(SAME) Faction troops in Faction armies [WOULD MAKE SENSE]

[Ruler of Calradia]

Yeah, that is bollocks because the Catholics hated the Byzantines until the later were so weakened they decided to jump in. At that point Jerusalem had been under Muslim rules for a centuries and none of "Europe" gave a rat's ass.

Constantinople was Christian when the crusaders took it "back", destroyed the Roman Empire, established puppet states and left the rump region of East Rome in chaos.

Tbf it was not that simple either. Most Catholics did not really have issue with Orthodox Christians, it was largely ecumenical and political matter. First crusade started when Byzantines asked Pope for help. And ofc rebelling troops that would later sack Rome were mostly catholics themselves iirc. Things only escalated over time, and even then catholics and orthodox Christians mostly lived peacefully and fought wars because they were bored (obviously not literally). When i say most of people, i mean average citizens and not clergy or ruling classes etc. And ofc they did not always live peacefully.
But point is that they mostly fought because everyone fought everyone. When Ottoman puppets (which would later become Romania) revolted to gain independence they were supported by Austrians, and later they fought each other and Austrians as well.



Which all just proves that anyone can fight against anyone. Closer to this time period as mentioned there are Varangian guards, and Crusaders had so called Turcopoles. Other side opposing crusaders had Christian troops fighting for them.

And Christian church ofc used to be pacifist, yet they would launch wars motivated by the same religion.


But it definetly would be nice if conquered areas would have little more revolts which could be supported by factions of same culture, and if revolt is successful and there is no faction that culture used to belong to, that faction could be re-established.

 

[mangalore]

Tbf it was not that simple either. Most Catholics did not really have issue with Orthodox Christians, it was largely ecumenical and political matter. First crusade started when Byzantines asked Pope for help. ...

I think we pretty much agreed but the first crusade did not start because the Byzantines for help, they had done that many times and the pope and Catholic rulers often ignored it or they send help in the form of mercenaries because that was what the byzantine rulers asked for, not some concerted declaration of war or holy war.
It also does not line up with when the Byzantines needed help the most as the first crusade happened more than two decades after Manzikert and Christian rulers were attacking them throughout that time to exploit that weakness, so one would expect earlier pleas would have been addressed if it was that as that was when the Byzantines got really kicked around.
They also mainly wanted the Pope to rein in the Normans of Southern Italy and Sicily who were raiding the Byzantine coasts and invading via Albania so were a second front of Christians fighting them (one of the leaders of the first crusade was one of those guys, incidently played a large part in keep ex-Byzantine territory for themselves and not giving it back).

Obviously an important aspect was the role reversal the popes saw that the Roman Emperors (who were heads of church and thus superior to the Patriach of Rome, the Pope, who unlawfully ursurped a title he had no business having or handing out - in the eyes of the emperors) suddenly were weaker than him in clout. In a way they hoped to strengthen the role of the pope as a head of church who also wielded huge political power. And then hilarity ensued that got thousands of people got killed.

Sack of Rome really depends on which one. The sack of Rome in the 16th century by German Landsknechts happened as there were large factions of Protestants soldiers among them who really saw that as "God's Justice" to get the pope.

In 1083 the same Normans who attacked Byzantine territory sacked Rome to "aid the pope" who was besieged by the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV in Rome. The pope was in the castle, the imperial troops had withdrawn and the city technically under papal rule, but because of a riot the Norman troops allied to the pope sacked it anyway.

 

[maffa]

Without going on historical overtures, I would simply be happier if you could recruit them more easily if you capture them.

 

[The Great Grub]

ngl i like it that lords can recruit other factions troops it makes it more diverse and interesting i like seeing it where my faction owns all of vlandia and a bunch of empire and battannian lands so we end up with troops of those cultures in our armies which is how it works i think

 

[Azhael]

But it definetly would be nice if conquered areas would have little more revolts which could be supported by factions of same culture, and if revolt is successful and there is no faction that culture used to belong to, that faction could be re-established.

I think this would make so much sense and also make the game more endless as factions reappear with new rulers.

Aside from that I'd like to point out that it's extremely odd that when you start the game every single family and settlement matches their current faction's culture, suggesting a high cultural unity among Calradia, yet when a few months/years pass everything gets seriously mixed up, having lords from absolute opposite cultures joining kingdoms on the other side of the world and armies losing identity significantly.

I think maybe settlements (mainly villages) could be destroyed if they got raided too much and their prosperity went too low, and the overall population of losing cultures brought down by this. Maybe also make execution of lords by the AI more common (dunno if they actually execute each other yet) and implement the emergence of new notable characters as nobles to replace them somewhat (not necessarily from the same faction). Coupled with the birth of new villages of very prosperous factions near or where other factions are being defeated, to represent culture expansion (even mixture of culture in villages could be nice, allowing to recruit more than one culture in the same village), this would bring much flavour to the world and maintain a bit of cultural identity for expanding kingdoms in an interesting way I think.

 

[avengerpat]

Nationalism was not a concept back then. You were loyal to your lord and your family. Ironically enough, the fantasy game Witcher 3 with the tavern coat of arms cutscene was pretty accurate. If you work a piece of land that is constantly changing hands between minor kingdoms its alot easier to switch allegiances than to wage a resistance campaign that would fail and end up with you on a pike

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Nationalism was not a concept back then. You were loyal to your lord and your family. Ironically enough, the fantasy game Witcher 3 with the tavern coat of arms cutscene was pretty accurate. If you work a piece of land that is constantly changing hands between minor kingdoms its alot easier to switch allegiances than to wage a resistance campaign that would fail and end up with you on a pike

Sort of true. People have always had their tribe they associate with, and some will fight hard for it. It varied a lot ofc, but for example Romans during days of the republic (especially during early to mid republic) could be called nationalist. It was rare for a Roman to defect (altough i am sure propaganda has exaggerated this) or serve non-Roman leaders. For a long time army was split into 2, separating allies (not auxilia, allies from Italy who fought and were equipped like Romans) and Romans into their own units and it took really long time for even all Italians to gain citizenship. This would eventually change radically and Rome would become incredibly multicultural, but during republican days upper classes especially did not see 'barbarians' as their equals, no matter how Roman they practically were. Even during fall of the republic when Rome already had big multicultural empire they did not accept barbarians into the senate or plebeian council. Roman citizens could not become slaves (altough that was option for those who could not afford to pay their debts, but there was strict regulation about how well they had to be treated) Etc etc.
In 21st century Roman republic would definetly be called nationalists and racists. Altough it might be more accurate to call it classism where Roman citizens were a class above non-Romans. It was not "kill everyone with different skin color" kind of racism.

Greeks are another example. Before Alexander they Great they did not accept even Macedonians as being properly Greek, and despite multiple wars against other Greeks, they united against Persian invasion. Not everyone, and Persians had numerous Greek soldiers who were sometimes seen as more loyal than others. Some Greek states joined/supported Persians etc. But it shows there was clear concept of nationalism. People like Aristotle and Hippocrates suggested Greeks were superior to others.
Apparently Greek nationalism again emerged in Byzantine Empire from 1200s onwards, i don't know anything about it or if it faded. According to Wikipedia some even suggested changing Emperor's title to "Emperor of the Hellenes", which is pretty big thing when you remember how many wanted to establish themselves as successors to Rome and how irritated Byzantines were when Holy Roman Emperor was crowned.

Best to remember that there was no time period where everyone had same ideology, just what was more dominating ideology. And for every ideology there are millions of different variants. You can bet there are political parties that combine religion, monarchism and nationalism with bolshevism, even though that was supposed to be against all 3.
And ofc there are people who change their ideologies and those who just go with what ever seems best atm and may not have ideology. And ideologies these days are more codified than they were in the past.