Byzantines under the pope

[Hospitallers Kane]

will they have the option of crusadeing as they where the reason of the 1st crusade (the pope sent them help) and they fought in the second one. and in 3rd one they were betrayed.
also they should turn into this at some point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_E...Constantinople
also
check this out for a faction (yes i know there is none left)
but its obscure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Holland

[Shadow_Imperator]

I think you mean betrayed in the IVth Crusade??

1204, Doge Enrico Dandolo lead the Venetians and Frankish crusaders through the straights and into Constantinople.

IIIrd Crusade was Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.

[Basil 11]

I think you mean betrayed in the IVth Crusade??

1204, Doge Enrico Dandolo lead the Venetians and Frankish crusaders through the straights and into Constantinople.

IIIrd Crusade was Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.

Yes, correct - but, during the 3rd, Richard siezed Cyprus from Isaac Commenus - who (although a rebel against the current emporer) was Byzantine.

[Hospitallers Kane]

will they be under the pope tho?
becaude they should fro a while

[Archaon]

MOD: DELETED POSTS - REASON: SPAM BY EMOTICON USE

TO: Tobolight & Hospitallers Kane,
Do not post emoticons only in response to a post you quote, please ensure you explain what your opinion on the quoted post is. Also please do not encourage this activity by retaliating with a post of the same nature.

[sirfiggin]

would be even better if, as the byzantines, you could make the Pope submit to the Emperor....

[Giuliano Taverna]

would be even better if, as the Byzantines, you could make the Pope submit to the Emperor....

Personally I think it should work both ways, a catholic faction that conquers Byzantium could launch crusades, but if Byzantium conquered Rome, the emperor could make the pope boss around Catholic factions on his behalf, which is probably what would have happened.

Also, if possible Rome should have a building, probably saint peters basilica, that gives a happiness bonus for catholic territories like The pyramid in RTW did for Egypt, you could do the same thing with the church of saint Sophia in Constantinople for eastern territory, and Mecca, or the dome of the rock for Muslim territory. That would be a great way to simulate the need to control those sacred capitals.

[dqualk]

Personally I think it should work both ways, a catholic faction that conquers Byzantium could launch crusades, but if Byzantium conquered Rome, the emperor could make the pope boss around Catholic factions on his behalf, which is probably what would have happened.

Also, if possible Rome should have a building, probably saint peters basilica, that gives a happiness bonus for catholic territories like The pyramid in RTW did for Egypt, you could do the same thing with the church of saint Sophia in Constantinople for eastern territory, and Mecca, or the dome of the rock for Muslim territory. That would be a great way to simulate the need to control those sacred capitals.

This is such a cool idea I hope my favorite modders do this

+rep!

[karo]

will they have the option of crusadeing as they where the reason of the 1st crusade (the pope sent them help) and they fought in the second one. and in 3rd one they were betrayed.

also they should turn into this at some point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_E...Constantinople
also
check this out for a faction (yes i know there is none left)
but its obscure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Holland

didn't the pope condem their action and excomunicatated(sp?) the 4th crusade

[Alexios Komnenos]

didn't the pope condem their action and excomunicatated(sp?) the 4th crusade

He did. Innotentius the Third, the Iron Pope, a man who ruled over all of Catholic Europe, with influence everywhere. Possibly the most powerful Pope af all history, and also one of the best politicians ever. This man declared the Fourth Crusade, which objective was the taking of Egypt.

Once in Venice, the crusader leader, Boniface de Montferrato, was convinced by Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice, and Alexios Angelos, exiled from the Byzantine Empire and relative to the current Basileus, Alexios III Angelos, to make a stop in Constantinople and depose the emperor. Before that, the Doge made the Crusaders stop at the rich city of Zara and sake it, destroying the great rival of Venice in the Adriatic Sea.

For this, Innotentius III excommunicated the crusaders. It was a Crusade no more, now it was just a mercenary army. They deposed Alexios III, and crowned Alexios IV. But the Greeks made a rebellion and the fourth Alexios died. Alexios V Doukas, an important officer in the Imperial Court, took the Crown and prepared the city for a siege, for he was anti-latin. But the latins entered the city (the City that never had been conquered!) due to a great fire that consumed a great part of the inner quartiers. And you know the rest.

But I don't know what's the point in putting the Byzies under the Pope's authority. The First Crusade is not a reason. It's true that parts of the Byzantine army fought along with the crusaders, but when the crusaders rejected to return Antioch to the Byzantines, they went back to Roman territory. Besides, the call of Alexios I Komnenos for help was not the reason of the Crusade. It was an excuse. The real reason is much more complex, goes through the Investitures Contest between the Papacy and the Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire, and the fight for the Dominium Mundi, the rule of the world. Its roots are deep in the centuries, reaching the years of Roman Emperor Theodosius and the decay of the central rule in the Roman Empire.

Former Popes had fought many wars against the German Emperor, and Urbanus II did not wanted to start another conflict. So he looked for a common enemy and found out an objective and a pretext to a sacred war. It made that all the errant knights and second sons of great dynasties went to the East, and the militar tension in Europe decreased.

[aduellist]

He did. Innotentius the Third, the Iron Pope, a man who ruled over all of Catholic Europe, with influence everywhere. Possibly the most powerful Pope af all history, and also one of the best politicians ever. This man declared the Fourth Crusade, which objective was the taking of Egypt.

Once in Venice, the crusader leader, Boniface de Montferrato, was convinced by Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice, and Alexios Angelos, exiled from the Byzantine Empire and relative to the current Basileus, Alexios III Angelos, to make a stop in Constantinople and depose the emperor. Before that, the Doge made the Crusaders stop at the rich city of Zara and sake it, destroying the great rival of Venice in the Adriatic Sea.

For this, Innotentius III excommunicated the crusaders. It was a Crusade no more, now it was just a mercenary army. They deposed Alexios III, and crowned Alexios IV. But the Greeks made a rebellion and the fourth Alexios died. Alexios V Doukas, an important officer in the Imperial Court, took the Crown and prepared the city for a siege, for he was anti-latin. But the latins entered the city (the City that never had been conquered!) due to a great fire that consumed a great part of the inner quartiers. And you know the rest.

But I don't know what's the point in putting the Byzies under the Pope's authority. The First Crusade is not a reason. It's true that parts of the Byzantine army fought along with the crusaders, but when the crusaders rejected to return Antioch to the Byzantines, they went back to Roman territory. Besides, the call of Alexios I Komnenos for help was not the reason of the Crusade. It was an excuse. The real reason is much more complex, goes through the Investitures Contest between the Papacy and the Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire, and the fight for the Dominium Mundi, the rule of the world. Its roots are deep in the centuries, reaching the years of Roman Emperor Theodosius and the decay of the central rule in the Roman Empire.

Former Popes had fought many wars against the German Emperor, and Urbanus II did not wanted to start another conflict. So he looked for a common enemy and found out an objective and a pretext to a sacred war. It made that all the errant knights and second sons of great dynasties went to the East, and the militar tension in Europe decreased.

Lots of oversimplification and inaccuracies there. I'd suggest you consult some more authoritative sources for the history of the Crusades in general and the Fourth in particular.

I'd recommend this for starters:

http://www.amazon.com/Crusaders-Stru...1094324&sr=1-1

I think this quote from one of the reviews pretty much sums it up:

This book is a wonderful corrective for two sets of people: (1) Those who idealize the Crusades, the crusaders, and the culture which surrounded and informed them; (2) Those who uncritically villify everything that the folks in the first category idealize.

On topic - I can't think of any historical reason to place the Roman Empire under the authority of the Pope or to give them the ability to crusade. Crusading was not a part of the Orthodox religious make-up. In fact they had no concept of it when they requested aid from the West. What they expected was money to hire mercenaries and/or professional troops to fight under their command.

[Xtopherus]

In my opinion i dont think it would be right to put the byzantines under the pope and have them able to crusade, however i would like the idea of both orthodox and pagan factions being given a "crusading"/"jihad" option as this aspect of the game its very appealing but is missing from these religions, a dissapointment i feel as there doesnt seem to be much else in these religions that is unique that fills this gap.

[Azim]

In my opinion i dont think it would be right to put the byzantines under the pope and have them able to crusade, however i would like the idea of both orthodox and pagan factions being given a "crusading"/"jihad" option as this aspect of the game its very appealing but is missing from these religions, a dissapointment i feel as there doesnt seem to be much else in these religions that is unique that fills this gap.

You can't have one without the other. Only catholic factions may crusade, and only when all of the vanilla Papal features are enabled. We would have to make Byzantium a catholic faction to enable it to crusade. However, if this feature is really important, we could give Byzantium a psuedo-crusade ability where it would have a stack spawn in the holy land if it built a "Launch Crusade" building.

[Hospitallers Kane]

Please just look at this
they are combatants in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

[aduellist]

Please just look at this
they are combatants in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

Your point?

Just because Byzantine troops fought in the Crusades in one capacity or another does not mean that they launched Crusades.

Quote from your cited article regarding the Third Crusade:

The Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelus made a secret alliance with Saladin to impede Frederick's progress in exchange for his empire's safety.

[Philippon]

Sir Figgen: would be even better if, as the byzantines, you could make the Pope submit to the Emperor....

Me: Never happened, even when Byzantium ruled Rome. The Emperors could kill Popes, exile Popes, put them in prison, and torture them, (and they did all four during the time they ruled in Italy after the conquest of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, but they never could get the Pope to submit to the Emperior.

Of course the Pope never tried to get the Emperor to submit to him either. What he did try was to get the Patriarch of Constantiople to submit, which, given that the Pope had originally made the Bishop of Constantinople a Patriarch, was not that unreasonable a demand.

During the last two centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire, Emperors, persistantly seeing the approaching doom, would on occasion make offers to reunite with the Papacy, and finally did so just before Constantinople fell to the Turks.

So an option of Byzantium being able to reunite with the west - and gain some advantage therein - would be a nice option if it were possible.

[Kaiserjagen]

So an option of Byzantium being able to reunite with the west - and gain some advantage therein - would be a nice option if it were possible.

Seconded, with the options for a lot of factions in this mod to sort of switch religions, it be cool to give Byzantium the option to westernize itself and go Catholic.

[AnthoniusII]

Union between the Pope and Emperor ment union of east and west churches!
Remember that the Constantinople's poppulation said that prefaired to be turkish slaves than to unite UNDER the Pope!
Romans(byzantines)never forgot that the Pope defined the role of the Roman Emperor as "The Protector of the Faith on Earth" and named a new and barbarian "protector" in 801ad!
Romans never forgot the Pope's attacks against the italian cities of the Empire since 910 to 1135(Ankona) with the help of the Germans!
Romans never forgot that the Pope suported the Venetian "indipandance" and separation from the Empire...
Romans never forgot that Pope was the only spiritual leader that wanted the same power with the Roman Emperor!

The best think in this mod could be that if a Roman Emperor in the game has the need of the Pope's asistance and accept it he could have financial and political advandages(seasfire with all catholic factions,loan from Pope)but a huge civil revolt in regions that the generals would not have enough loyalty or a general civil revot...

This way will present the facts as realy done!

[Confitemini in Domino]

Union between the Pope and Emperor ment union of east and west churches!
Remember that the Constantinople's poppulation said that prefaired to be turkish slaves than to unite UNDER the Pope!
Romans(byzantines)never forgot that the Pope defined the role of the Roman Emperor as "The Protector of the Faith on Earth" and named a new and barbarian "protector" in 801ad!
Romans never forgot the Pope's attacks against the italian cities of the Empire since 910 to 1135(Ankona) with the help of the Germans!
Romans never forgot that the Pope suported the Venetian "indipandance" and separation from the Empire...
Romans never forgot that Pope was the only spiritual leader that wanted the same power with the Roman Emperor!
!

Don't forget that Charlesmagne proposed marriage to the empress Irene, and when this proved impossible he received approval from the court in Constantinople to form the Holy Roman Empire. Even Orthodox sources admit this (Zernov, Vasilev)

[sirfiggin]

Me: Never happened, even when Byzantium ruled Rome. The Emperors could kill Popes, exile Popes, put them in prison, and torture them, (and they did all four during the time they ruled in Italy after the conquest of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, but they never could get the Pope to submit to the Emperior.

Of course the Pope never tried to get the Emperor to submit to him either. What he did try was to get the Patriarch of Constantiople to submit, which, given that the Pope had originally made the Bishop of Constantinople a Patriarch, was not that unreasonable a demand.

During the last two centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire, Emperors, persistantly seeing the approaching doom, would on occasion make offers to reunite with the Papacy, and finally did so just before Constantinople fell to the Turks.

So an option of Byzantium being able to reunite with the west - and gain some advantage therein - would be a nice option if it were possible.

I wasn't talking bout theology, I meant conquest, as in, the Byzantine Emperor being strong enough to enforce himself directly over the pope, asserrting his superiority over all Catholic dominion