Right now when you adopt Mercantilism all foreign corporations 'disappear' and reappear when you pick something else. The same thing should happen with Theocracy where all non-state religions should temporary disappear from your cities until a different civic is chosen. In particular this would be useful for:

-Denying shrine income to a rival

-Preventing fluke AP diplo wins. If a Civ adopts a non-AP religion Theocracy then no AP diplo victory is possible. The risk of course is that they risk all AP civs declaring war on them via AP resolutions.

Any thoughts?

I approve.

This would also have a negative effect since you wouldn't be able to build religious buildings for non-state religions, meaning less happiness, which is ok late-game, but early to mid-game can be rather crippling. Otherwise an interesting idea.

yah i agree to.

I disagree, just because its a theocracy doesnt mean other religions dont exist. There are still other religions, just one religion dominates and makes the rules, their religious leaders making the rules.

I like the denying shrine income. There should be some way to do that. LIke you can use the inquisitors to take a religion out of your town. I hate that I am sponsoring my rval.

I disagree, just because its a theocracy doesnt mean other religions dont exist. There are still other religions, just one religion dominates and makes the rules, their religious leaders making the rules.

Well, yeah. But if we're talking about real life examples vs. gameplay mechanics, a mercantile government is probably going to be more tolerant of foreign corporations than a theocratic government will be of foreign religions. I mean, the main weapon a mercantile government uses to avoid trade deficit is tariffs. Which might be effective, but not when compared with, for example, large crowds of people throwing stones, government officials burning people at the stake, and nuns glaring at one in a very stern manner. So it's within the realm of reason, so long as we're going by the sort of reason that values good gameplay over real world facts.

That said, I'd definitely play a mod that included this Theocracy model. I suspect the consequences might be more far-reaching than they seem.

I like the denying shrine income. There should be some way to do that. LIke you can use the inquisitors to take a religion out of your town. I hate that I am sponsoring my rval.

Ooh. You know, that might be a better way of handling it. Running Theocracy allows you to build an Inquisitor unit that would function as a sort of anti-missionary. Pop him in one of your own cities, and you have a chance of prying out a random non-state religion. Perhaps you could even set it up so that it used the reverse of the missionary's chance to succeed roll...the fewer religions there are in a city, the harder it is to get rid of one, since a larger proportion of the citizens would tend to belong to it. That would force you to put out a reasonable outlay of hammers in order to cleanse your lands of heresy.

Plus, the ability to voluntarily free yourself from the mad whims of the Apostolic Palace would be a boon. Besides, I've never really been the object of a holy war before. Might be good times.

And ironically, the most satisfying religion to use the Inquisitor on would be whatever brand of shrieking insanity Izzy happens to be spamming that day. See, cause nobody expects the Spanish...ahh, you know the rest.

Theocracy should remove the effect of the Apostolic Palace only if you remove all religions with inquisitor.

I disagree, just because its a theocracy doesnt mean other religions dont exist. There are still other religions, just one religion dominates and makes the rules, their religious leaders making the rules.

Wrong. Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand ruthlessly oppressed non-Christian religions, in particular Jews and Muslims (though some pockets of Islam remained no doubt because the rulers enjoyed the lavish arabic palaces like the Alhambra, much to Torquemada's chagrin).
Catholic England under Queen Mary attempted to exterminate Protestantism, and then Protestant England afterwards did the same to Catholics.
Iran under the Ayatollah Khameni did not tolerate the presence of any religion that was not hardline Islam. I don't think the situation there is much better today mind you.

All all these examples, non-state religions were removed or forced into hiding. This is in fact exactly how a Theocracy should work in Civ.

Also, if you're running Theocracy, any city you conquer automatically acquires your state religion.

Ooh. You know, that might be a better way of handling it. Running Theocracy allows you to build an Inquisitor unit that would function as a sort of anti-missionary. Pop him in one of your own cities, and you have a chance of prying out a random non-state religion. Perhaps you could even set it up so that it used the reverse of the missionary's chance to succeed roll...the fewer religions there are in a city, the harder it is to get rid of one, since a larger proportion of the citizens would tend to belong to it. That would force you to put out a reasonable outlay of hammers in order to cleanse your lands of heresy.

Plus, the ability to voluntarily free yourself from the mad whims of the Apostolic Palace would be a boon. Besides, I've never really been the object of a holy war before. Might be good times.

And ironically, the most satisfying religion to use the Inquisitor on would be whatever brand of shrieking insanity Izzy happens to be spamming that day. See, cause nobody expects the Spanish...ahh, you know the rest.

I was thinking about that but the problem with an inquisitor unit is that Firaxis/2K might get some flack for having a game where where you can have such things as having an Islamic theocracy using inquisitors to drive out all the Jews and Christians. Gods of Old got away with inquisitors because it had religions nobody currently follows.

My idea of having Theocracy making all non-state religions disappear until you change civics again has a similar effect of an inquisitor unit but abstract enough so it wouldn't be likely to offend people.

Actually, i think Theocracy 'nullifying' foreign religions sounds very good (as one can argue the government might not wipe them out but it can drive them underground (so they don't get to build any Temples, cathedrals, or Monasteries

I agree, the ¨people who are in wrong faith¨ (not in your state religion.) The state ¨hunt¨ (pursue) those and the religion disappears (but if you switch that, they aren't ¨hunted¨ anymore.)

I disagree, I think foreign religions in a theocratic state should cause unhappiness. -1 unhappiness for each non-state religion for "denying us the right to practice our faith." I always thought that should be the case, wouldn't people of other faiths have a problem with a theocracy? Of course, the remedy is to just build them a temple, which allows them to practice their faith.

I approve of religious purges.

I was thinking about that but the problem with an inquisitor unit is that Firaxis/2K might get some flack for having a game where where you can have such things as having an Islamic theocracy using inquisitors to drive out all the Jews and Christians. Gods of Old got away with inquisitors because it had religions nobody currently follows.They could just not make it an inquisitor unit. How about if you use a state religion missionary in a city that already has that missionary's religion while in Theocracy, it instead attempts to "convert" another religion out of the city? Then they can avoid the "OMG INQUISITIONS IN A GAME! BOYCOTT!" and still have that gameplay element.

i agree aswell, it would work like a charm with my playstyle :)

They could just not make it an inquisitor unit. How about if you use a state religion missionary in a city that already has that missionary's religion while in Theocracy, it instead attempts to "convert" another religion out of the city? Then they can avoid the "OMG INQUISITIONS IN A GAME! BOYCOTT!" and still have that gameplay element.

The Charlemagne scenario already features an inquisitor, for getting rid of Islam. It could easily be adapted to the main game.

I would like the option to remove a religion from a city totally (even if it meant using hammers, or something or unit) with obviously a hit with the holy city civ.

I would like the option to remove a religion from a city totally (even if it meant using hammers, or something or unit) with obviously a hit with the holy city civ.


How about deportation? The heathens and heretics in the city are transformed into workers/settlers/ partisans and priests and scurry
over the borders to join countries that have their religion as the official religion. You would lose population, and you couldn't be sure that one didn't remain behind as a spy.

I agree with the latest poster. For realism-related reasons, you should lose the pop. Not ALL (during the Inquisiton, lots of jews converted to christianity, not that it helped them in that case though...) but a good fat chunk.
Say if I dig taoism, and München does not agree that this is the finest view of the world there is, they prefer "buddhism". So I convert to theocracy, and this 10 pop city shrinks to a pop 3-4.
Otherwise at least I think that theocracy would be far too overpowered. If not, if you have a well-spread religion to the heathen states around you, they would probably change to theo pretty fast, to stop you from getting that precious gold.

Actually, i think Theocracy 'nullifying' foreign religions sounds very good (as one can argue the government might not wipe them out but it can drive them underground (so they don't get to build any Temples, cathedrals, or Monasteries

Adding to the above stoppage of foreign religious buildings, perhaps Theocracy cancels the spread of Foreign Religion & allows the creation of Inquisitors. However the AP votes are still involved and income still is sent to the Holy City.

Inquisitors remove the foreign faith & population. How much population is lost would be difficult to determine. 1 per religion? The use of Inquisitors stops after any civ researches Liberalism. That way you can hold off on researching liberalism while you purge your lands, but it may cost you the free tech as you avoid the beeline.

This thread is like a tank of gasoline sitting near an open flame - but I just can't help myself so I'm going to post anyway. I know that people are probably just posting here because they are perhaps frustrated with the Apostolistic Palace, but you guys are forgetting some very famous attempts at religious eradication. The most notorious and organized example would probably be the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jews during WW2. Stalin killed quite a few too. Just think, you could play Civilization as Stalin of Russia and happily eradicate Jews in game. Another famous example of attempted religious eradication would be the Roman attempt to eradicate Christianity. Yeah, that attempt at eradication went pretty well didn't it? One should also keep in mind when talking about Protestants eradicating Catholics and vice versa that those are both sub groupings of Christianity, so in game terms it would be invisible. Same thing for Iran with Shiite and Sunni Muslims - both Islam (and Sunnis are still in Iran and still practicing btw). Completely eradicating a major religion (as opposed to a cult or sect) is pretty difficult to pull off because you are dealing with people's fundamental belief system that shapes their world view. A cult would be small enough to eradicate but a major religion? Sure, you can knock it underground and or force portions of a population to shift around (perhaps between your own cities), but complete and total eradication? Not so sure on that one.

A game comparison between theocracy and mercantilism is perhaps appropriate only in terms of game effects, but in reality you are comparing a set of laws to a set of beliefs. Someone will go to their grave as a martyr before changing their fundamental world view (think Christians being fed to the lions) whereas with Mercantilism, if you can't make a profit in country X because of the contract laws or tax situation then you are simply going to do business somewhere else. Completely different situation.

I suppose in game terms if a religion is persecuted it would cause unrest ... the religion being persecuted would have their temples and monasteries destroyed (that you would have spent hammers building) and the actual presence of the religion in your city would either remain (albeit "underground" yet still present) or possibly shift or even spread to another of your cities.

I think the Gods of Old religions are just fine and could easily replace the more recognized religions in the epic game. Then there wouldn't be this problem with people being offended by what happens to a particular religion. Basically I think it was a mistake that Firaxis used current religions.

The things i would like to see added to Theocracy:
-other civs can not perform influence religion espionage mission if you adopt Theocracy
- +25% espionage defense against civs adopting another religion
- +25% espionage cost to perform missions against civs adopting other religions

I agree with ASL Veteran that altering Theocracy and introducing mechanisms to eradicate religions would be a bad move because of all the historical background.

A more "passive" effect of Theocracy could be to remove all effects of non-state religious buildings in the civ (a cultural hit) and remove the player from the AP votes (it would emulate the fact the followers of non-state religions are no longer allowed by the civ leader to participate in international forums) for as long as theocracy is run. This should come with some benefits but it would need to have a big enough penalty (eg: diplomatic hit with every civ which state religion is now oppressed in the civ running theocracy) to balance it, because it would make the AP victory terribly difficult (the AI would switch to theocracy just to block you). Right now, you may already have to work quite hard to manage this victory if a civ is running theocracy - leaving you with three choices : build up espionnage and manage to influence the religious civic long enough to spread your religion, or destroy the civ running theocracy, and in some cases vassalizing it might work. If as soon as you've managed this other civs block you, as well abandon the hope of winning this way.

I'M not sure it's the AP victory that has to be made tougher to get. It can be a challenge and it already turns into a dead-end often enough as it is, and when it's too easy I feel it's probably because I'm not playing at the difficulty level I should. What might be interesting (or needed) is a counter-strategy to prevent the AI from winning when you don't build the palace - other than conquering/razing the owner of the palace, that is.

A much more simple way to re-balance a bit the AP victory so the players who do not build it and don't use it don't suffer from it as much could be to add a second victory condition, like for Domination : the religion of the AP needs to be present in all civs and to spread to X% (20 or 25%, probably) worlwide before the vote can take place. This would allow the players who didn't build the palace to counter it by spreading their own religion(s) worlwide, and this would make the victory more difficult if you built the palace because you would need to spread your religion more widely first, with the risk that bigger civs adopt the religion, spread it and try to win the vote themselves (actually, this already happens with maniacs like Isabella).

I'm guessing it's more the conquerors who find the AP unbalanced because the AI can stop an excellent conquest campaign short by a surprise AP victory, or make your life hell with holy wars and cities switching back to previous owners until the AP owner is conquered or the city it's in razed (this should come with a massive and lasting diplomatic penalty + a holy war...). The builders types don't seem to have as much of a problem fitting the AP into their strategies, whether they've built it or not, and are not complaining as much about it either.

This thread is like a tank of gasoline sitting near an open flame - but I just can't help myself so I'm going to post anyway. I know that people are probably just posting here because they are perhaps frustrated with the Apostolistic Palace, but you guys are forgetting some very famous attempts at religious eradication. The most notorious and organized example would probably be the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jews during WW2. Stalin killed quite a few too. Just think, you could play Civilization as Stalin of Russia and happily eradicate Jews in game. Another famous example of attempted religious eradication would be the Roman attempt to eradicate Christianity. Yeah, that attempt at eradication went pretty well didn't it? One should also keep in mind when talking about Protestants eradicating Catholics and vice versa that those are both sub groupings of Christianity, so in game terms it would be invisible. Same thing for Iran with Shiite and Sunni Muslims - both Islam (and Sunnis are still in Iran and still practicing btw). Completely eradicating a major religion (as opposed to a cult or sect) is pretty difficult to pull off because you are dealing with people's fundamental belief system that shapes their world view. A cult would be small enough to eradicate but a major religion? Sure, you can knock it underground and or force portions of a population to shift around (perhaps between your own cities), but complete and total eradication? Not so sure on that one.


Aren't you forgetting about all the countless (then major) religions that both Christianity and Islam completely destroyed? Sure, you might be able to provide a few examples of the failed destruction of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but where are all the worshippers of the polytheistic religions such as Egyption, Roman, and Greek Polytheism? The only reason Christianity makes it "into the game" (or life) is because it destroyed and converted more developed religions in that time -- same goes for Islam.

I agree with ASL Veteran that altering Theocracy and introducing mechanisms to eradicate religions would be a bad move because of all the historical background.


I think this "historical background - people will be offended" stuff is nonsense! I can conduct a genocide in the game (raze all of the Aztec cities, for example) but I can't kick a religion out? That doesn't really compute... Civilization is not and should not be perfectly "politicly correct" anyways, because it relies on stereotypes to provide bonus' etc. Don't think it relies on stereotypes? The Germans and The Chinese are just more industrious people than the French and the English? Japanese people don't like trading as much as other civs? French people have more "culture" than people from other countries? Native Americans are inherantly better archers than Americans? Indian people are faster workers? German people are better engineers than anyone else? These stereotypes are ALL in civ, and whether you like it or not they are in fact stereotypes. Some may be less offensive than others, but that doesn't change the fact that they are stereotypes after all. I don't know, but wouldn't the game be a lot less fun if we took away any bonus that was in any way related to a stereotype? All the civs would have to be the same -- and bland. Kinda like the religions are now. I would actually propose that each religion should have a specific bonus -- built on stereotypes of course :).

The point is Mercantilism DOESN'T eliminate Corporations, it just makes them 'invisible'... they have no effect on their city.

I think that makes perfect sense for Theocracy.. it drives religions 'undeground' but it doesn't eliminate them.
(overall this is a negative effect, you lose Temples/Monasteries/Cathdrals... however, some Shrine owner may lose Gold, and it increases your espionage defense against civs with that religion)


Option # 2 the idea of an Inquisitor would also be interesting... however given that it is mostly a Negative effect in game, you would have to tie it to things, for example
... with Divine Right (an otherwise useless tech) introduce
-1 Happiness our religion is being suppressed could be introduced (for each non-State Religion.. for All religious Civics that have a State Religion)
+1 Happiness for the State Religion (for all Civics)
[This would give you Some reason to eliminate other religions]

The Inquisitor unit, cost ~80, if sent to a city with one or more non State religions, will randomly* select one of them, and has a chance of removing the religion and all Religious Buildings for it, if it is not a Holy City.

Made obsolete with Liberalism

*could be player guided too

Or else give this ability to the Missionary of the State Religion, once the state religion is there... perhaps it only has a small chance of removing the religion, but automatically removes the religious buildings.

Cost= the unit, and maybe 1 population or some whip type unhappiness (and of course all the religious buildings)

With option 2 though I would make it something available with ALL religious civics [that have a state religion].

Aren't you forgetting about all the countless (then major) religions that both Christianity and Islam completely destroyed? Sure, you might be able to provide a few examples of the failed destruction of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but where are all the worshippers of the polytheistic religions such as Egyption, Roman, and Greek Polytheism? The only reason Christianity makes it "into the game" (or life) is because it destroyed and converted more developed religions in that time -- same goes for Islam.

No, I'm not forgetting about the old polytheistic religions that disappeared ... those are already represented in game by the "Paganism" religious civic and the fact that you have no religion in your cities (default - polytheists). I don't have anything handy about the death of polytheism, but while violence by Christians etc against polytheists (an example would be the defacing of various monuments in Egypt and the destruction of Delphi in Greece IIRC) active eradication policies didn't eliminate those religions. People simply stopped worshipping the old gods because they just didn't believe in them anymore. They just sort of 'faded away'. I'm primarily disputing the fact that the player would have absolute certainty of the outcome of any religious eradication policy that they implemented. History shows us that an active eradication policy doesn't always work out the way the policy was intended and in fact can actually make the followers more radical and facilitate the spread of that religion. The penalties for any eradication policy would have to be severe ... ie anarchy in the city that has the policy, and a chance of failure or of actual spread of that religion (as people of that faith flee the city for other locales and gain new converts in the process) once the period of anarchy is over. :borg:

No, I'm not forgetting about the old polytheistic religions that disappeared ... those are already represented in game by the "Paganism" religious civic and the fact that you have no religion in your cities (default - polytheists). I don't have anything handy about the death of polytheism, but while violence by Christians etc against polytheists (an example would be the defacing of various monuments in Egypt and the destruction of Delphi in Greece IIRC) active eradication policies didn't eliminate those religions. People simply stopped worshipping the old gods because they just didn't believe in them anymore. They just sort of 'faded away'. I'm primarily disputing the fact that the player would have absolute certainty of the outcome of any religious eradication policy that they implemented. History shows us that an active eradication policy doesn't always work out the way the policy was intended and in fact can actually make the followers more radical and facilitate the spread of that religion. The penalties for any eradication policy would have to be severe ... ie anarchy in the city that has the policy, and a chance of failure or of actual spread of that religion (as people of that faith flee the city for other locales and gain new converts in the process) once the period of anarchy is over. :borg:

Actually, given the minimal benefits of eliminating a religion, perhaps the results of using an Inquisitor type unit could be
X% = eliminate religion in this city
Y% = religion appears in several nearby cities

So the only real 'cost' would be spreading that religion Farther, necessitaing the use of large numbers of Inquisitor units to 'effecively eradicate' a religion.

The other (and much more reasonable idea) is the OP make Theocracy like Mercantilism, official persecution drives the other religions 'underground'. [of course this is overall a bad thing so Theocracy would have to be strongly improved]

I'm primarily disputing the fact that the player would have absolute certainty of the outcome of any religious eradication policy that they implemented. History shows us that an active eradication policy doesn't always work out the way the policy was intended and in fact can actually make the followers more radical and facilitate the spread of that religion. The penalties for any eradication policy would have to be severe ... ie anarchy in the city that has the policy, and a chance of failure or of actual spread of that religion (as people of that faith flee the city for other locales and gain new converts in the process) once the period of anarchy is over. :borg:

Those are the things I was getting at suggesting a purge could generate priests , partisans, and a spy as well as the loss population = settlers /workers.

Those are the things I was getting at suggesting a purge could generate priests , partisans, and a spy as well as the loss population = settlers /workers.

that sounds very exploitable.

that sounds very exploitable.

That's a common problem with my ideas and suggestions to modify the game to better represent historical aspects. Some Napoleon is always there to cast aside their ethics for the win :backstab: :D


Except for the Praetorian /Legion thing. I don't see how that suggested change would hurt gameplay.

That's a common problem with my ideas and suggestions to modify the game to better represent historical aspects. Some Napoleon is always there to cast aside their ethics for the win :backstab: :D
Except for the Praetorian /Legion thing. I don't see how that suggested change would hurt gameplay.

Hehe yeah, I can see it now :). Izzy spawns Buddhism, spreads it to her second city, inquisits it... settles more cities, inquisits them... :) My favorite idea is that when you conquer a city under Theocracy that it spreads the religion.

Actually my favorite idea is to give religions differnet abilities and have one of them spread by conquest...

Hehe yeah, I can see it now :). Izzy spawns Buddhism, spreads it to her second city, inquisits it... settles more cities, inquisits them... :) My favorite idea is that when you conquer a city under Theocracy that it spreads the religion.

Actually my favorite idea is to give religions differnet abilities and have one of them spread by conquest...


Have you tried "Gods of Old"?

No I haven't tried any mods except Rhye's and Fall. I'm not too big on MODs because I like to frequently play friendly MP games with my girlfriend and friends. I also like to compare my games to the games of other Civ Fanatics so those two factors combine to keep me away from mods. I've also heard things about the instability of mods, though they are nothing but heresay to me I have to admit I'd hate to be forced to end a game early..

No I haven't tried any mods except Rhye's and Fall. I'm not too big on MODs because I like to frequently play friendly MP games with my girlfriend and friends. I also like to compare my games to the games of other Civ Fanatics so those two factors combine to keep me away from mods. I've also heard things about the instability of mods, though they are nothing but heresay to me I have to admit I'd hate to be forced to end a game early..

I think it's great that you've turned CIV into something that re-enforces your social ties rather than competes with them.

I've only noticed some pauses/lags which I assume are due to Python checks.


Gods of Old is a scenario based on the Pantheon of the Ancient Summerians ( or was it Babylonians?) The war god grants his followers some promotion options such as "Unbridled Fury" (25% city attack )and another which is an experience multiplier.

The other gods have their own unique abillities which can help their followers and hurt their follower''s enemies. The wind gods can grant ships extra movement and send tornados against the enemies of it's worshippers.

Some gods help crops and growth, one boosts culture. I found myself using and gifting InqUisitors and priests, and destroying shrine cities more than the epic game. Lots of flavor, little political correctness.

The most notorious and organized example would probably be the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jews during WW2. Stalin killed quite a few too. Just think, you could play Civilization as Stalin of Russia and happily eradicate Jews in game. Another famous example of attempted religious eradication would be the Roman attempt to eradicate Christianity. Yeah, that attempt at eradication went pretty well didn't it? One should also keep in mind when talking about Protestants eradicating Catholics and vice versa that those are both sub groupings of Christianity, so in game terms it would be invisible. Same thing for Iran with Shiite and Sunni Muslims - both Islam (and Sunnis are still in Iran and still practicing btw). Completely eradicating a major religion (as opposed to a cult or sect) is pretty difficult to pull off because you are dealing with people's fundamental belief system that shapes their world view. A cult would be small enough to eradicate but a major religion? Sure, you can knock it underground and or force portions of a population to shift around (perhaps between your own cities), but complete and total eradication? Not so sure on that one.

The Nazis attempt clearly would have worked. They started the whole (just from thetop of my head) mega holocaust-thing in -44. A year later, they were no more. And during that time they killed ca 10 million jews/minorities. If they would have started this whole thing earlier, say 1940, and put their powder there instead of in the Soviet Union, then they would surely have "eradictated" a heckuvalot of minorities in Europe. (yes I do know that stalin was going to invade hitler sooner or later but whatevs)
The Spanish Inquisition was quite efficent as well. It didn't kill all the muslims/jews in Spain, but pushed away almost all to the Ottomans and Moors. That's two different ways of removing religions.
And Islam (and christianity too for that matter, I just lack examples right here and now) wiped out lots of well organized religions on their way. Zoroastranism, manuism and all that jazz. How can you say that the people there just stopped to believe in it? It was simply a widestretched genocide, as that was how stuff worked in ancient times. You and your army comes to a city of non-believers, raze it, kill the people inside and build a new one. It's when the other religion gets worked into society that pushing it out gets hard.

Alas, the point is you can really wipe out anything and anyone if you just want it bad enough.

The Nazis attempt clearly would have worked. They started the whole (just from thetop of my head) mega holocaust-thing in -44. A year later, they were no more. And during that time they killed ca 10 million jews/minorities. If they would have started this whole thing earlier, say 1940, and put their powder there instead of in the Soviet Union, then they would surely have "eradictated" a heckuvalot of minorities in Europe. (yes I do know that stalin was going to invade hitler sooner or later but whatevs)
The Spanish Inquisition was quite efficent as well. It didn't kill all the muslims/jews in Spain, but pushed away almost all to the Ottomans and Moors. That's two different ways of removing religions.
And Islam (and christianity too for that matter, I just lack examples right here and now) wiped out lots of well organized religions on their way. Zoroastranism, manuism and all that jazz. How can you say that the people there just stopped to believe in it? It was simply a widestretched genocide, as that was how stuff worked in ancient times. You and your army comes to a city of non-believers, raze it, kill the people inside and build a new one. It's when the other religion gets worked into society that pushing it out gets hard.

Alas, the point is you can really wipe out anything and anyone if you just want it bad enough.

Clearly there were invasions and attempts at enforced 'conversion'. I believe it was either Charlemagne or someone associated with his family tree who was making a concerted effort to subjegate and Christianize a "heathen" Denmark. The Teutonic Knights are another obvious example. Those are external wars though (external to the various states involved) which I was not factoring in because the motivation for those wars could either be religious in nature, or there may be other motivations and the religious factor is merely a cover story. You can already happily invade other civilizations and raze their cities so you can already perform those types of activities in Civ.

However, I would also like to point out that at the time Christianity was starting to really take root inside the Roman empire, the empire was being overrun by various ... "Barbarian" for lack of a better term .... tribes. Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, Franks, Saxons, Huns, etc. Certainly you don't think that the process by which these various tribes were "Christianized" was by the sword? The story of how Russia became orthodox christian seems pretty typical of how these 'conversions' take place ... warlord / chieftain is either awed by some form of religious display / victory in battle attributed to a christian symbol / a political calculation that being in league with a christian state is in their interests who then tells his people that they are all christians now. Naturally there will be some resistance to the 'new' god, but when the national leader is telling you that's the way to go, people would listen. The interesting part about the Teutonic Knights is that their opponent (I believe it was the Lithuanians with some Polish assistance - I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) eventually did convert to christianity yet the Teutonic Knights continued to attack.

In Norway (and forgive me but I'm going on memory here - always dangerous on a international message board) I seem to recall that many Vikings converted to Christianity when missionaries set up tests to prove that the christian gods were stronger than the pagan gods ... something along the lines of a Berserker must pass through a pagan god fire and a christian god fire and the berserker could pass through the pagan fire but not the christian one proving the potency of the christian god. The story of how England's christianity survived the Saxon invasion is similar in that various warlords became christian and their christian relics ... crosses or whatever ... gave them victory in battle proving the old gods as weaker than the christian god. So, my statement that people simply stopped believing in the 'old gods' is accurate. It's probably amazing that Christianity in the western world survived at all to some degree.

After writing all this, I hope I don't come across as a bible thumping christian since I haven't attended a day of church in my entire life. I would also not take the Nazi example of attempted Jewish eradication (within Germany and their occupied territories) as an example of what a normal or average state would be capable of. The levels of organization, logistics, and mechanization of their deeds could not possibly have been matched by any nation prior to the invention of the railroad at a minimum and probably even after that since the entire state would have to be geared and designed with that intent in mind along with having all the secret police organizations and the spare manpower to send house to house to round everyone up. I fail to see how the reconquista could be anywhere near as efficient as the third reich as far as eradicating muslims in spain. Interestingly enough, El Cid (sorry in advance to our Spanish posters but I'm going on memory here) fought both against muslims and for the muslims in Spain and it seems like the two communities coexisted for many many years. I simply can't agree to your last statement which I interpret as "where there's a will there's a way" and will just agree to disagree with you there. Someone can say they believe differently than how they used to when threatened with violence, but will they believe differently in their hearts and minds? Perhaps not.

Alrity then.

In Norway (and forgive me but I'm going on memory here - always dangerous on a international message board) I seem to recall that many Vikings converted to Christianity when missionaries set up tests to prove that the christian gods were stronger than the pagan gods ... something along the lines of a Berserker must pass through a pagan god fire and a christian god fire and the berserker could pass through the pagan fire but not the christian one proving the potency of the christian god. The story of how England's christianity survived the Saxon invasion is similar in that various warlords became christian and their christian relics ... crosses or whatever ... gave them victory in battle proving the old gods as weaker than the christian god. So, my statement that people simply stopped believing in the 'old gods' is accurate. It's probably amazing that Christianity in the western world survived at all to some degree.


This is clearly just simple smartness on the christian side. The viking tribes were barbarian as hell. They lacked civlization to a huge degree, and what they managed to do was merely something that any off-lying band of warriors could do to a relatively unprotected neighbour. To trick them (and thus prolly' the rest of the barbarians round central Europe) into converting by these kinds of "tests" couldn't have been a real problem. (and for the record, there was never anything called a "berserker", apart from possibly the ancestors of todays football-huligans)

Also, most of the christian convertations around Europe was due to group-pressure. A couple of danes in the south choose to convert to christ. because they want better trade with the [christians] and perhaps protection from the pope against norman invasions. And then a bunch of more danes convert to prevent that the first tribe get trading supremacy with Europe. And so on. Either you would stand by as a pathetic tribe from the north that everyone hated and lacked civilization and merely could wait to get eaten up by the rest. Or you would assimilate as all the rest and thus gain wealth and other neat thingies. In at least Sweden, a lot of people said they believed in christ, but when it got to some stuff they still prayed (bloted) to the old gods. As this proves, people hardly just ran to the cross as soon as they had heard that their leader had won a skirmish against the 'rus or something.
However, regular convertions are not to be applied when the foreign religion is inside your state, becuase it simply doesn't work as the believers are probably far to advanced in their mind to simply switch sides. And even if they do, people who think they didn't will probably lynch them anyway.

What I mean with the last statement is that simply a state CAN put all its powder there. If fanatic and reassuring enough, a state can make its people do anything. Of course there is zillionths of examples here, some more recent than others. *cough*2003*cough*
The idea is that if the state lets the people do it's dirty work, they wont actually have to spend all that much into it. Note that this is quite "iffy" as it would hardly be easy to do. But through years of propaganding, eventually, the people hate them and them and kill them and them. If not, the "thems" will probably have become so afraid they will have escopen.

Interestingly enough, El Cid (sorry in advance to our Spanish posters but I'm going on memory here) fought both against muslims and for the muslims in Spain and it seems like the two communities coexisted for many many years.

Mmyes, but that was due to simply "thatishowitis-iness". Communities coexist all over. It was all but a peaceful coexistence but no side was strong enough to take the other down. In a strange world you could compare it to India'n'Pakistan these days. But there, both sides are TOO strong. If you get my point? And the Cid kind of had other priorities than bothering about religious philosophications. I'm not going to rat about that because MAYBE some dude fancies this chap the father of his fatherland so I'll let it be.