Sartanism was doing pretty well in Cathay for a while. Sorraine's loss to Ohnar West and subsequent Imperial buy-out damaged the credibility of both the realm and the church to most Cathayans (whether fairly or not). If the church had said 'Sorraine lost the war, to the victors go the spoils' and let the realm fall and rebuilt something new, Sartanism would probably still be the dominant religion in Cathay.
But, to my mind, they were more the exception than the rule.
Henry II was probably further out than most, but so were really pious kings like Louis VII of France (ironically enough, Henry's spouse's first husband). If you were a typical medieval King you'd want to make sure that you had at least some of the bishops or archbishops in your corner, and that way everybody wins. You did have some big bones of contention like investiture, and of course the great schism.
especially since the default stance of "all religions are equal, like I give a !@#$" i
I don't know that that is a popular opinion, at least in the FEI. Edmund is probably closer to thinking so than Galiard. The MAE used to be very influential and he's stuck with it for a long time, and he did respect the CoS for a while until it imploded. What you're describing is probably more a symptom that most religions don't have very active constituencies - the Order has some great key players, for instance, but apparently not a heck of a lot in the way of active followers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but almost all major medieval conflicts were at least partly religious in nature.
I wouldn't say almost all. Probably more true of the Renaissance than the Middle Ages. You certainly had your religious conflicts like the Crusades (foreign and domestic) and the Reconquista but 'most' medieval conflicts were local. The Hundred Years War had jack to do with religion and while religious influence was a major component in several wars (let's get the pope/the templars/the archbishop's money in on this) the wars themselves were not usually religious. If I had to generalize I'd say that 'most' religious conflict - that is, heresy - never made it to the 'war' stage because it typically involved really lopsided conflicts where the heretics were rounded up and set on fire.
Though if you measured number of deaths rather than number of wars, you might come ahead there. The sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in the fourth, as well as the Albigensian crusade add up to a lot of bodies. There's a quote from the Albigensian that would make at least some Norrels proud:
'"Today your Holiness, twenty thousand citizens were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."
The streets of Jerusalem were said to have been a sea of blood after the Crusaders were done with it.
The big difference even between SA on Dwilight and medieval faith is that the Catholic Church usually incentivized rulers to do things. SA has theocracies which the Catholics never really had. BM will never see a successful crusade under current mechanics that isn't just 'allied theocracies fighting the same people.' The First Crusade didn't have Kings going along and it was famously difficult for later Crusades to enlist Kings. The First Crusade appealed to minor lords and second sons on the material plane, and a handful of rich and influential magnates like the Count of Toulouse on the spiritual plane with its 'all sins will be forgiven' bent. In BM you'd need the ability for the Count of Someplace to make his own war on a third party without dragging his whole realm into it for this to work.
Also, I just think the game would be more interesting if characters actually put some more weight into their faith.
I agree, but this is tough to turn into a game mechanic in a low fantasy world. I'd love to play a zealot. I just don't want to be the only zealot in the room.
