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
Rest assured though, there are "good" and "bad" people everywhere, on all sides, and so it has always been.
Even some of the bandits and/ or "Cumans" might have been "good", but even the wisest cannot see all ends, in my humble opinion (and Gandalf's). I still hate bandits, though.
No one's ever totally innocent, except for rly young children
The main character had his village invaded and destroyed by Sigismund because the lord of his land was on the loyalist side so from his perspective they are the invaders and evil usurper that destroyed his home, they killed his parents thats all he needs to know to judge who the bad guys are but yes both are bad kings.
Both are bad kings imo, but sigismund especially for his rather drastic actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
For example, Henry's village got pillaged for reasons that he personally had nothing to do with, so the pillagers, being the Cumans, Markvart von Aulitz, and Sigismund would be the 'bad guys' in his view. And it makes sense because the story is told primarily from Henry's viewpoint - we experience these events through his eyes and actions. We empathize with Henry, so we want to do the things within the game that benefit Henry.
But.... let's take a look at King Sigismund and where he sits within his own world.
Sigismund is a sovereign king trying to govern not only Hungary but also influence all 300+ little duchies, towns, baronies, and palatinates of the entire Holy Roman Empire, all because his cousin Wenceslaus is too busy whoring and drinking to bother with the actual governance and political interests of the HRE, including Bohemia. And make no mistake, the stakes for any monarch of this vast expanse of conflicting interests in 1403 are absolutely life and death, for him and all the folks in all these little territories. The Turks are a huge threat to the HRE, including Bohemia, where all this mess takes place, and they just won a pretty huge victory at Nicopolis, a crusade battle that he lost in 1396, which led to further Turkish attempts to advance into the Balkans in 1397 and 1400, so that threat was always imminent and persistent. If Wallachia falls, Hungary falls, and if Hungary falls, well, Bohemia is going to be next.
And to keep the Turk out of Hungary, and by proxy Bohemia, he's going to need the full support of the Bohemian nobles, the very same nobles that have declared their loyalty to their own besotted King Wenceslaus who just doesn't understand or care about the overall political and military situation upon which all of Eastern Europe sits the real possibility of annihilation. Millions of lives, untold wealth and the very fabric of Christian hegemony within the empire will all be at risk (and don't underestimate the importance of religion in the medieval mind, it was huge and ubiquitous, even with all the in-fighting around catholic church reform - everyone still wanted Christ's church to survive and flourish in some fashion, reformed or otherwise).
Ah, but the Bohemians don't want to submit, as they put their own interests ahead of the broader needs of the Empire, which up unto this point was the primary bulwark against the Turk invading Eastern Europe. Why can't they understand the danger they are in, and by their own myopic self-interests, jeopardize everything around them??
So, Sigismund has cajoled, soothed, threatened, and exercised much in the way of diplomacy not only with the Bohemian nobles but pretty much all the other electors of the HRE, all in the name of a unified approach to his policy for the empire and its protection from the Turk, and what has he gained for his troubles? Indifference, intransigence, and rebellion. Well, thank you very much Bohemia, I guess I'll just go and face the Ottomans all by my lonesome... again. Not.
By now, Sigismund has had enough, and he invades Bohemia, but not with Hungarians, because his Hungarian nobles don't see any profit in it, so he has to do what? Turn to the Cumans, who are always up for a little pillaging, because they have mouths to feed, too. But Sigismund still needs to pay them, because paying an army by loot and plunder alone doesn't lead to good command and control: armies without loot opportunities will dissolve quickly. No, he needs money for payroll, and there was a whole lot of silver in Kuttenberg, which he duly captures and shakes by the heels for all the silver and loose pocket change he can squeeze out of the city and population.
But he STILL doesn't have enough. So, where next? There's a small town with silver mines, Skalitz... and the lord with rights to Skalitz is a loyal ally of Wenceslaus, not just an ally, but a Royal Hetman. An obstacle in his path to securing the greater empire. Yes, Skalitz will be next.
Now, ask yourself, with King Sigismund taking the reins of governance of the entire HRE, getting no help from Wenceslaus, Bohemia, or his own Hungarian nobles, and with a firm eye on the Turk looming right next to his own lands and an avaricious appetite, enough to gobble up all of Eastern Europe, causing massive death and chaos, political upheaval, and loss of all those lands, on top of a backbiting cabal of other lords and nobles who each have their own agenda and self-interest, with all of that in his mind while standing on the hill by Rovna, ready to loose his hordes of Cumans onto Skalitz, knowing that Radzig, Wenceslaus' buddy and hetman sits down there with his castle and all that wealth that would go a long way to countering the much larger threats looming over all of them, yet one more obstacle in his way to fulfilling his duty as King of the Romans (not the Emperor, that's Wenceslaus the idle), who is the bad guy in Sigismund's mind? Who are the good guys?
Well, probably Markvart von Aulitz for one, since he's been with him so far and stays loyal to Sigismund no matter what. Von Aulitz does the things that are necessary for Sigismund to succeed, and von Aulitz's fortunes are tied to Sigismund, for good or bad. And who doesn't want a guy like that on your side?
And for Sigismund, Henry, Theresa, Fritz, Matthias, Matthew, Johanka, Martin, none of them are even in his head, because what are they? Not nobles, and not supporting Sigismund because their lord doesn't support Sigismund. And if you think about it in the broadest terms of realpolitik, what are these small lives against the broader common wealth of the whole of the Empire? Sitting where he sits, is it wise to forego the silver and save the lives of this little town at the expense of hundreds of thousands down the road? Is Skalitz worth more than the whole of Eastern Europe?
At least that's what could have been in Sigismund's mind, and what any story with Sigismund as a protagonist would have to consider.
Anyway, it's always interesting to see things through a different viewpoint, at the very least it exercises the brain a little.
Just my two paltry Groschen.
You're not from the region, are you?
Correction 1: "Balkans" is quite the wrong term, especially for medieval period south-eastern european regions. It's also turkish term for the area.
Correction 2: How come that none mentions the significance of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as Byzantine? For many, it's the true heir of the original Roman crown (which, is a bad version of Hellenics, in the end) and the Greek-Orthodox Church is the true faith.. The only Byzantine stuff I've come across in-game is just many holy pictures that some obviously stole.
That's what you get when you've been taught to believe that righteous truth is always somewhere in the middle. You end up talking sheet - and possibly..... dying for the wrong reasons
(not directed at you, vine).
i disagree with PafunaMT's post and yours as well. Let me explain.
"One man's hero is another' man's terrorist" I disagree heavily with this statement. Look at Hitler and Stalin. You already know the rabbit hole I am going with those examples. How can these figures be looked upon as heroes when history shows how ruthless dictators they were? Sigismund is in the same category. He literally killed his own people, but the game and some of you above who have already responded to his thread are hailing Sigismund as a good guy according to the game's codex.
But that brings up the question: Where do we go for a more neutral perspective?
Depends. I said "better ruler" and "good king." Not "good guy." This was a time when violence was far more prevalent and violent leadership far more firm. Was Sigismund's reaction abnormally tyrannical for the time?
As an American, I have little to no education about my own country much less anyone else's, but I do keep an open mind and I do a bit of armchair philosophy and people are people everywhere.
History is cruel, why would you ask for "neutral" perspectives? Neutrality is bad for history and puts u away from the truth. History isn't a kid's fairy tale.
Being political correct and judging history by keeping your distance whenever it suits you (financially, or otherwise) is wrong.
Careful now... 'cause not taking the right side offers a great momentum for certain forces and regimes to advance against others and even worse, it's letting them change the status quo as we know it.
This is not some toxic propaganda, it's the truth and you know it. Right?
How come? You've gathered all knowledge available and have amazing libraries, universities and institutes.
Of course people are people everywhere, we're talking about something different.
you've gone to the extreme and i'm not pursuing that any further, no sense in that. you could've at least opened wiki for a while and checked the atmosphere of those times in our lands. nobody was the good guy, but Sigismund at least came up with a plan to clean it up. Wenceslaus was a lazy king, but that could be said about half the monarchs of the continent, at any point in time.. Sigismund had support of german nobility which we czechs did not appreciate, but he was an able and capable king. Wenceslaus did support hussites and was the rightful heir to the czech throne, but he was a sh!t king.. there's no easy black/white way out of that. And with the hindsight of centuries it's easy to judge.
Hard not to be cynical about history as record keeping before the digital age was all kinds of wonky. Not to mention the countless cases of history being rewritten by rulers, clergy, and the proverbial "winners."
At least KCD goes out of it's way to present both sides: the results of Sigismund's brutality through Henry's perspective AND use the codex to plant the seed that he may have been a much better choice of leader for posterity... That the end justifies the means.
Sigismund commanded the army that pillaged Henry's town, killing his parents and the majority of the people in the town. In Henry's world, and in any of ours if we were in his place, that pretty much firmly puts him in the anti Sigismund camp.
From an outside historical perspective? Kings all have blood on their hands. Some more than others. High politics isn't a game for the common folk in any capacity. Nobles make decisions, and the peasants pay the price most of the time.