Help with the Crusades history

[lifeaquatic]

So on a side note that movie Kingdom of Heaven really missed the point of what was happening, anyways.....


I am modifying the Conquest Middle Ages and I need a little help with some history. You see the problem is that Civ is limited in the alliances area, if I make certain ones locked as allied they stay that way for the whole thing, but I need to get a few locked in war against the Abbasids in Jerusalem so there will actually be a crusades that happens as opposed to how it is now where that doesn't really happen.

So heres the nations i start with (its about 800 AD in the beggining, age of Vikings)

France
England
Celts
Burgundy
Germany
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Kieven Rus
Magyars
Byzantine
Castile
Cordovans
Fatamid Caliphate
Abbasids
Turks



So based on your knowledge of 800 ad to 1200's which nations would be best to lock in war with abbasids? Any alliances out of these?
My fear is that if i have too many the abbasids will get wiped out, should i give the abbasids allies as well? Bear in mind this eliminates the possibility of allied factions to war with each other at all.

 

[lifeaquatic]

No one?

............

 

[Verbose]

Err...
I don't have Conquests so I don't know the mechanics of the scenario.

Historically I'd say France, Burgundy, Germany and possibly England. The Scandinavians had special dispensation to crusade against the pagans arond the Baltic. (Though one Norwegian king did go on crusade to Jerusalem, saling his fleet down to the Med.) Castile would be occupied at home against Cordoba. The Celts, Magyars and the Kievan Rus would hardly enter into it much.

This leaves the Byzantine, Cordoba, Fatamids and Turks. Neither of these would have any reason to like the Abbasids. Cordoba can prolly be left out of it. The Byzantines have religious reasons for hostility. So do the Fatimids (Shiite). The Turks fought everybody (Saladdin's family started out working for the Zengid dynasty in Mosul before starting the dynasty).

Apart from this I have no idea of the relative strength of these factions in the scenario.

 

[Xen]

I would add Venice; it was quite important durign the crusades.

 

[lifeaquatic]

Venice as an independant nation you mean? Were they in existence in 800 AD? Thats when the scenario starts.

 

[Gagliaudo]

I confirm Xen's proposal: Venezia, factually independent state (formally part of Byz Empire, but she was too far and powerful, and soon she got the largest autonomy).
Well, from AD 800 to 1200 isn't easy, there were LOTS of events and modifications of states/tribes before 1095 (Clermont's council) or even 1061 (when started the so-called "proto-Crusades" in Spain, South Italia and Sicilia).
You could also add:
Bulgars
Scots (kingdom of Alba or Dalriada, by Kenneth McAlpine, CA 840 ca)
Berbers (the 'future' Almoravids and Almohads)
Danishmend (a Turk tribe, different from Seljuk. They built a state in N-E Anatolia)

Notes:
Fatimids appeared in AD 910 ca (the same years in which Normans fixed themselves in Normandie - it could be a good starting year... you could divide Norvegians and Danes from these "Normans")
Almoravids appeared in AD 1060 ca, Almohads in 1140 ca.

THE point is: do you prefer focusing in CRUSADES or on Europe medieval history ???
This makes difference
However I love MiddleAges and Crusades, so I'll be glad if I can give a hand
Let us know about your nice project!

 

[Verbose]

Venice as an independant nation you mean? Were they in existence in 800 AD? Thats when the scenario starts.

Venice was in existance. It was no where as powerful as it got later on. It was citystate-vassal to the Emperor in Constantinopolis, though catholic. From around 1000 it had aquired a powerful navy and started long distance trade. It didn't get itself an empire until around 1200 though.

Generally you're going to have to cut corners something fierce to get historical politics to work over such a long period as 800-1200. Several powerfull state fell and rose etc. in this period.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

In 800AD, the three powers in Western Europe were the Holy Roman Empire (as of December 25 IIRC), England and al-Andalus. England and the HRE had agreed to establish a common currency, but with the decline of the latter, only English currency was of any standard for quite a considerable time. That could probably be reflected in a wonder of some kind. The capital of England at that time though was Winchester (London only became the capital after the Norman invasion in AD1266 when the Earl of Surrey became the High Lord Steward of England).

The more important crowns of the HRE were these:
- France (in Neustria)
- Aquitaine (not really part of France in anything but name until the 1200s, although Charles the Bald was King of Aquitaine)
- Germany (a largely titular entity after c. AD888)
- Burgundy (Upper and Lower united)
- Italy / Lombardy (a separate kingdom until AD962 IIRC when it was merged with the German crown)

As for the Abassids, they'd be at war with almost everyone, at least IMO. The Turks emerged only during the 10th - 11th Centuries really although Turks had been recruited into the Caliphate armies since the disatrous Battle of Ardabil and the salt-in-the-wounds at Mosul (both occuring before AD800, although Mosul was a victory)

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Folks, lifeaquatic asked on how to modify the Middle Ages Conquest.
That one starts in 843 (Treaty of Verdun), and is easily the best of the Conquests when it's about historical accuracy. A good example for this is to have 'Dorestad' as the most important harbor in N Europe. A neat idea, Harbors cannot be build until the 4th era; so, trade concentrates on those very few cities that start with one (Dorestad, Hedeby, Venice, Corinth, Constantinople, Birka; could be missing a few, but there is none in England, deliberately).
Still, some inaccuracies couldn't be avoided due to map limitations. Like the German capital being Regensburg, not Frankfurt. And if the AI settles in odd places later, well, that isn't caused by bad map design.
Ed Beach, the designer, really has a pretty good clue what he did; for historical accuracy and gameplay balance.

For unknown reasons, every couple of weeks someone pops up and claims especially this scenario would be completely wrong, and needs to be reworked, yadda yadda. A usual complaint is "All those Arabs in Europe, what a BS"...
What bugs me here is that the other 8 conquests need work before this one.

Lifeaquatic, note I do not refer to you here - the question about locked wars is a legitime one!
But, unless you include the Mongols, locked enemies wouldn't be realistic. It just wasn't that way. Castille and Cordova cooperated, HRE Emperor Frederic II signed a peace treaty with the Abbassids.

Venice - yes, you can make that a OCC. Will be tough to incorporate, and balance. I started this once, but never completed it.

 

[Verbose]

In 800AD, the three powers in Western Europe were the Holy Roman Empire (as of December 25 IIRC), England and al-Andalus.

Just nit-picking in the traditional spirit of the History Forum...

...but the HRE didn't exist until it was founded by Emperor Otto I in 962. Prior to that there was the shortlived Carolingian Empire, divided into three kingdoms in 843. So France was never part of the HRE.
It was a German affair ('The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation') but with the north Italian city-states added to it as well as the duchy of Provance/Burgundy (the territory east of the Rhône).

And to reflect feudal politics in Civ is tricky. Royal control over France and Germany was weak indeed, while already the Anglosaxon kingdom was pretty centralised, and became even more so once the Normans went to work.
Germany in a sense didn't get organised until the 19th c. And the king of France had to conquer his vassals sword in hand more often than not to make France into something resembling the modern political entity — and most of that happened after 1200.
There is a political pamphlet form 13th c. Languedoc where the local rulers are ancouraged to take up arms against the two traditional enemies: 'Li Frances e li Masmut', the French and the Muslims.

 

[lifeaquatic]

Folks, lifeaquatic asked on how to modify the Middle Ages Conquest.
That one starts in 843 (Treaty of Verdun), and is easily the best of the Conquests when it's about historical accuracy. A good example for this is to have 'Dorestad' as the most important harbor in N Europe. A neat idea, Harbors cannot be build until the 4th era; so, trade concentrates on those very few cities that start with one (Dorestad, Hedeby, Venice, Corinth, Constantinople, Birka; could be missing a few, but there is none in England, deliberately).
Still, some inaccuracies couldn't be avoided due to map limitations. Like the German capital being Regensburg, not Frankfurt. And if the AI settles in odd places later, well, that isn't caused by bad map design.
Ed Beach, the designer, really has a pretty good clue what he did; for historical accuracy and gameplay balance.

For unknown reasons, every couple of weeks someone pops up and claims especially this scenario would be completely wrong, and needs to be reworked, yadda yadda. A usual complaint is "All those Arabs in Europe, what a BS"...
What bugs me here is that the other 8 conquests need work before this one.

Lifeaquatic, note I do not refer to you here - the question about locked wars is a legitime one!
But, unless you include the Mongols, locked enemies wouldn't be realistic. It just wasn't that way. Castille and Cordova cooperated, HRE Emperor Frederic II signed a peace treaty with the Abbassids.

Venice - yes, you can make that a OCC. Will be tough to incorporate, and balance. I started this once, but never completed it.

I would like to make clear my goal is not to seriously modify this conquest, i'm not going to go through and change the civs or city locations or any of it, I find it to be the best conquest, thats why i'm mearly tweeking it. Doc your point is understood, i knew it was a very complete and close to perfect mod before i went into it. I just changed a few things (aesthetics mostly, added more arab looking units for the arabs).


As for mongols I've already added them, now since you are familiar with this conquest, which if any of this civs should be locked in war. Keep in mind i can lock civs in war without allying anyone.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Seriously, I would advice against any locked wars. The problem isn't so much historical accuracy (the Mongols pretty much were in a locked war against almost any Civ in here, except maybe the Turks); it's that this forces the AI in wartime mode. One of the best ways to cripple them (AW games utilarize it) - those AIs will build build nothing but units until they get killed by the support costs. No culture, no Settlers, no city improvements.

Btw:
here is a link to a SG with my Mongol modifications; the file itself is linked to in post #1. Note this game wasn't played until end; but we tried again.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Just nit-picking in the traditional spirit of the History Forum...

...but the HRE didn't exist until it was founded by Emperor Otto I in 962. Prior to that there was the shortlived Carolingian Empire, divided into three kingdoms in 843. So France was never part of the HRE.
It was a German affair ('The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation') but with the north Italian city-states added to it as well as the duchy of Provance/Burgundy (the territory east of the Rhône).

Just nit-picking in the traditional spirit of the History Forum...

The Pope crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor in 800AD on Christmas Day. When Charlemagne died in AD814, Louis I the Pious, being the only one of Charles' sons to survive him, was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. The Empire was subdivided into Kingdoms between his sons. When he died in AD840, his eldest son Lothar was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, but he also claimed lordship over his brothers Charles the Bald (king of Neustria and Aquitaine) and Louis the German (king of Germany and Bavaria). In the resulting war, the title Holy Roman Emperor was confirmed upon Lothar, but with no real territorial authority. The title passed to his son Lothar II of Lotharingia, when it passed to one of his uncles after his death in AD879 IIRC. Eventually, the title lapsed until it was revived in 962 comprising of the aforementioned lands.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Yes, but Verbose is correct.
Don't confuse Holy Roman Emperor with Holy Roman Empire, only because the English abbreviations are identical.
In German, this is simply the Kaiser, and the Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation (see Verbose for the translation).

And while Karl* and his son and Lothar were indeed Kaiser, the HRE is Otto's work.


*Like I repeatedly mentioned elsewhere, why use a French name for a German ruler?

 

[Gagliaudo]

The fact is that Franks (Franken) were a germanic tribes confederation, but then they began 'latinized' (even if there were 2 french languages for centuries, "oil" and "oc"), and then they passed from Franks to Françaises , while - after the Charlemagne's empire partitions (843 Verdun, 870 Meersen, ca 888 don't recall), the Germany was called "Kingdom of Eastern Franks" and France "Kingdom of Western Franks"... today there's a region in Germany called "Franken" (and Franconian emperors were called also "Salic" or "Salian", cause the old Franks were divided in two main tribes, 'Salii' and 'Ripuarii', later unified by Clovis/Chlodwig/Clodoveus), and in german language, France is called "Frankreich"...

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Yes, but Verbose is correct.
Don't confuse Holy Roman Emperor with Holy Roman Empire, only because the English abbreviations are identical.
In German, this is simply the Kaiser, and the Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation (see Verbose for the translation).

And while Karl* and his son and Lothar were indeed Kaiser, the HRE is Otto's work.

*Like I repeatedly mentioned elsewhere, why use a French name for a German ruler?

It depends how you look at it. I have never seen such a complete distinction between Charlemagnes' and Otto's Holy Roman Empres in any English work. I mean never.

As for using the French name, many French names from this period came into English. But to put it simply, the English developed their own variants of each name, and it just so happens that the English adopted the French "Charlemagne" instead of the German "Karl" or creating their own in this particular instance.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

1) Be assured, even in a German school history book a sharp distinction between the Carolingean Emperors ruling the Empire of the Franks (Frankenreich), the next couple of German kings, and Otto as creator of the HRE and Emperor again is made. Not to speak of historicians.
If you'd go out and ask that publically, those maybe 10% who ever heard of the HRE would not connect it with Karl. They may not come up with Otto, but the majority would start the HRE around 1000AD.
So this isn't only historically correct, but also "commonly" known.

2) Yes, I know - but still, it bugs me. I would care less if not most of the English speaking world would thus see Charlemagne as French. Guess for which Civ3 Civ he's a (M)GL?
I'm not saying he was exclusively German, but considering he is buried there, his pseudo-capital is there, he spent most of his time there, and spoke German...he for sure was even less "French".

 

[Gagliaudo]

Men, peoples and state's borders change a lot in history...
In Italia we call Charlemagne's Empire "Holy Roman Empire" and Otto I's empire "Holy Roman-Germanic Empire"... cause in 962 there already was a clear difference between Western Franks (France) and Eastern Frank (Germany). And "Regnun Italiae" passed to Germany in 962 (end of Berengario II's reign), with a little break (1002-1014, with king Arduino d'Ivrea, defeated by Heinrich II).

 

[Verbose]

About Charlemagne's title and empire (sorry Doc, your reform will never work in French):
Re-establishing the Western Roman Empire was a Medieval pipe-dream for centuries. Charlemagnes title it was a one-off and his empire a kind of false-start. It was the Roman Empire risen from the ashes and perfected by being Christian. The pope crowned him emperor, but the empire was broken up. (And I just learned from Doc's post that his sons did become Emperors.)

When Otto created the HRE, France was already an enemy and never became part of it. The stipulation that it was to be German was an indirect reference to the Western Franks/French. This title was transferred for quite some time though...

And I have also noticed that English books on medieval history can't quite distinguish between the two empires.

 

[jonatas]

The fact is that Franks (Franken) were a germanic tribes confederation, but then they began 'latinized' (even if there were 2 french languages for centuries, "oil" and "oc"), and then they passed from Franks to Françaises

well i'd prefer to draw more distinctions....

French properly speaking is langue d'Oil. Langue d'Oc (the language, not the region, because Occitan sprawled all over Southern Western Europe) had more in common with Iberian languages or even Italian. It was Latin, only removed through time. Langue d'Oil already had strong Germanic influences linguistically. Of course, the corresponding cultures for each language had differences too.