrupulous of Middle Ages. Its not a chance if its him who destroyed them.
Such thing would certainly not happend with a John the Good or a Philippe Auguste.
yep I have in my books some extracts of " Process : The King of France against the Bishop of Mende", one bishop of Mende have succeeded to vassalize the count of Toulouse and humiliated the King of Aragon! The King of France knew a similar situation with another prince-bishop...
Its even Philippe the Handsome who calmed down the bishop, by definitive treaty, while 1307 year.
In french about that story:
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...t1_0386_0000_2

Templars were more dangerous that such prelates