4 ms·

Deus Vult is an expansion to the original Crusader Kings and predates the stupid meme by well over a decade. Any relation is one foisted upon later on.

kleptako 9y ago
The same can be said about the swastika :^)
- JCSato 9y ago
  Not to ignore the point being illustrated, nor the tongue-in-cheek nature of it, but a symbol on the flag of Nazi Germany and a Latin phrase from the middle ages that some undesirables on the internet use don't really seem comparable in scale, and scale is the important thing here. MAGA, for instance, was memetic, so if you use/repurpose it, there's a relatively unambiguous origin. Deus Vult in this context, not so much; it lacks the spread and saturation necessary. If the Swastika was only present on a small subset of Nazi paraphernalia, it wouldn't be nearly as taboo - it's till so toxic today because it was on everything and so readily associated. So I don't really think that argument applies here.
  - _jgdh 9y ago
    I get your point - if the swastika is used in a western country, its almost certainly a Neo-Nazi using it, not a middle-aged Indian woman, even though millions of Indians use the swastika in a religious context every day. However, by the same token, if someone says Deus Vult, its statistically far more likely to be a Neo-Nazi/far right nut rather than a fan of Crusader Kings.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      I don't agree with that - there are more fans of crusader kings than there are Neo-Nazis.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I really don't like just letting scumbags claim every cultural item and symbol they want. The swastika is clearly lost to us, give the breadth and enormity of its use, but if we let them poison everything they ever touch we'll end up poorer for it.
partycoder 9y ago
Deus Vult ("god wills it") is also the expression in Latin used during the actual crusades, the historical event that predates the game by over 900 years. The name of the game is based on that expression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult Some rather informal historical explanation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0
- _jgdh 9y ago
  A quick note on exactly what God willed, according to the Crusaders. A scene from the Siege of Antioch in 1098 > The calm night air was shattered as the Franks screamed out their battle cry "God wills it! God wills it!" With resistance crumbling, the Crusaders poured into Antioch. Amid the gloom of the approaching dawn the chaotic slaughter began. One Latin contemporary noted that 'they were sparing no Muslim on the grounds on the age or sex, the ground was covered with blood and corpses and some of these were Christians Greeks, Syrians and Armenians...'. Afterwards one Crusader described how 'all the streets of the city on every side were full of corpses, so that no one could endure to be there because of the stench, nor could anyone walk along the narrow paths of the city, except over the corpses of the dead'. And this was just the capture of Antioch. The scenes at the capture of Jerusalem were far worse, with the Crusaders indulging in butchery that's nauseating to read about. In contrast, when Sultan Saladin recaptured Jerusalem 90 years later, it was done peacefully. When we see people today brandishing swastikas, we know exactly what kind of people they are and what they aspire to be, based on our knowledge of the crimes of the Nazis. Similarly, when you see a far right nut arguing against Islam and using this catchphrase, you know what kind of cloth they're cut from. Source - The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge
  - Banthum 9y ago
    5 seconds of Googling reveals: >On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin’s enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. [1] Such a friendly guy, that Saladin! Your attempt to draw some great moral distinction between evil Christian and good Muslims is massively confused and, given its underlying intent to delegitimize certain religious/ethnic groups today, actually nauseating. The reality is that pretty much everyone involved in the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Muslim re-conquests, and all conflicts of that era were absolutely brutal. Mohammed himself ordered and carried out countless torture sessions, battles, and massacres, of soldiers and civilians. So as did the Romans and the Franks and everyone else. If they were ever merciful, on any occasion, it was not for moral reasons, but strategic/political ones. The ancient world is brutal. Stop trying to manipulate stories from it to stir up hate towards peoples' identities today. We have enough things to fight about already. [1] http://www.history.com/topics/saladin http://www.history.com/topics/saladin

kleptako 9y ago

The same can be said about the swastika :^)

JCSato 9y ago
Not to ignore the point being illustrated, nor the tongue-in-cheek nature of it, but a symbol on the flag of Nazi Germany and a Latin phrase from the middle ages that some undesirables on the internet use don't really seem comparable in scale, and scale is the important thing here. MAGA, for instance, was memetic, so if you use/repurpose it, there's a relatively unambiguous origin. Deus Vult in this context, not so much; it lacks the spread and saturation necessary. If the Swastika was only present on a small subset of Nazi paraphernalia, it wouldn't be nearly as taboo - it's till so toxic today because it was on everything and so readily associated. So I don't really think that argument applies here.
- _jgdh 9y ago
  I get your point - if the swastika is used in a western country, its almost certainly a Neo-Nazi using it, not a middle-aged Indian woman, even though millions of Indians use the swastika in a religious context every day. However, by the same token, if someone says Deus Vult, its statistically far more likely to be a Neo-Nazi/far right nut rather than a fan of Crusader Kings.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I don't agree with that - there are more fans of crusader kings than there are Neo-Nazis.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
I really don't like just letting scumbags claim every cultural item and symbol they want. The swastika is clearly lost to us, give the breadth and enormity of its use, but if we let them poison everything they ever touch we'll end up poorer for it.

partycoder 9y ago

Deus Vult ("god wills it") is also the expression in Latin used during the actual crusades, the historical event that predates the game by over 900 years. The name of the game is based on that expression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_vult Some rather informal historical explanation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs5B2U7US0

_jgdh 9y ago
A quick note on exactly what God willed, according to the Crusaders. A scene from the Siege of Antioch in 1098 > The calm night air was shattered as the Franks screamed out their battle cry "God wills it! God wills it!" With resistance crumbling, the Crusaders poured into Antioch. Amid the gloom of the approaching dawn the chaotic slaughter began. One Latin contemporary noted that 'they were sparing no Muslim on the grounds on the age or sex, the ground was covered with blood and corpses and some of these were Christians Greeks, Syrians and Armenians...'. Afterwards one Crusader described how 'all the streets of the city on every side were full of corpses, so that no one could endure to be there because of the stench, nor could anyone walk along the narrow paths of the city, except over the corpses of the dead'. And this was just the capture of Antioch. The scenes at the capture of Jerusalem were far worse, with the Crusaders indulging in butchery that's nauseating to read about. In contrast, when Sultan Saladin recaptured Jerusalem 90 years later, it was done peacefully. When we see people today brandishing swastikas, we know exactly what kind of people they are and what they aspire to be, based on our knowledge of the crimes of the Nazis. Similarly, when you see a far right nut arguing against Islam and using this catchphrase, you know what kind of cloth they're cut from. Source - The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge
- Banthum 9y ago
  5 seconds of Googling reveals: >On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin’s enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. [1] Such a friendly guy, that Saladin! Your attempt to draw some great moral distinction between evil Christian and good Muslims is massively confused and, given its underlying intent to delegitimize certain religious/ethnic groups today, actually nauseating. The reality is that pretty much everyone involved in the Muslim conquests, the Crusades, the Muslim re-conquests, and all conflicts of that era were absolutely brutal. Mohammed himself ordered and carried out countless torture sessions, battles, and massacres, of soldiers and civilians. So as did the Romans and the Franks and everyone else. If they were ever merciful, on any occasion, it was not for moral reasons, but strategic/political ones. The ancient world is brutal. Stop trying to manipulate stories from it to stir up hate towards peoples' identities today. We have enough things to fight about already. [1] http://www.history.com/topics/saladin http://www.history.com/topics/saladin