New campaign, need some ideas and thoughts (long).

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

Popes declaring holy wars? Is there some confusion of religions here?

This, too, was not done by popes. And - had they done so - they would have certainly been called to order by their times' theologists, like John XXII has been.

Church doctrine about the indulgences to be obtained by taking and absolving vows to go on a crusade can be checked here:
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

"At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii)."

Kind regards,

Berengar

1 Like
22

Um, not so much, nope. Coulda sworn the Albigensian Crusade was declared by Pope Innocent III. He also decreed the 4th crusade.
everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=849846
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III

Maybe, technically, a temporal regent declared all those other Crusades (maybe- not sure), but without the impetus, continued pressure and subsequent full support of the Pope, I'm comfortable stating they never would have happened.

23

IIRC he also blessed the Knights of the Sword's campaign in the Baltic, before it got out of hand, no?

24

Of course popes instigated crusades. But these clearly were not declared as holy wars.
Talking about history requires a minimum of correct terminology, or degenerates into a free for all meaningless mess.

Kind regards,

Berengar

25

Ah.

Well, I cannot claim I am a true scholar of such, so, how are you distinguishing between the two terms? To a layman, they do, indeed, seem synonymous at first glance.

26

Absolutely, I apologize for using terminology which was not clear. I meant a crusade.

My question was related to my understanding that during a crusade, one of the promises given to the crusaders was that certain sins committed during its course and beforehand would be forgiven in heaven, in return for participation.

Not having read ROPtD I was not sure how this was handled in game. One of the suggestions in this thread was that the demon in the campaign should encourage atrocities by crusaders as a way of increasing sin and the number of the damned. Does the forgiveness promised counteract that.

Are crusading armies a fertile ground for demons, considering the reported activities of crusades that got out of hand included rape, massacres and cannabilism. It also included a number of the crusaders fighting each other or becoming apostate. You would think such armies, especially the constantinople debacle of 1204 would have had any number of demons riding alongside spreading malice. But how blessed in game would they be?

27

errr...thats doesn't seem correct. Shouldn't it be...

Three magi each casting wizard's communion at level 25 lets you cast a 75th level spell as if it were level 25 (75/3). Thats a bonus of 50 vs 75 a BIG difference, esspecially when most spells will be Level 30 or lower.

Three magi each casting wizard's communion at level 25, allows a level 75 spell, a level 30 is cast, 30/3=10, only gives 20 extra penetration.

28

???

At least one of us doesn't understand how the wizard's communion spell works. I really really really hope that it's me.

IIRC (and once again I hope that I don't) Wizard's communion adds its level to the casting total.

Would someone be able to check this? (I doubt I'll have a chance to get at my books for at least a day and a half.)

29

As I read the rules, three magi with wizards communion at lvl 25 gives a total wizards communion of 75, which allows a maximum spell of 37.5 (ie wizards communion must be double level of spell cast). But the casting total of the spell cast is divided by number of casters. So one magi must cast a lvl 13 spell. To achieve a total spell of 75, the wizards communion must be 150 total lvls. With 75 in total there can be 15 magi taking part mximum. So 6 magi at wizards communion lvl 25 would produce the result Erik was talking about.

I think he just missed out the total of the wizards communion is double the spell being cast.I could be wrong but I couldn't see any other meaning of the WC must be double the lvl of the spell being cast.

Just remember the bigness of botching, and that the spell must be researched as a lvl 75 point spell, even if only cast as lvl 25.

30

Wizard's Communion
R: Voice, D: Mom, T: Group

This spell lets magi combine their power to cast spells. The group of magi work together to cast a specified spell through the unified power of the Communion. Only one extra magus may join the Communion for each 5 levels of the specified spell being cast. One of the magi in the group must also know the specified spell.

All of the magi in the gathering who know Wizard's Communion add the level at which they know it to get the effective level of the Wizard's Communion. This combined total must be at least twice the level of the specivied spell being cast.

One magus must roll for successes as if casting the specivied spell himself. However the target number for the spellcasting roll is the spell's level divided by the number of magi participating in the Communion. So, if five magi participate to cast a 50th level spell, the caster wuld hav eto successfully cast a 10th level spelll--with all the relevent requisites of course. This method of casting adds one botch die per magnus participating. If the spell bothes, all participants gain Warping Points and thus must check for Twilight.

Communion is the remnant of Mercurian rituals, so spontaneous spells may not be cast by this means, and does not perfectly fit into the guidlines of Hermetic theory.

Yah, so it's the spell divided by the number of magi, making your penetration the difference between what you roll and the much lower spell level. Still good, just not crazy.

31

Thank you both.

32

Holy war (i. e. djihad) and crusade "synonymous at first glance"? That requires a short first glance for sure.

Let's look at a typical papal bull calling a crusade. Because I need not copy it by hand, lets take Audita tremendi from 1187 by Gregory VIII, calling for the 3rd crusade.
( colet.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/g ... LD/IMAGE1/ )

It starts with lots of medieval rethoric, but its meat is at the end:
"Eis autem qui corde contrito et humiliato spiritu, itineris hujus laborem assumpserint, et in poenitentia peccatorum et fide recta decesserint, plenam suorum criminum indulgentiam, et vitam pollicemur aeternam. Sive autem supervixerint, sive mortui fuerint, de omnibus peccatis suis, de quibus rectam confessionem fecerint, impositae satisfactionis relaxationem de omnipotentis Dei misericordia, et apostolorum Petri et Pauli auctoritate et nostra, se noverint habituros.
Bona quoque ipsorum, ex quo crucem acceperint, cum suis familiis, sub sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, nec non et archiepiscoporum, et episcoporum, et aliorum praelatorum Ecclesiae Dei protectione consistant; et nullam de his quae in susceptione crucis quiete possederunt, donec de ipsorum reditu vel obitu certissime cognoscatur, sustineant quaestionem, sed bona eorum integra interim maneant et quieta. Ad dandas quoque usuras, si tenentur alicui, non cogantur. Nec eant in vestibus pretiosis, et cum canibus, sive avibus, aut aliis quae ostentationi potius et lasciviae, quam necessariis videantur usibus deservire; sed in modesto apparatu, et habitu, in quo poenitentiam potius agere quam inanem affectare gloriam videantur."

So what this bull promises is:
(1) full indulgence (i. e. remission of temporal penance) for their sins to those who die on the crusade, provided they did penance for their sins and behaved as pilgrims on it, humble and repentant;
(2) full indulgence for their rightfully confessed sins to all participants;
and very importantly
(3) protection by the Roman Church of the crusaders' and their relatives' property.
Besides, it appears quite conscious of the excesses of vaingloriousness to be expected during the crusade, and admonishes against it in any way it can.

For an account on the underpinnings of the djihad, look under:
answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/jihad.htm

So, where are the significant differences?
Djihad, and the reward for its martyrs, is a concept from the early days of Islam, deeply embedded in the Hadith already.
The crusade, however, was an adhoc expedient of the medieval church, though politically prepared by the Pax Dei of the 11th century. The crusade in the bull is represented - which is best seen by its introduction, which I did not copy - as an exception due to a specific siituation, namely the conquest of Jerusalem by Saladin.
The bull appears aware, that the war it calls for will most likely be anything but holy. Hence it stresses humility, contrition and the avoidance of pomp and hybris, and promises remission of penance only while these are maintained. It basically recurs to the concept of pilgrimage to justify the crusade, and keeps well away from any reference to Christian martyrs and direct access to paradise - instead upholding the example of stalwart but less than holy Judas Maccabaeus.

Kind regards,

Berengar

33

FTAOD I presume we are talking 5th Ed?

In 5th Ed, the combined spell is cast by the designated caster "as if its level were divided by the number of casters". There is no bonus to Casting Total or Casting Score - but a potentially huge reduction in target level...

34

(Edit- long, apologies.)

My, how very condescending of you to all concerned. :unamused: And telling. I had hoped for better.

While I may not be a technical scholar of the crusades, I do know a thing or two about Islam (which is more than you demonstrate in your own short glance, above.)

If you are proposing that the term "holy war" means jihad, I must counter-propose that you are simply wrong. And ignorant of the true meaning of the word "jihad". (It is important to note that Mr. Hughes, whom you cite above, wrote said treatise in 1895, at a time when the Western understanding of the cultures and varying sects that comprise Islam, even the language, may not have been everything that it is today. I might suggest a scholar from a more recent century.)

By definition, by simply looking at the term itself, a holy war is any war that is "holy" (ie, religious), by being tied to a religious cause or impetus. So, if a war is started by a Pope (ie, a Christian), then you have a Christian Holy War. If started by Haile Selassie, you could (I suppose), have a Rastafarian Holy War, and so on. (If started by Christian politicians in the name of Christianity, actually politics aside, then likewise, at least in name if not in fact. There were political considerations that undermine the "holy" aspect of some of the crusades, no doubt.)

The term "Crusade" has inescapably christian overtones of the latin root "crux" (cross) in it, and so while a crusade in this sense may be a strictly Christian holy war, other than that you, as yet, have not made any distinction as far as I can see, between a Crusade and a Holy War. The latter merely is a more general, non-specifically christian term. (Tho' the 12 lines of latin were pretty.)

If you believe the term "Crusade" has certain connotations that set it apart from a generic Christian holy war (or others'), other than the bureaucracy of the papacy, do feel free to suggest them. If your point was that there is a difference between the historical Christian Crusades and an Islamic call to Jihad, that would be a given.

btw-
Despite Mr. Hughes' 19th century opining, while a holy war is not necessarily a jihad, nor is every jihad a holy war. (Hughes does touch on this, but only in passing.) The term "Jihad" literally means "struggle", altho' "fighting" or "warring" are also possible translations, as they are its synonyms in English - it's not a 1:1 sort of relationship. (And I question whether his translations took this into account. Many of those I've heard referring to the daily "struggle" against temptation, not warring on non-believers.)

When Islam was first codified, there were laid down 5 pillars, 5 basic tenets that comprised the essence of being a Muslim. They were 1) a Declaration that Allah was God, 2) Prayer, 3) gving of Alms, 4) Fasting (during Ramadan), and 5) a pilgrimage to Mecca. There was debate on a 6th, Jihad, but it was deemed non-central - important, but not critical.

To "jihad" is to struggle against anything that would prohibit one from being Muslim- day to day temptations being foremost. However, if a foreign power were to try to take away wealth from your country, or dictate how you should worship, then a general call to a collective Jihad, a more formal "struggle" against that country, could form a Holy War, and that would also be called a Jihad. The difference is a crusade against cancer, and the sort of crusade called by Pope Innocent III*.

It's also important to note that, unlike Christianity, not only does Islam not promote prostilization, it specifically prohibits it. Christians have historically been happy to go to war to force others to convert- Islam (since the days of the Prophet himself) traditionally goes to war to prevent others from converting them.

But both Jihads (in this sense) and Crusades (in the same sense) are holy wars, by any other name, just as they both can be struggles, in the less military sense. The difference is that in Christianity, the term started out militaristic, and we adopted a more analagous secondary meaning, and in Islam, the term started out general, and only in modern times became (to some) synonymous with holy war.

It's also important to note that Islam does not have a single "authority", no person nor body, that decrees doctrine for all true believers. It does have a hierarchy of men (yes, always male, ahem) who are learned and recognized for their wisdom- the Ayatollahs, and Imams (lesser), but while they can preach, and can demand and pass personal judgement, they have no more authority than the number of Muslims who listen to them give them. So, if one declares "jihad" against someone, while their followers might answer the call, the vast majority might just roll their eyes at another koran-thumpin' trouble maker.
:wink:

(* As a modern linguistic note, when Pres Bush called for "a crusade against the evil of Saddam Hussein", while English speakers may have heard the first meaning, of a general struggle, Islamic speakers heard only the "crux" echoed, the holy war of Christian against Muslim. Years of practice.)

35

Each of the three chapters in Realms of Power: The Divine that cover specific Divine traditions (Mythic Christianity, Mythic Islam, and Mythic Judaism) has a "Holy War" sidebar that may prove useful to players dealing with these issues. I seem to recall that the Mythic Christianity section includes the First Crusade as an example of a Christian holy war, though I think the wording isn't so direct.

36

'Holy war' - and I didn't bring up that word - as a historical term is obviously woefully unprecise and today best should be avoided completely.
That said, the only marginally meaningful use one can make of it today in the context of the history of the crusades is: as the bad, old colloquial term for djihad.

Hughes just piles up a decent selection of quotes from Quran and Hadith, which served me as first-hand sources. Just when he did so does not matter, as the sources did not change in the meantime, and the knowledge of classical Arabic in 1895 was already very good. Besides, I took the Audita tremendi from an even older, namely 1855, compilation. That teaches something about first-hand sources in the Internet, of course.

Sorry, treating 'religious' and 'holy' as synonyms is just not holding up. All clergy are and were religious, but very few were or are considered holy.
And a war doesn't become 'holy' just because it is started by a religious leader, or is tied to a religious impetus. Following up on this idea of yours, you would have to declare the 'Glorious Revolution' and even Julius' II Italian wars as 'holy wars' - thus going against the understanding of all or nearly all of their participants and informed contemporaries.

Kind regards,

Berengar

37

Well, few could disagree with that, or would get far if they tried.:wink:

However, just as there is a difference between a white house and the White House, between a red coat and a Red Coat, there is a difference between a holy war and a Holy War, the first being an oxymoron, and the second a vernacular reference to, among other things, Crusades.

It seems you are disagreeing more with the term as (de?)constructed than as used. Regardless of any blessing by a higher power, religious wars are loosely termed "holy", as offensive as that presumption is. It's similar to any number of ill-chosen terms we use daily, but take for granted, ignoring the literal meaning for a larger one they have adopted, or been given. For better or worse, it is still commonly used as a generic and casual catch-all for a variety of distinctly individual events, in the same way that Military Intelligence or Foreign Aid might be.

Hughes is not "first hand"- it's second, at best, his synopsis and translation (and that's assuming he himself did the translation, and did not rely upon another for that.) The sources would be the Koran and etc, and altho' those sources have not changed in the last century plus, I would suggest that our understanding of them has, and translations certainly. The jingo-istic, Anglo-centric colonial world of the late 1800's is not the world of today, in acadamia as well as politics.

Thanks for the clarification. 8)

38

Don't let me stop you arguing over whether the term 'holy war' is more applicable to a crusade or a jihad, but to return to the issue:

Several editions of the game have stated that those who die on Crusade go directly to heaven - see for example Incantation of Summoning the Dead, ArM5 p172.

39

(Thanks, but if you had read closely, that wasn't what we were doing- not that I feel you could have stopped us if you tried. But regardless of your confusion, I think we've approached an understanding on each other's usage and meaning, which was the goal.)

It's odd, yet somehow comforting that the game supports both sides as "right" within their own purview, that devout Christians would go to Heaven and devout Muslims to Paradise (or both to the same reward?) for killing each other, but only if they do so for the "proper" reasons.

40

OK, then that's finally settled.

So it's apparently also finally agreed that we have to do with the colloquial meanings of 'holy war' here. And we have seen from the example of the Audita tremendi, how the Pope struggled to provide the religious background to the Third Crusade, on which concepts he recurred (pilgrimage, penance, humility, contrition and Judas Maccabaeus), and that he appeared aware, that the war about to be started would be anything but holy. Hence that 'holy war' is a very bad and ahistorical term for the Crusades.

Well, I wouldn't know how to post Arabic text on this forum, so 100% true first hand texts are out of the question and would also be of very limited use.
As for the correctness of the Quran translations he gave in the article: you can easily check it against today's standard translations of the Quran. (The popular one of Abdullah Yusuf Ali is also available from many Internet sides, e. g. wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/Quran.html .)
I quoted Hughes because of his collection of the Hadith sources: putting these together from more recent translations takes far more time than this discussion is worth.

Kind regards,

Berengar