Comments on: Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam PC review

By: chip

chip — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:29:55 +0000

As far as a place of “right wing” hate speech, that is a bit of a stretch. As far as I have seen this is the only thread that has converged into religion and that is because of the subject matter. I would suggest that posting to a thread that is almost 2 months old in an effort to continue an argument is not only not appropriate but not wanted.

From here on out, please keep the conversation focused on the game. If you wish to discuss religious views, both past and present, then I suggest that there are other sites more attuned to that type of discussion.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:13:27 +0000

It’s kind of surprising that AV allows their comment forums to become places for right-wing hate speech but here we are.

“Though some Crusaders committed crimes against Muslims, Jews, and other Christians, they did so in violation of Christ’s command and example. On the other hand, Muslims raping, pillaging, and butchering did so — and do so now — in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Muhammad.”

That’s a pretty convenient way to whitewash Christian atrocities. They still committed them, and they believed they were acting in Christ’s divine will. If it is so easy for you to pull “no true Scotsmen” then I assume that when moderate (read: normal) muslims tell you that jihadist terrorists act against the nature of Islam and the will of Allah, that you agree? I can already picture the distorted quotations you’ll use in response.

“The first Crusade was called, however, by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians under attack from — you guessed it! — Muslims obeying their religion.”

Have you ever heard of propaganda?

By: Kerric

Kerric — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:29:41 +0000

LOL, Classic. Kudos Mr. A

How dare you stick to the facts and not accept revisionist history?

Back to the actual game…

Unfortunately all Paradox games require a burn-in period of atleast 2-3 years before they have been patched to the point of being playable. They’ve also developed a nasty habit of bundling major fixes and AI adjustments into DLC/Expansions with no other way of obtaining them.

It appears they are using the same basic visual enhancements to the clausewitz engine as Sengoku. I found this version be more clumsy and unresponsive than the other titles using previous versions of it.

CKII could be the best thing since sliced bread and the holy grail of CKI fans (like myself) but buyer beware. If you are a Paradox newbie, thoroughly read the forums over at paradoxplaza before commiting any cash to the equation.

By: Amillennialist

Amillennialist — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 03:08:11 +0000

Hello, again, Sean.

You make factual error after major factual error, but instead of admitting that, you engage in clumsy ad hominems and straw man arguments, as if it’s my fault that you don’t know what you think you know.

Not that there’s a need to clarify for the honest reader, but just in case you’re genuinely confused and not just cravenly impugning my integrity or my intellect: I was not arguing that the Internet is a reference library; I was pointing out that you can’t get basic historical facts straight. If your memory is so faulty, and you can’t use a search engine, then how is a “reference library” going to help?

Don’t think that libeling me allows you to save face. It’s obvious: You’ve embarrassed yourself, and now you’re running away.

Aren’t you better than that, Sean?

Regards,

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:39:06 +0000

It is clear you are deeply imbedded in what you believe, and are unwilling to change, along with hear other arguements. Therefore I am choosing not to continue to participate. While you have been polite, you have not been scholarly in your arguements at all. Anyone who assumes that a full research library is replaceable by the Internet, has obviously not used one properly. There is very little “fact” in what you are posting.

Please know that I will not be responding to any more posts about this.

By: Amillennialist

Amillennialist — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:42:26 +0000

By the way, Sean, the Byzantine Empire — what remained of the Roman Empire after its collapse in the West — was not the “last remaining part of the Holy Roman empire.”

That’s another basic historical fact on which you’ve erred.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your enthusiasm for debate and your eagerness to post authoritatively.

Regards,

By: Amillennialist

Amillennialist — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:17:19 +0000

Hello, Sean,

Undoubtedly, the various parties involved had their own motivations and goals, but those were not the points in question.

You misrepresented my statements regarding the Crusades, and you claim that I’ve got jihad “totally wrong.”

The Medieval Sourcebook has five accounts of Urban’s call, and I’ve provided one hadith relevant to jihad.

As for your library, I’m assuming that since you are able to post here, you’ve got Internet access.

Regards,

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:11:11 +0000

Sorry, got the two II’s mixed up there. Urban called for the Crusade as a measure of gaining more land, as the population increases had already begun to swell both Germany and France, to the point where the land was getting so subdivided among smaller kinsman that it was almost untenable financially. There was also the thought that the Spanish invasion during the previous century had been a great proving ground for providing a war scenario with vastly extended supply lines. Given that no copy of Urban’s speech remained, various messages were propogated. Along the lower classes, it was seen as a religious undertaking (such as the rumors that even going to Jerusalem and stepping foot in its walls would bring redemption from all sins), but among the nobility and church, it was also primarily seen in a financial, property, and “bringing those Eastern sons back under the fold”, again for nominally religious reasons. When the Crusade gained Jerusalem in 1099, they killed both the Muslims and the Jews that were defending it, until “rivers of blood ran through the streets, up to the fetlocks of horses”. There had been an extended period of peace between the Muslims, Jews and other religions occupying the region for some time before the end of the 11th century. Several historians argue that the Crusades sparked a swing to the right among Muslim leaders, giving them the traction they needed for Nur-al-din and others to gain power.

Sorry I am unable to give definative source material right now, my wife and I are out of the country for a few months on a federal grant, and my research library is at home.

By: Amillennialist

Amillennialist — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:19:25 +0000

Hello, Sean,

This can’t be much of a debate if you address neither what I’ve written nor basic historical fact:

Pope Innocent II wasn’t pope until 1130. Pope Urban II called for the first Crusade in 1095 in response to Emperor Alexios I Komnenos’ plea for help against the Muslims murdering his people and destroying his lands.

As for jihad . . .

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him . . .” (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

I’m happy to discuss these matters with you, but please, be honest.

Regards,

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:51:02 +0000

Actually, no. While there is some evidence that the Eastern half of the former Roman Empire (what was referred to as the last remaining part of the Holy Roman empire) called on Pope Innocent II for help, it is pretty definitively proven that they way-way overstepped what they were asked, and long overstayed their welcome (though it may not have helped to have Peter the Hermit come first). It sounds like you have an idealistic view of the crusades, as opposed to an in-depth study. If you can find a copy, Keith Setton’s series “The Crusades” is still one of the most detailed versions out there (vol 1-2 would be pertinent to this).

Also, pretty much all of what you wrote about jihad is wrong. Not slightly, but totally. You are taking fundamental views and applying them to all of a religion. Please let me know if you want to continue the historical or theological debate.

I would like to see how close this can come to replicating some of the more interesting points in that time though.

By: Amillennailist

Amillennailist — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:54:22 +0000

Tekelija,

The fact that Christians committed crimes against other Christians, Jews, and (some perhaps innocent) Muslims does not negate the fact that the first Crusade was called in defense against Islam.

Stop defending jihad.

It’s clear that you didn’t read my comments:

Though some Crusaders committed crimes against Muslims, Jews, and other Christians, they did so in violation of Christ’s command and example. On the other hand, Muslims raping, pillaging, and butchering did so — and do so now — in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Muhammad.

The casus belli are vastly different also: Muslims wage jihad against non-Muslims (and other Muslims) because Muhammad called for the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert (or, in the case of “apostate” Muslims, aren’t Muslim enough). The first Crusade was called, however, by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians under attack from — you guessed it! — Muslims obeying their religion.

Regards,

By: Tekelija

Tekelija — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:40:05 +0000

Amillennialist, both the Crusades and Jihads were called because of one thing-power.
Real religion had nothing to with it.
If Crusades were called because of religion, why did the Crusaders sack Constantinople?
In fact, while Catholics sacked, ruined and pillaged Constantinople(they used Hagia Sophia, which was at the time a Christian church! as a stable), Muslims admired it after conquering it.
Also, while Christians killed Muslims when they took Jerusalem, Salladin let Christians go when he reclaimed it for Muslims.

I’m a Serb. We’re not on good terms with Muslims(I think Serbs, in fact, have the worst relations with Muslims, of all peoples of Europe), but saying that the Crusades were oh-so-better than Jihads is plain wrong.

By: Amillennialist

Amillennialist — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:37:48 +0000

The Crusades and jihad are in no substantive way morally-equivalent.

amillennialist.blogspot.com

By: psycros

psycros — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:18:43 +0000

Its difficult to make a game that forces the player to make the same mistakes that many historical figures made without putting you on rail. Thats the death knell for a strategy title so when implementing things like the decadence mechanic the designers will probably err on the side of caution. Perhaps with some good feedback they’ll find creative ways to make it more of a challenge without simply cranking up the rate at which you gain decadence, but that would probably work as a quick fix. Frankly, my biggest worry is the ACLU nutjobs coming after the studio for daring to use a title like “Sword of Islam”.