Regional religious inaccuracies?

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

I'm not too sure about Catholic and pagan regions, but why are regions like Armenia, Georgia and Egypt's provinces so heavily Muslim? Egypt's not the Arab-Islamic locale that it's still getting portrayed as. Until a few hundred years ago, Coptic was spoken as the main Egyptian language and it wasn't until some time in the 13th century that the majority of the Egyptian population (small majority, at that) was Muslim rather than Christian. As for Armenia and Georgia...well, they're Armenia and Georgia, that one is pretty self-explanatory.

Anyway, why was this done? Balance reasons? I mean, religion doesn't seem to be a huge balance issue within the game either way, so I'm kind of wondering on that and why its fix always stood on the wayside.

[kevindrosario]

I have no idea about the historical level of religion in those regions, but if what you're saying is true, perhaps it was done so that those factions wouldn't have to deal with massive amounts of religious unrest at the beginning of their campaigns. Having to invest tons of money into religious conversion would really stunt your growth and put you at a big disadvantage.

[Mr Kriegtooth]

What Kevin said. Its probably known(The SS crew seems to know their stuff ), but is just because well, youre going to make the regions your religon ANYWAY, and it could cause unplayablity. Look at Sweden in BftB. If Sweden was mostly Pagan, wouldnt it be nigh impossible to expand and keep Uppsala?

[nnnm]

that's not true, the majority of people n Egypt where Muslims and even in Dumyat which have the largest number Copts in Egypt they were not the majority in the city. do u have any proof to what u say ????

[Ichon]

There were certainly large numbers of Christians in various parts of the middle east especially on the coasts but keep in mind Islam had been the state religion since before 700AD in everywhere except ERE regions and Caucuses. There were also many other large religions still practiced in 700AD besides Christianity and Islam but by 1100, over 4 centuries later Islam was definitely in the majority nearly everywhere. Even in the regions Crusaders captured and ruled Islam was in the majority in most areas. A few towns had majority Christians but not many. However at least initially both Islamic and CS rulers were much more tolerant of other religious precisely because so many of their subjects were different. To do otherwise would have invited perpetual civil war. ERE was the exception mostly due to the Emperor also being the head of the church which meant non Orthodox Christians might be a threat to the authority of the state and were usually persecuted until the arrival of the Seljuks and the ERE loss of most of its former empire. The persecution and claims to authority by the ERE church was actually a large reason for the fast Islamic conquests as many non-Orthodox Christians were upset with the ERE and welcomed a change in the rulers especially as for many years Islam was regarded as more similar to Christianity than the many pagan religions still existing.

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

It's true that the Arab Conquests were welcomed by those persecuted as heretics by the ERE, such as the Monophysites and Nestorians, but it wasn't like these people just suddenly converted to Islam. Not at all. Look at Iran, which was the earliest significant convert and which was not "totally" converted to Islam until the 9th or 10th century. Egypt is accepted as being a particularly late convert to Islam, so what's to say that it didn't take them a few more centuries to convert, especially keeping in mind that even now, potentially over 10 percent of the Egyptian population is Coptic Christian (remember, Copts are persecuted in Egypt, so they're not going to be parading their faith around), Egypt has been ruled by Muslims for over a millenium, and Egypt was almost exclusively Christian when it got conquered by the Arabs. Check out an article called "Coptic Conversion to Islam under the Bahri Mamluks" which points out the consistent backsliding that Coptic "converts" to Islam underwent and the sheer size of Coptic religious "infrastructure" in Cairo alone. And this was in the very late 13th century and the first half of the 14th century.

This is one of those situations where the position is not so much "We're sure they were all Coptic" as it is "We're sure they were originally Coptic and Egypt converted really slowly, so why guess that they were all Muslims when there's evidence pointing out that many weren't?"

The case of Syria is a pretty similar one. Also remember for these that most Muslim leaders (particularly earlier ones) were really lax about conversion. Most Dhimmi had little to no impetus to convert until crackdowns started happening and even then, a lot of them were converts in name only.

[nnnm]

It's true that the Arab Conquests were welcomed by those persecuted as heretics by the ERE, such as the Monophysites and Nestorians, but it wasn't like these people just suddenly converted to Islam. Not at all. Look at Iran, which was the earliest significant convert and which was not "totally" converted to Islam until the 9th or 10th century. Egypt is accepted as being a particularly late convert to Islam, so what's to say that it didn't take them a few more centuries to convert, especially keeping in mind that even now, potentially over 10 percent of the Egyptian population is Coptic Christian (remember, Copts are persecuted in Egypt, so they're not going to be parading their faith around), Egypt has been ruled by Muslims for over a millenium, and Egypt was almost exclusively Christian when it got conquered by the Arabs. Check out an article called "Coptic Conversion to Islam under the Bahri Mamluks" which points out the consistent backsliding that Coptic "converts" to Islam underwent and the sheer size of Coptic religious "infrastructure" in Cairo alone. And this was in the very late 13th century and the first half of the 14th century.

This is one of those situations where the position is not so much "We're sure they were all Coptic" as it is "We're sure they were originally Coptic and Egypt converted really slowly, so why guess that they were all Muslims when there's evidence pointing out that many weren't?"

The case of Syria is a pretty similar one. Also remember for these that most Muslim leaders (particularly earlier ones) were really lax about conversion. Most Dhimmi had little to no impetus to convert until crackdowns started happening and even then, a lot of them were converts in name only.

that not true at all, even when the Al-Hakim destroyed the Church of Holy Sepulcher no one in Egypt protested though they Copts at that time had reach high administration position in the Fattimed court while the locals were oppressed by both Copts and the Fattimeds,only the roman merchants mostly and in Baghdad. even most church in Egypt and Syria where ruins and they where far from the populated areas because most of those in the cities and towns where converted to mosque. and those u can find them in the roads between cities and many of them where abandoned and those of them which was still working, and in each Sunday they where making parties not prayers and I rather not to say what was happening in those parties

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

that not true at all, even when the Al-Hakim destroyed the Church of Holy Sepulcher no one in Egypt protested though they Copts at that time had reach high administration position in the Fattimed court while the locals were oppressed by both Copts and the Fattimeds,only the roman merchants mostly and in Baghdad. even most church in Egypt and Syria where ruins and they where far from the populated areas because most of those in the cities and towns where converted to mosque. and those u can find them in the roads between cities and many of them where abandoned and those of them which was still working, and in each Sunday they where making parties not prayers and I rather not to say what was happening in those parties

When Muslims in Cairo rioted during the last century of major Coptic influence, dozens of churches are noted as having been damaged/destroyed in that city alone. That suggests an active and substantial Coptic community. Keep in mind that the Copts were much less prone to active public dissent; most riots were initiated by Muslims within that city. When the Copts wanted something to change, their elites would generally petition the sultan or his advisors.

What religious percentages do you propose?

As of the moment I'm not too sure. I'd have to look into it. In the Early Era the Orthodox should probably be the majority in Egypt; in Late Era it should be relatively even (maybe even an advantage in percentage for Islam). Syria had a large number of Christians as well as "Heretic" Christians throughout; they were another late convert. Not sure yet but I'll see what I can figure out.

[Byg]

What religious percentages do you propose?

[Raveyn Ravensworth]

This is almost sounding like a religious war now.
Anyhow, whilst christian (coptic) influences was quite in decline by the start of the campaign, there was still a good amount of em in Egypt, I bet there were those who said they were muslims yet actually were coptic, but due to a few problems (a few 100 years) we cant actually verify this, as such the percentages used at this moment seem appropriate to me. I agree there should be some changes in Armenia, Cilecia and Georgia, due to the still heavy amount of christians there. Syria should perhaps also be changed, considering there were quite alot of syrian christian mercenaries and infantry in the Crusader States armies, which would suggest that the region wasnt as converted as it seems in the game. I'm sure however that the SS-team thought about this, and that they just implemented it this way so as to balance the game.

Raveyn, out.

[Ichon]

In 1100 Coptics the majority in Egypt? No, sorry that is incorrect. A significant minority I could see, 30% seems ok or even a bit more since even by the start of the Ottoman millet system there still remained about 25% but they had been a recognized minority for centuries by that point. I could see being nearly 50% only in Alexandria region of all regions that were under Muslim rule came anywhere close to even half.

Luxor, Syria, and parts of W and N Anatolia along with Caucuses and area around Tarsus could have 40% Christians in 1100 with only Antioch, Jerusalem, and Acre having majority Christians that isn't Georgia or ERE. The other problem is how to represent them. I'd think with the current SS system they would have to be heretics. Coptic Church was not Orthodox nor Catholic. Nestorian Christians were also still playing a valuable rule especially in many rulers courts. Since by 1100 most of the armed resistance to Muslim rule was gone. Even the Crusaders invasions of Egypt failed to rouse many Copts into rebellion. The few who did though ensured violence against Copts when Crusaders were defeated.

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

You say "recognized minority" but again, Coptic Christians were not open about their faith and it's well-documented that many converts to Islam were definitely not actually Muslims at all, but still Copts. Consider that they're 25 percent during the Ottoman period, long after the extreme laws which forced a huge number of them to convert, and then go back almost 150 years before those laws were even implemented.

That aside, Copts most certainly are Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox but so what? Armenians are counted as Orthodox too and their church is Oriental as well.

[Ichon]

I think the religious practices in medieval eras were quite more tolerant than currently. Many Muslims celebrated on Christian holidays and versa. The ruling Islamic dynasties also often paid for construction of Christian churches, synagogues, and Mosques. Of course there were times of persecution but most of the worst persecutions occurred after the Crusades and during then just after Mongol invasions.

So saying there were a bunch of secret Copts who hid their practice... how would that change the official number? If they are secretly Copt but act like a Muslim in every observable way. Might as well make 30% of Spain Muslim still then.

Some people consider Armenian church and Coptic church part of the Oriental Orthodox church. I would say Armenia could be considered a branch but Coptic church has its own Pope and split from Orthodox church already in the very beginning of Christianity in the old Roman empire. Most of the liturgy is different, the language is different but the biggest difference is that Coptic Miaphysites were persecuted under ERE and actually had more rights under Islam which did not consider the various theological differences of dhimmis.

What extreme laws do you mean? The main reasons to convert was due to taxes or threat of death. Tax reasons gained many false converts initially but a family can only pretend to worship something for so long before in fact they do worship it. Within a generation or two the original faith fades if it is not practiced. Very few would continue practicing in secret down through generations of a family. The threat of death or conversion was especially true in periodic dynasties but reached a height during Crusades, just after, and just after Mongol(and non Islamic descendents) rule was defeated.

Either way I don't get what you are trying to accomplish? 30% or 40% Orthodox in some parts of Egypt and Syria... it won't help Crusders, won't change Islamic factions much, and might barely help a human playing ERE by the time can reach that area.

Technically there should be huge number of changes in how religion is displayed in the game. Most of it is impossible to change and given the fact that high numbers of Coptics weren't causing public disorder in Egypt in history unlike what would happen in the game- I don't see how it benefits gameplay or historical reality aside from satisfying some urge to see the % be very high.

[StupidAlarmClockGuy]

I think the religious practices in medieval eras were quite more tolerant than currently. Many Muslims celebrated on Christian holidays and versa. The ruling Islamic dynasties also often paid for construction of Christian churches, synagogues, and Mosques. Of course there were times of persecution but most of the worst persecutions occurred after the Crusades and during then just after Mongol invasions.

So saying there were a bunch of secret Copts who hid their practice... how would that change the official number? If they are secretly Copt but act like a Muslim in every observable way. Might as well make 30% of Spain Muslim still then.

Some people consider Armenian church and Coptic church part of the Oriental Orthodox church. I would say Armenia could be considered a branch but Coptic church has its own Pope and split from Orthodox church already in the very beginning of Christianity in the old Roman empire. Most of the liturgy is different, the language is different but the biggest difference is that Coptic Miaphysites were persecuted under ERE and actually had more rights under Islam which did not consider the various theological differences of dhimmis.

What extreme laws do you mean? The main reasons to convert was due to taxes or threat of death. Tax reasons gained many false converts initially but a family can only pretend to worship something for so long before in fact they do worship it. Within a generation or two the original faith fades if it is not practiced. Very few would continue practicing in secret down through generations of a family. The threat of death or conversion was especially true in periodic dynasties but reached a height during Crusades, just after, and just after Mongol(and non Islamic descendents) rule was defeated.

Either way I don't get what you are trying to accomplish? 30% or 40% Orthodox in some parts of Egypt and Syria... it won't help Crusders, won't change Islamic factions much, and might barely help a human playing ERE by the time can reach that area.

Technically there should be huge number of changes in how religion is displayed in the game. Most of it is impossible to change and given the fact that high numbers of Coptics weren't causing public disorder in Egypt in history unlike what would happen in the game- I don't see how it benefits gameplay or historical reality aside from satisfying some urge to see the % be very high.

Again, try to find that article I mentioned. It's a great read and it explains the difficulties in assessing the rate of conversion (which is why it's safer to assume many people weren't converting, then assuming they were). The extreme laws in question were the ones enacted after the midpoint of the 14th century in Mamluk territory, which made it next to impossible for Copts to fake a conversion and much more difficult to live life as a Copt at all, which was followed by a widespread amount of conversion. If this happened--and remember what was said about 25 percent of the Egyptian population being identified as Coptic during the Ottoman period, long after this had happened--it isn't unsafe to assume that the Coptic population was a much greater proportion of the Egyptian population at this point.

It's true that sultans were very permissive of Copts until then, by and large, but the Muslim population on the other hand was not. Riots, defacing and destruction of churches, attacks on Christians, etc. and this was recorded as having happened before the laws enacted that led to the large number of conversions. It wasn't an easy time to be a Copt--just because they're not going around professing they're Copts doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as Copts.

I'm trying to achieve some non-gamebreaking realism realism with this. It's not a balance question, and changing the religious makeup isn't going to ruin play for one of those factions. Rather, it'll add to the real-life dilemmas. The Mamluks and earlier Fatimids were frequently attempting to appease Christian states due to the huge number of Christians who were living in their territory. While we're at it, I also think that "heresy" should be more prevalent in a lot of Orthodox-dominated regions (think: Bogomils, Nestorians, Monophysites, Paulicians, etc.) and that paganism should be more prevalent in the northern half of the map as a whole.

[Zmflavius]

I'm trying to achieve some non-gamebreaking realism realism with this. It's not a balance question, and changing the religious makeup isn't going to ruin play for one of those factions. Rather, it'll add to the real-life dilemmas. The Mamluks and earlier Fatimids were frequently attempting to appease Christian states due to the huge number of Christians who were living in their territory. While we're at it, I also think that "heresy" should be more prevalent in a lot of Orthodox-dominated regions (think: Bogomils, Nestorians, Monophysites, Paulicians, etc.) and that paganism should be more prevalent in the northern half of the map as a whole.

Considering how big of an effect religion has on city order, I think that your proposed religious percentages (or anything close to it), would break the game for these factions.

[Mr Kriegtooth]

I just say it doesnt matter since your faction will have the same religon, and you'll be converting the land anyway. It'd just make the game harder, if not unplayable, for those factions, and the accuracy it represents would be negligible to the game without some major changes(maybe monestraries and such, that offer some benefit to the player? Sorta like the buildings in IB2: Britanniae?)

[Mr Kriegtooth]

Yeah, and think about factions like Sweden in Battle for the Baltic, they start off with one territory, and to my knowledge, Sweden at the time was still Pagan..so uh...yeah

So it'd be pretty game breaking, but, there should be something to represent the different religious make up somehow.

[Boriempire]

nice thing to add to a re balnce map for ss like serbian sub mod http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=464781

[Chyeaaaa111]

I think the answer to this question is:

gameplay > historical realism