Should religion work in an inverse way?

[Winrich von Kniprode]

Well, yesterday I started to think in a diferent religion perspective. When the Almohads invaded the Iberian peninsula, they didnt forced the visigotic populations to adopt Islamism. Au contraire, they let the people choose between having their own religion or adopting their own. So perhaps religion should work in a different way:

When you conquer an enemy town with a different religion, population will gradually (not immediatly!) start to react positively due to you given them the choice to choose the religion they want, increasing happiness. However they will not produce nor piety nor books as in current features.

However, IF you decide to convert them they will first react negatively due to the conversion, but they will gradually accpet the foreign religion as their own and will immediatly produce piety and books for you.

Trciky question aint it? What's your opinion?

[Gallifrey]

The last game I played that included mixed religions within my kingdom, I just let them worship as they wished, after realising they were pretty adamant in their faith (I could not for the life of me convert them with a 5-star Cleric). All in all, it posed no problems.
I think if you have a kingdom that is largely peaceful, having different religions in your empire isn't problematic (and, perhaps, appropriate).

I do however agree with your notion; letting a province retain it's religion ought to count for something beneficial in terms of happiness; but, as you outline, do not contribute to the dominant religion of your empire.

[Doge]

I like your idea.

But historically... The Almohades were not the ones who invaded and islamized most of Spain, nor were they tolerent of other religions. Also, the "native" Visigoths were not Trinitarian Christians. They were Arian Christians, which is arguably closer to Islam in its view of God & Jesus than "pure" Christianity. When many Visigoths leaders converted to Trinitarian Christianity, the masses of Visigothic people were not pleased. In addition, amidst all this there were centuries of civil wars among the Visigoths. These factors and the factors below were responsible for the conversion of many parts of Spain from Arian Christianity to Islam.

By 714, the Moors had replaced the Visigoths in Hispania’s government. The local administration was not changed and counties were respected. There was religious repression and an extra tax for Christians (which led to mass conversions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

Pre & Post Almohad-Period

1105 - The Almohades, founded by Ibn Tumart, began as a religious movement to rid Islam of impurities. Most specifically, the Almohades were opposed to anthropomorphisms which had slipped into Iberian Islam. Ibn Tumart's successor, Abd al-Mu'min, turned the movement against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians. Sweeping across North Africa and into Muslim Iberia, the zealous Almohades initiate riots and persecutions of both Muslims and non-Muslims. In some towns Jews and Christians are given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_occupation_of_the_Iberian_P eninsula

In 1032, 6,000 Jews of Fez were murdered, and still others were "robbed of their women and their property." [143] In 1146, Fez was attacked by the Almohads, leaving "one hundred thousand persons killed." Marrakesh suffered similarly, when an unbelievable "one hundred twenty thousand" were slaughtered. According to an account of "eye-witness" reports, "On entering,. . . the Almohads tried to convert the Jews to Islam by debate and persuasion. . ." until "a new commander ... solved the problem by a more efficient method. One hundred and fifty were killed ... the remainder converted. . . ."[144]

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/arabjew.html

[Winrich von Kniprode]

The Almohades were not the ones who invaded and islamized most of Spain

Then WTF was?

nor were they tolerent of other religions.

Well, you're right in that point. To be true, the Visigoths who wanted to keep their religion had to pay a tribute.

They were Arian Christians, which is arguably closer to Islam in its view of God & Jesus than "pure" Christianity.

WTF??? That has nothing to do it issue! I just quoted them 'cause I think it would be better than to quote the Ottomans :p (since they were barbaric animals).

The rest of the stuff you just quoted is totally unrelated stuff.

[Doge]

Then WTF was?

You can call them Moors, Saracens, or Arabs - those are the standard names for them.

WTF??? That has nothing to do it issue! I just quoted them 'cause I think it would be better than to quote the Ottomans :p (since they were barbaric animals).

The rest of the stuff you just quoted is totally unrelated stuff.

I am just pointing out the facts. The Almohads came about around the 1100s? and were not tolerant people.

[Winrich von Kniprode]

You can call them Moors, Saracens, or Arabs - those are the standard names for them.

I am just pointing out the facts. The Almohads came about around the 1100s? and were not tolerant people.

Indeed you are right. They always thaught me the Moors were the ones who initially invaded Iberian Peninsula but I guess i mixed things a bit after seeing Almohads ruling da house in KoH.

But au contraire of the almohads, Moors seemed pretty tolerant people according to the documents I have on my ol' history book, that actually quotes an old document of a treaty between a visigothic noble and the mourish state that allows him (the noble) and his subbordinates to be free to pratice their religion and to keep their way of life as long as they payed the tributes for such.

[Traveller]

Religion is (almost) never being offered as a free will in new-conquered lands. At least not in this time period and for these two particular religions (Christianity and Islam). Especially the Islam, which was always forced, one way or another. An example - when the Ottomans conquered the Balkans, at first there was a most savage wave of enforced and aggressive conversion - either you take the turban or you just die (and by a very painful way btw, so that you serve as an example to the others of what will happen with them). Later the Ottomans settled down and started a more peaceful and "hidden" policy - a Christian's word is not equal to Muslim's word in a trial in the court (1 Muslim > 5 Christians), Christians pay much more and much higher taxes, Christians pay the blood tax (taking away your first born boys, which are trained to become Janissaries - the fiercest fanatics in the Ottoman army), Christian can't build churches higher than one or two "storeys" (that's why most of the old churches here from those times are build beneath the ground level) etc. And despite that later "Christians had a choice", the most of them didn't convert and they definitely didn't start "producing piety and books". So it depends - if you conquer an enemy province with a different religion, the newly-conquered people might react not so bad to the invaders (especially if they feel relatively close the the newcomers and their religion), but it's much more likely that they won't. Religion was one of the most important things in the Middle Ages and so was religious fanaticism (or zeal, if you'd like). People rarely just accepted the other's "offer", especially if the other didn't ask politely...

[Winrich von Kniprode]

Indeed the Ottomans were savage barbarians. Still what do you guys think of this idea? Different religion=permanent bonus of happiness but no piety nor books while forced conversion=temporary high unhappiness but with book and piety production.

Of the first bonus would be a gradual increasing. At the beggining they should start unhappy due to the different religion, but if you let them keep theire religion thy'll soon learn to be happy for that.

So whaddya say?

[Doge]

But au contraire of the almohads, Moors seemed pretty tolerant people according to the documents I have on my ol' history book, that actually quotes an old document of a treaty between a visigothic noble and the mourish state that allows him (the noble) and his subbordinates to be free to pratice their religion and to keep their way of life as long as they payed the tributes for such.

You are missing my point. The Almohads were not around during the Visigothic period of Spain. The Almohads were a 12th-13th Century Dynasty. The Almohads overthrew the even more intolerant Almoravids that ruled Muslim Spain in the 11th and 12th centuries.

Winrich, I am pretty sure you are talking about the Umayyad Caliphate & the Emirate/Caliphate of Cordova. Those were the fairly tolerant Muslim kingdoms of Spain from the 8th-11th centuries.

The early Muslim kingdoms of Spain were overthrow by reactionary forces, which were more rigid & fanatical. The Almohads were initially very fanatical with Christians and Jews fleeing from their rule, but moderated over time, then fell into disintegration.

[Doge]

Indeed the Ottomans were savage barbarians. Still what do you guys think of this idea? Different religion=permanent bonus of happiness but no piety nor books while forced conversion=temporary high unhappiness but with book and piety production.

Of the first bonus would be a gradual increasing. At the beggining they should start unhappy due to the different religion, but if you let them keep theire religion thy'll soon learn to be happy for that.

So whaddya say?

I like it :go:

Now how do you mod it?

[Elvain]

Religion is (almost) never being offered as a free will in new-conquered lands. At least not in this time period and for these two particular religions (Christianity and Islam). Especially the Islam, which was always forced, one way or another.sorry, but in the first expansion of Islam, people were not forced to convert to islam.
Even untill today there are still christian minorities in Egypt and Syria, descendants of original christians. If they would have been forced as you describe, they would hardly survive 13 centuries(christians present 10% of population of Egypt and about a half of Lebaneese + up to 5% in Syria). The factor that influenced many people to convert to islam was that non-muslims had to pay special taxes. In comparison to policy of christian conquerors in Spain this is nothing. (true, we can´t compare early muslim expansion with Ottoman expansion)

An example - when the Ottomans conquered the Balkans, at first there was a most savage wave of enforced and aggressive conversion - either you take the turban or you just die (and by a very painful way btw, so that you serve as an example to the others of what will happen with them). Later the Ottomans settled down and started a more peaceful and "hidden" policy - a Christian's word is not equal to Muslim's word in a trial in the courtwell. No doubt about cruelty of Ottomans towards christians, but let me correct you again:
this was not founded by Ottomans. If you look at medieval christian justice jews have almost no rights. If payed special and very high taxes to monarchs, they were protected, but when there was massive movement against jews, monarchs did nothing to protect them.
The fact is that muslim law upgraded the christian one as nonbelievers have given a possibility to witness at the court. The same happened with women. In tribal nomadic way of life women had no rights in front of court. Islam made their situation better: 2 women witnesses were equal to one muslim man.

Christian can't build churches higher than one or two "storeys"
muslims have disabled to build ANY mosques. Jewish synagogues were not allowed to be higher than normal houses in medieval towns...

Religion was one of the most important things in the Middle Ages and so was religious fanaticism (or zeal, if you'd like). People rarely just accepted the other's "offer", especially if the other didn't ask politely...true.
I like the Winrich´s idea but it is very arguable...

What I would propose is a feature for muslim kingdoms in KoH:
when a muslim kingdom owns non-muslim province, the tax profit is 1/2 higher than normal (due to special taxation of non-islamic)

[Traveller]

sorry, but in the first expansion of Islam, people were not forced to convert to islam.
Even untill today there are still christian minorities in Egypt and Syria, descendants of original christians. If they would have been forced as you describe, they would hardly survive 13 centuries(christians present 10% of population of Egypt and about a half of Lebaneese + up to 5% in Syria). The factor that influenced many people to convert to islam was that non-muslims had to pay special taxes. In comparison to policy of christian conquerors in Spain this is nothing. (true, we can´t compare early muslim expansion with Ottoman expansion)
And we survived five centuries under Turkish barbarism. But I haven't said that the initial outburst of savagery continues in time. On the contrary, if you would read my post again, you would see that I said that in the course of time the Ottomans started a "smarter" policy etc. If they had continued with their same tempo as in the beginning, now the Balkans would be completely depopulated (or at least depopulated of its former population and newcomers would fill it). If you want, I think I saw a demographical comparison of the Balkans in the ages and I'd try to find and post it here. The decrease of population during the Ottoman conquest is huge and that's why they stopped - they would crumble right away if they hadn't us to be used as puppets.

well. No doubt about cruelty of Ottomans towards christians, but let me correct you again:
this was not founded by Ottomans. If you look at medieval christian justice jews have almost no rights. If payed special and very high taxes to monarchs, they were protected, but when there was massive movement against jews, monarchs did nothing to protect them.
The fact is that muslim law upgraded the christian one as nonbelievers have given a possibility to witness at the court. The same happened with women. In tribal nomadic way of life women had no rights in front of court. Islam made their situation better: 2 women witnesses were equal to one muslim man.
And I also haven't said Islam is better than Christianity (as official religion, not as faith). IMO they are both horrible! But even Christianity was better than Islam in juridicial terms: not only the simple fact of the strictly prepared worldly laws in Justinian's codex, but also with your example. In Islam 2 Muslim women = 1 Muslim man. But in Islam 3 Christians < 1 Muslim man. And it stayed like that long after Western Europe was reformed...


muslims have disabled to build ANY mosques. Jewish synagogues were not allowed to be higher than normal houses in medieval towns...
I didn't really understand that: Muslims didn't allow construction of mosques? Yeah... And churches here were not just not higher than normal houses, but were usually not allowed to be higher than 2 metres, together with the roof. Which btw is funny when now I look in some Bulgarian regions, where mosques are not only built freely without such restrictions, but are also much more than churches. And Bulgaria is a Christian country - I guess Islam is more tolerant than Christianity?

[FrankishHero]

Indeed the Ottomans were savage barbarians.

I beg to differ on this point...They (like most Arabic peoples) invented many things and made significant cultural and scientific advances. They are seen by "us Christians" *I'm atheistic* as barbarians because they were fierce on the battlefield...yet I see the Romans, f.i. as barbarians also, sacrificing Christians to the lions and having gladiator battles.

[Traveller]

I beg to differ on this point...They (like most Arabic peoples) invented many things and made significant cultural and scientific advances. They are seen by "us Christians" *I'm atheistic* as barbarians because they were fierce on the battlefield...yet I see the Romans, f.i. as barbarians also, sacrificing Christians to the lions and having gladiator battles.
FH, have you learned something in world history classes? The Ottomans, just like the Seljuks before them, are not Arabs, but Turks. That's why they call them Ottoman and Seljuk Turks, but because just Ottoman is shorter... Btw the very English name Ottoman itself is wrong, as the Ottomans are named after the founder of their dynasty (during their whole existence as an empire they had only one dynasty, which was never removed until Ataturk's reforms last century), whose name is actually Osman. And we also call them this way - Osmanlii! :tongue:
Btw, Elvain (and also FH), I hope you don't think this as a teasing of some sort from my side! I just like to argue ("truth is born in argue" among intelligent people)...

Edit: Oh, I also forgot the other part of FH's "question": Of course, the Turks were not only savage barbarians! They did gave something to the world, like cuisine (baklava, turliu-giuvetch, imambaialda (bah, hard to write it with Latin), kadaif etc.), kiucheks (those Oriental female dances) and... Hmm... Hey, because of them the first croissan was made (and the first cafeteria), IIRC! Otherwise, they were one of the most savage people in this part of the world, and believe me - this part of the world has seen quite barbaric people!

[Winrich von Kniprode]

I beg to differ on this point...They (like most Arabic peoples) invented many things and made significant cultural and scientific advances. They are seen by "us Christians" *I'm atheistic* as barbarians because they were fierce on the battlefield...yet I see the Romans, f.i. as barbarians also, sacrificing Christians to the lions and having gladiator battles.

''Devchimré''

I close my case here.

[Doge]

sorry, but in the first expansion of Islam, people were not forced to convert to islam.
Even untill today there are still christian minorities in Egypt and Syria, descendants of original christians. If they would have been forced as you describe, they would hardly survive 13 centuries(christians present 10% of population of Egypt and about a half of Lebaneese + up to 5% in Syria). The factor that influenced many people to convert to islam was that non-muslims had to pay special taxes. In comparison to policy of christian conquerors in Spain this is nothing. (true, we can´t compare early muslim expansion with Ottoman expansion)

The Spanish Christian kingdoms during the period of the Almoravids & the Almohads were more tolerant than the Muslim kingdoms in Spain.

What remained of the traditional Hispano-Muslim "discriminatory toleration" ended with the Almoravids, who inaugurated a policy of direct persecution of the few remaining Christians in the south. Jews also suffered and for the first time were beginning to look to the Christian princes as saviors from Muslim persecution. This was a consequence of the Almoravid interpretation of the jihad, and something of the same degree of militance and intolerance was beginning to be shared by Hispanic Muslims as well. By the twelfth century the gap between Christian and Muslim Hispania was greater than ever before.

http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/payne4.htm

Alfonso VI of Leon-Castile (1065 to 1109) protected Muslims in his lands:

He (Alfonso VI) was very open to Arabic influence. He protected the Muslims among his subjects and struck coins with inscriptions in Arabic letters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_VI_of_Castile

As did Alfonso VII of Leon-Castile (1126–1157):

Alfonso (VII) was at once a patron of the church, and a protector if not a supporter of the Muslims, who formed a large part of his subjects.

http://www.answers.com/topic/alfonso-vii-of-castile

As did King Ferdinand III of Castile (1230 to 1252), who prided himself as the "King of the Three Religions":

During the thirteenth century the court of Castile made a point of proclaiming to all and sundry, as a basic principal of the royal ideology, that the king’s subjects practiced all of the three major religions. Accordingly, any kind of statement made by the monarch was readily used for propagandistic purposes. In this regard some works linked to Ferdinand III (1201–52) are very enlightening.

http://www.seacex.com/documentos/07_sepharad_jews.pdf

As did Alfonso X of Castile (1252 - 1284):

The (Spanish) Catholic kings (of the High Middle Ages) had a policy of complete tolerance for other races and religions and Alfonso X of Castile, like many other monarchs before the fourteenth century, thought of himself as the "King of the Three Religions," an official position that was necessary considering the diverse population.20 21 Although these Christian kings seemed to have a very enlightened view of Jews, the relationship was similar to that of an owner and his property.

http://www.parkscrapbook.us/Mischa/WRITING/SPANISh_jews.HTMl

Sadly, all this toleration did not last too long, as we all know the chapter of Spanish history of Ferdinand V of Aragón & Isabella I of Castile.

Elvain, what you said happened in the late Middle Ages. That was during the Renaissance period of Europe when nationalism was on the rise and European states/monarchs wanted to consolidate as much power in their hands by the means of nationalism & centralization. The High Middle Ages were much more cosmopolitan than the Late Middle Ages (Age of "New Monarchies").

P.S. - I really feel like playing Leon or Castile now. :biggrin:

Winrich von Kniprode, I will change my personal mod because of your great idea. Provinces with different religion will give a +1 happiness if left alone. Trying to convert them will decrease their happiness by -5 or -10.

[Winrich von Kniprode]

Cool. Just make sure you credit me. I'm planning to do my own mod, but since I only started to learn how to mod KoH, I really dont know were to start. Perhaps I start my own mod, or perhaps I join another mod already in course if anyone around is available to accept me.

[Doux]

Hmm.

If your town would be conquered by another country, I think you wouldn't be happy at all. Not even when you can keep your religion; so I think that converting a province should mean a negative happiness, but having a religion different from the empire the province is in, shouldn't make much difference. But still negative - altough that can be done in nostalgia too.

[weaz]

I think that religion has too low influence : -5 when having other religion. In real this would be much higher.

[Doge]

Hmm.

If your town would be conquered by another country, I think you wouldn't be happy at all. Not even when you can keep your religion; so I think that converting a province should mean a negative happiness, but having a religion different from the empire the province is in, shouldn't make much difference. But still negative - altough that can be done in nostalgia too.

Nostalgia is precisely what should cover it. From the first time I played, I wish there would be a way to have a higher nostalgia for different religions & lower nostalgia for the same religion (ie: -7 to -10 starting nostalgia for different religions; -2 to -4 starting nostalgia for same religions). You are correct, initially, being conquered by a kingdom of a different faith would not go over too well with those people.

By having a permanent -5 happiness for different religion means you could let people of different faiths worship as they please for centuries, but still they will not like you, nor ever like you to the tune of -5 happiness? Remember, a province with a different religion, has a majority of the people with a different religion. There is no real suppression going on there. You are leaving them to live their lives, unmolested.

Doux, I can see where you can make an argument for a permanent -1 or -2, but in Vanilla KoH -5 happiness is very high. Nostalgia, for Vanilla, more than covers it. Especially without the option of building Elvain's Hospital or my mod's possibility of a Cathedral in every province (requirement: Church & Bakery).