Crusades and Orthodox factions

[jsadighi]

Question:

If an Orthodox faction happens to capture a crusade target, does the crusade get called off or does it continue?

[me_hungarian]

I called a Crusade on Bagdad and the mongoles took it from the Sejuke's, however the crusade still continued.

[Gogolometro]

Yes. Crusades are target only on excomunicated catholics, muslims and pagans. So an orthodox can be jihaded not crusaded.

me_hungarian, mongols are pagan so they can be crusade target.

[StrikerThrex]

Orthodox auctally can be jihaded, correct about not crusaded though ~

[newt]

Yes. Crusades are target only on excomunicated catholics, muslims and pagans. So an orthodox can be jihaded not crusaded.

me_hungarian, mongols are pagan so they can be crusade target.

[Mornai]

Good to know, thanks! I'd hate to find that out after having just marched my crusader armies to the Holy Lands only to find the Byzantines snuck in and stole it, wasting my time and efforts(and probably causing transgressions on the way back).

[Mornai]

It seems to have been answered. If a crusade is called, and an Orthodox faction captures the target before the crusaders can, the crusade is called off, since Orthodox factions aren't allowed to be crusaded.

Yes. Crusades are target only on excomunicated catholics, muslims and pagans. So an orthodox can be jihaded not crusaded.

As Newt pointed out. But has this actually been tested by anyone?

[withfriend2]

thats what he said

[Mornai]

He said if an orthodox faction captures it, not a pagan. As in, a crusade is called on, say, Cairo. The Byzantines go and capture Cairo before the catholic factions can. Does the crusade continue, or does it immediately end since Orthodox factions can't be crusaded?

[jsadighi]

He said if an orthodox faction captures it, not a pagan. As in, a crusade is called on, say, Cairo. The Byzantines go and capture Cairo before the catholic factions can. Does the crusade continue, or does it immediately end since Orthodox factions can't be crusaded?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

For example, there is a crusade in progress on Jerusalem. The Byzantines, an orthodox faction, captures jerusalem before a crusading faction captures it. Does the crusade end because Orthodox factions can't be crusaded? Or does the crusade continue?

[Ishan]

Papacy has a clear secret love for the orthodox factions.
And if a general going on a crusade attacks a settlement owned by an orthodox faction(even if it's a taken over crusade target) then we get a huge relations drop with the papacy of -0.4.

[Lifthrasir]

That's not logical.
Historically, the Pope Urban II called the 1st crusade 'cause he believed he could unifite Catholic and Orthodox churches. So I can understand why Papacy has a clear secret love for Orthodox factions.
But, as far as I remember, the Dodge of Venice organised a crusade on Constantinople during the 13th or 14th century for business reasons. Same remark about Lithuania and Teutonic Order.
So, orthodox factions should be "crusadeable".

[Ishan]

That's not logical.
Historically, the Pope Urban II called the 1st crusade 'cause he believed he could unifite Catholic and Orthodox churches. So I can understand why Papacy has a clear secret love for Orthodox factions.
But, as far as I remember, the Dodge of Venice organised a crusade on Constantinople during the 13th or 14th century for business reasons. Same remark about Lithuania and Teutonic Order.
So, orthodox factions should be "crusadeable".

No they should not. Venice was attacked and sacked Constantinople for their own good and the pope was shocked when he heard the news and excomm'ed Venetians for that.
The game uses this concept absolutely right so it shouldn't be altered.

[Smokey Bacon]

No they should not. Venice was attacked and sacked Constantinople for their own good and the pope was shocked when he heard the news and excomm'ed Venetians for that.
The game uses this concept absolutely right so it shouldn't be altered.

The Crusaders agreed to do it after promises by Prince Alexius of military support in the Holy Land and payment, if they put him back on the thrown. Alot of catholics did not hold much love for their Orthodox brothers after the killing of many catholics in 1182 in the Greek capital after the death of Manuel I. The Venetians especially helped push for this plan to settle their own vendetta with the Greeks after many Venetians (including alot of the merchant/trading class) where expelled (aswell as many killed) from Constantinople in 1182, also over the years Venetian trade with the greeks had suffered and they had more than once had their trade rights cancelled. Doge Dandolo, a shrewd leader and diplomat, was very good at manipulating things to his own ends.

Before they even attacker the Greeks many of the Crusaders had also allready killed, not only fellow christians, but fellow Catholics in the siege of Zara, the pope's representative in the crusade even said this was necessary to avoid the Crusade completely failing. Alot of the Crusaders who where opposed to spilling Christian blood allready left after the proposal of attacking Zara was accepted. I think some more left before attacking Constantinople.
Once the crusaders broke into the Roman capital they sacked and pillaged the city, even the christian holy places.

In both attacks (zara and constantinople) it is alleged the clergy witheld the letters from the pope saying not to attack christians and condemming those who did. The priests with the crusade even preached about the "evils" of the orthodox church and fabricated alot of atrocitys they where supposed to have done. But despite the pope's initial horror at the treatment of the people of Constantinople his rebukes where less harsh when he received a huge tribute from the vast amount of riches stolen from the Greeks. And despite not fully condoning their actions accepted them "back into the flock" aswell as keeping his tribute.

Wrong, the fourth crusade attack was because of Venice, the Pope said no attacks on Christians allowed. He excommunicated all the crusaders.

Not just venice, allthough mainly them I agree. And he did let them all back pretty quickly.
Sorry didn't mean to write so much!

[newt]

That's not logical.
Historically, the Pope Urban II called the 1st crusade 'cause he believed he could unifite Catholic and Orthodox churches.

no, he was helping them fight the Seljuks.

[Gogolometro]

You both have a good point and you are right.

[Ishan]

no, he was helping them fight the Seljuks.

Yes u are right bro.
And the Byzantium allowed the crusading armies to go through Constantinople and unite together to fight against the Seljuks was they thought that afterwards the Crusaders will give back the Byzantium lands conquered by the turks.

[Lifthrasir]

Yes u are right bro.
And the Byzantium allowed the crusading armies to go through Constantinople and unite together to fight against the Seljuks was they thought that afterwards the Crusaders will give back the Byzantium lands conquered by the turks.

My apologies guys, you're right. I took the wrong Pope
It wasn't the Pope Urban II and the 1st Crusade but the Pope Innocent III and the 4th Crusade in 1202 AD.
During the 4th crusade, the Pope was conviced by Venice he could unify the both churches where Venice wanted an access to the Black Sea and has the supremacy on some other Italian cities like Genoa.

So, to come back to the subject of this thread, the game concept about crusade and jihad is correct

[newt]

Wrong, the fourth crusade attack was because of Venice, the Pope said no attacks on Christians allowed. He excommunicated all the crusaders.

[Ishan]

No one seems to talk about the game anymore.
And now the Thread has converted in to a history test.