Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
All true. I agree that people Henry knows shouldn't be calling him Knight. Anyone else could possibly be forgiven, even though if he was a Knight the whole realm would've heard about it.
His friends at least would know he wasn't one though - and for my money they wouldn't treat him any differently even if he *was*. To them he'd just be Henry in fancy clothes. More like they'd take the p1ss out of him, steal his trousers & throw him in a cow-pat for dressing above his class!
I think what we have here is a simple case of the wrong word for the job. Someone said 15th century medieval mounted soldier in armour and the script-writer made the leap to "Knight" because it's easier to work into a generic greeting than "Man-at-Arms".
That said, yes, we need a female protagonist called Teela... one who looks exactly like a 30-year-old Chelsea Field!
Now I feel old!
He does, though it's a bit unclear whether he actually is one or not - and to whom exactly.
TL:DR
For all intents & purposes, yes, Henry is a Squire to Sir Radzig... but it could be questioned.
And now a pedantic dissection just for fun: Throw your rotten vegetables at will...
When Henry first gets to Rattay & meets with Radzig, Hanush and Capon, the friar says "He's a peasant. You can't make a squire of a peasant", to which Hanush retorts "Why not? Someone made a priest of a pig!" Insinuating that this can be Henry's new station whether by common convention or not - because to hell with rules when you're a lord.
Radzig then goes on to say "He's no peasant, he's a blacksmith...", which isn't truly accurate either, since he's only an apprentice & not yet a commissioned blacksmith (if he was then he'd already be in service to a lord & would be indisposed to pledge service to another / the same lord in a second capacity.)
Radzig accepts Henry's service but makes no mention of what his new station actually is, other than to say "He's a blacksmith - and recent events have left me in need of his skills."
From the context of the conversation (and the plot) one would assume Henry becomes a squire of Radzig and not his blacksmith (even though this is the reason Radzig gives for employing Henry).. but is he in fact named as a squire? Not in so many words.
Nor is he sworn to an oath of fealty, as squires commonly were.
Further, the dictionary lists Squire as meaning...
1) A man of high social standing who owns and lives on an estate in a rural area, especially the chief landowner in such an area. (This would be a more modern understanding)
2) A young nobleman acting as an attendant to a knight before becoming a knight himself.
Henry is neither of these. While he does act as attendant to both Sir Radzig and Lord Capon (whom it can be assumed are at least equivalent to Knights), he is not himself a noble, so by this convention cannot be named a Squire.
A squire would also be expected to shadow his lord almost constantly, something we only really see a glimpse of in the hunting mission with Lord Capon. Otherwise Henry is a free-agent, which at best makes him a negligent & innatentive Squire and at worst makes him not a squire at all but more of a scout.
How accurate is the modern dictionary to the contemporary definition of Squire, it's hard to know.
How rigidly did 15th century Bohemian vassals adhere to the convention & tradition of appointment, we can't say for sure.
Were there some strange exceptions? Very probably.
But it does seem like Henry the game is having something of an identiy crisis. Is he a Peasant, a Blacksmith, a Squire or a Knight?! Is it possible to be more than one at a time?
Standard RPG M.O tells us that he's all and none of these things. What he really is is an odd-job man with a bone to pick. This doesn't do a very good job of telling the player what Henry is supposed to become though, so some convenient (dare I say ex machina) labels were needed, hence Squire and Knight, which both appear out of nowhere.
As I say, just for fun so don't take this too seriously. We can see here that too much attention to historical accuracy could easily turn into a bad thing... so if Henry feels like a Squire then let him be one. A Knight... well no... but maybe in the next game.
Lord Capon is the heir to a moderate fiefdom headed by a market town, which would make him a Burgher until the point at which his regency would end and he would become a Mayor. He is based on Jan Ptáček, Hofmeister and Münzmeister of Bohemia. His rank as Burgher-to-Mayor would approximately equate him with a Baron or Burgrave depending on the size of the town, and then a Count. Hofmeister and Münzmeister are a bit harder to define in rank structure, but are typically higher in rank than a Count as they are issuers of the King's will.
Sir Radzig is in command of a small settlement which has the makings of a town with a central castle. This makes him at least a Baron, maybe a Burgrave, and possibly a Count in rank, depending on if his Barony of Skalitz also includes a burgravate or county of land under his rule. The reason he is a Burgrave, Baron, or Count rather than a Mayor is because the center of power of Skalitz is fully based upon his lordship and nobility, rather than around a council with a Mayor as a head, as would be the case in a larger settlement like Rattay. He was also the King's Hetman prior to the King's capture, which would make his rank similar to a western Marshal, the highest military rank in a kingdom behind the royal crown itself. This means that he would outrank a knight in both nobility and in military terms.
Burgraves and larger Burghers outrank Knights in nobility by two steps, three if the knight is not of a bloodline. Barons and smaller Burghers outrank knights by one step, two if the knight is not of a bloodline.
So not only are the Sirs above the rank of knight, but they may be fairly high up on the list.
Well you're a little late to the party but your info is excellent, so I'd say that earns you a free pass as far as necros are concerned!
Some really informative stuff there - thanks for sharing!
Just to clarify in case there was any confusion, I wasn't saying that Radzig & Capon are *equal* to knights - the game makes it clear that they're far higher up the ladder than that. All I meant was that given the small amount of hard information we're given about their actual stations, it'd be safe to assume that they're definitely no lower than knights, hence "at LEAST equivalent to".
What can I say though - you've by far outdone me with your knowledge of 15th century hierarchical structure. I need to hit some more books!
Hat's off to you sir!
Nobility was an entirely separate stratum, much like present-day Hollywood elites, politicians, billionaire entrepreneurs, or the like. You get into the realm of bloodlines, divine right, and inherited titles. I've read a bit on the subject. Even so, I acknowledge that my own understanding might be flawed.
Grats on the necro, indeed. :D
Guess I haven't got to the part yet where it's stated Radzig is a Burgrave.
Yes, that was my understanding of the term "Burghers" as well, though I was under the impression it was more ubiquitous & encompassed people of lower import like merchants, scholars, apothecars & more wealthy townsfolk - basically anyone who was above peasantry but beneath the court or church - I guess you'd call that "working middle class" today.
Perhaps I have the wrong interpretation of the word but I'm reading "Burgher" as in "One who lives in a Burg" - a Townsman, which at a stretch might also be extended to include any peasants who lived in the town (though that would be unusual).
The game certainly uses the word broadly. Would be interesting to have its actual meaning clarified.
henry serves the ruling elite of rattay as a retainer or squire or somethign along that line and he visibly wears expensive armor and rides a horse, so it's reasonable for people to call him a "knight".
You have a good point in that most people probably would not have known the exact details of how the structure worked - the same as most people today don't fully understand the inner workings of modern monarchies / governments.
I still tend to disagree that anyone would call Henry a knight though. Certainly the people who know him would know he hadn't been knighted. They wouldn't need to understand how the system worked in order to be aware of his station.
I'll partially agree that for those who don't know Henry, it'd be reasonable to think that some might *silently* make the assumption based on his armour / attire... but there'd be no good reason for those people to venerate him with such a precise & formal title in a simple everyday greeting. More likely they'd find subtle ways of ascertaining his rank through conversation before addressing him by any title.
I say this for 2 reasons...
1) That with fighting & looting rife in the land, a stranger in armour with no crest or banner could just as easily be a common brigand who stole his apparel from a corpse - or worse, a mercenary of Sigismund's army.
2) Calling a plate-clad mounted warrior with a sharp, pointy instrument of death on his hip (and an unknown agenda) a Knight before ascertaining his true station could just as easily be an insult to him that he might take extreme exception to. I think people would be more careful than that.
You also have to consider that in the presence of someone obviously more powerful and / or of higher presumed station than themselves, the average commoner would be more likely to stumble over their words & inadvertantly make a faux-pas than to form a coherant / practiced sentence that resembled an exaltation.
Not saying people wouldn't acknowledge gleaming plate-mail with at least *some* humility (a courteous bow of the head or other physical gesture of supplication - you'd be a fool not to) - just that in basic greetings & conversation with a stranger, the level of forced formality levelled at Henry would've been as false & disingenuous to the commoners of the 15th century as it is to the commoners of today.
I can't see any way how calling anyone a knight could be taken as an insult.
Technically, it's almost the same as calling someone 'sir'.
Well, in KCD world (that allows a good bit of 'free interpretation' in it) knight status clearly isn't something people take too seriously, and they don't see real knights very often in the area anyway, and it's used to pay respect to someone, possibly 'just in case'.
Also remember Ulrich. Or how Stephanie (who's supposed to know exactly how noble hierarchy works) compares Henry to a knight multiple times, as a compliment.
Well no, no it's not. Calling someone a knight is nothing like calling them Sir. It never has been. Those two terms couldn't be more different. Come on @Cat, I know you know that!
"Sir" is a contraction of "Sire", having the literal meaning of "Father" or "Progenator" but also having a looser meaning of "Lord": one to whom honour, love or fealty is owed, promised or sworn.
To shorten the word is to decrease its significance & hence its value, therefore "Sir" is lesser than "Sire" but in the same vein of "One to be respected & honoured".
Neither "Sir" nor "Sire" are titles however, they're simply terms of respect used to identify & reaffirm the statuses of individuals within a hierarchy.
"Knight" however is a specific rank & title and is not interchangeable with "Sir".
The fact that knights may *also* be called sir doesn't mean the two words have the same meaning or use.
In England for example we still have knights. When addressing them one calls them "Sir" as a mark of respect. Their title however is not "Sir", it's "Knight / Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" (K.B.E or D.B.E for short.) This would be reflected as a suffix to their full name, so in a letter head for example they might be named as "Sir John Smith K.B.E".
You wouldn't open your car window to a police officer & say "What can I do for you Knight?"... he's not one & he'd probably think you were being trite with him. You might call him "Sir" though to indicate that you respect his authority & station over you.
As for being an insult... to someone who IS a knight, no, it'd be properly respectful (though again, forced & disingenuous to the tune of brown-nosing).
To someone who was higher than a knight however, it'd likely get a peasant the lash - or if they picked the wrong man on a bad day, possibly something much worse.
Remember we're not talking about how things are in the present day. In a feudal society 500 years ago an insult was as good as a challenge... and not all men respond kindly to being challenged. People would know that & they'd be very careful not to inadvertantly insult someone by presuming their title before ascertaining it.
The "just in case" you speak of would be to say nothing & gather information first before potentially insulting someone.
You present an undeniable argument for artistic license & free interpretation. I'll happily concede for those purposes - it's a video game after all & too much attention to detail could easily derail the narrative & make things boring. In that respect you're absolutely right - it doesn't matter what people call Henry as long as the game is fun & makes sense.
Like I said in one of my previous posts though - my arguments are more about technical accuracy rather than gameplay. In short, I'm being pedantic because it makes for interesting discussion / debate that we can all learn cool things from.
That's a decent illustration. "Sir" is essentially an honorific, rather than a reference to station, whereas "Knight," "Lord," "Liege," et cetera, would have been more appropriate means of addressing those who held particular positions within the feudal hierarchy.
This is all purely academic, of course, but that's what makes it so fun to talk about.
For sure, modern dubbings don't have much in common with their historical origins or significance.
The idea of knights began in ancient Rome, where they were called "equites," or "eques," singular. It was essentially a title for a class of free-born, affluent (enough) cavalrymen who fought for the Senate/Empire.
Medieval European knights were a vassal class in service to a particular lord, whose primary responsibilities were to muster able men and to personally aid in any armed conflicts that their lord might find himself pursuing. They weren't nobles themselves. Rather, they were free landowners of a higher station who were sworn to serve a noble lord.
If you look at it in that context, it's conceivable that Henry could be mistaken for a recently elevated knight. He's in the personal service of Sir Radzig, after all. However, anyone of real import would have been accompanied by a retinue and wouldn't have had much occasion to speak directly with commoners, leaving little room for confusion.