So if you are the Khagan of Ilkhanate and you are Shi'a, the Sunni Caliph can issue a jihad against you. The few most earliest targets for a Jihad (if started in 1337) would be Andalusia, held by Castille Aragon, or Jerusalem if a Crusade took Jerusalem first.Īlso note: anyone not a Sunni Muslim can be a target of a Jihad, even of you are a Shi'a. The Caliph will usually start alone fighting the target nation, but rulers are allowed to join in (or forced to) to increase the fighting force to fight the enemy. As with crusading, any rulers not joining will get an opinion penalty of -15 while those who joined will gain a +20 opinion gain from the caliph. They usually target Christian nations, but sometimes they will target pagan nations as well. In Jihads, every once in a while, most will happen after a Crusader is done and if the crusade is won, then the caliph, usually the Abassid caliphate, will issue the order to Jihad. Jihads tend to aim for entire kingdoms like France or Anatolia and gainings will be given to any Muslims who held the title or those who contributed the most during the Jihad. In Crusader Kings II, Jihads are very similar in terms of aims and means to the Crusades done by Catholics, although JIhads are different in which a Muslim ruler must follow his own leader, be it Shi'a or Sunni. Jihad is a Muslim concept believed by most Muslims, be it Shi'a or Sunni that it is a stuggle to fight against anything that is considered dangerous or decadent by a Muslim. the barnes and nobles stuff) they are not what a historical game like this should be based on.For article on Crusades go here : Crusades And he is absolute right about the popular history books (aka. And this holds true for the Western European treatment of the game as well as the Near East. That being said, he is correct that a lot of the ahistorical errors are easy to fix and common sense if their knowledge had been a bit deeper-indications that they didn't do much research. The game already has a steep learning curve for the average gamer. If they wanted to make a super accurate feudo-vassalic socio-religio-political simulator, they probably could have, and the only ones who would enjoy playing it would be folks like me. At the end of the day Paradox wants and needs to make a game that will be fun to play. There are much worse shortcomings due to game design choices than the details he's hammering on in the Islamic part of the game. I think his criticisms are fair, but also a bit silly.
I only watched about 75% of the video, but I can confirm that he is pretty much right-on with everything he's said.
I'm a PhD candidate in Medieval European history, specializing in Crusades, and also have Islamic history as a minor field.
0 kommentar(er)
