I would gladly hang by my cock if i can skewer my king and his family with the kings own sword.
1 Like
Long live the Republic!
if you kill the king, can you become the king? Steal his armies and lead a coup
I certainly hope not. Thatâs dragon talk.
Is this question for real?
1 Like
What Dragons can talk in this game? I thought it was supposed to be realistic and they only use telepathy.
Telepathy is fake. Dragons communicate using sign language.
What do YOU think? Serious question.
I dont think they would welcome me as their new lord if i killed their old lord and his family before neatly piling their corpses and shaping it into a throneâŚ
I sort of doubt theyâd take an upstart blacksmith for a king, either. 
Ya there are many other nobles to take his placeâŚ
Well it depends on your status.
Why there shouldnt be the possibility to rise to a Lord or an Earl and then get the crown.
Then it could be happen.
it could happen, but it didnât happen.
I would rather not be king as that would give me a sense of duty to make the country better. Iâd much preferr to roam the country and cause constant strife, chaos, death, and general mayhem.
Sounds like what king Sigismund was doing.
that would bee cool, we still dont know too much about the game but, it sound very promising especially if something like this is allowed. However, thatd mean the story would have to be prepared for such a decision?
I think that it was mentioned in some of the Warhorseâs texts on the matter of VĂĄclav (Wenceslaus) and Sigismund and the game (or maybe even Dan VĂĄvra himself mentioned it) how the whole thing about a dethroned king and a warmongering tyrant is somewhat relative. Itâs a common conception (or misconception) among people here in Czech that, simply put, VĂĄclav was âour kingâ and the good guy while Sigismund who became the Roman Emperor was that traitorous enemy that sided with the Germans and didnât care about our people⌠etc.
The historical fact that VĂĄclav was pretty much incompetent as a ruler while Sigismund was very active, capable and respectable man is quite often omitted. The major problem with Sigismund (from the local perspective) was that he didnât make too much effort to keep up good âPRâ (in todayâs lingo) in his fatherâs homeland specifically and cared more to manage the whole Empire.
At the time of the KCD he let his armies running rampant around the place and making a lot of mess (like pillaging and burning villages, which was a common field practice of just about every average military campaign back then) and then he backed down to the Catholic Church in the later Hus issue in hopes to keep order in the Church (instead of stroking further unrest from Husâs teachings which the Church wasnât fond of).
Which unfortunately only threw the already angered Czech folk over board, started the Hussite wars and made him âthe enemyâ for goodâŚ
But back to the beginning - I think it has been already mentioned somewhere that there might be an option to decide whether to keep supporting VĂĄclav or to side with Sigismund (after you learn some more about both of them in the game).
It probably wonât have a major history-changing outcome, but may have a notable impact on the gameâs (Henryâs) own story.
1 Like
That might have been a commonplace during invasions of enemy territory, but not so during internal strifes for power. Inherently, you expect a different behavior during a pub brawl with a stranger and during a family quarrel with relatives.
Causing general mayhem by basically allowing the soldiers to rape, torture and kill is something that deserves contempt and hatred. Trying to cover that up with stories of âactivity and capabilityâ vs. âincompetencyâ is just horrific. In the same way one can praise the active and capable Hitler and Third Reich over the incompetency of the Weimar Republic!
Moreover, since the 1318 battle of Ĺ˝atec, no major warfare took place in the Czech lands (feel free to correct me if Iâm wrong on this one). So, there you had some 4 generations of people for whom the horrors brought by Zigismundâs forces were completely unimaginable - far cry from âcommon field practiceâ.
Sorry, but thatâs a bit naive. Soldiers going for a bit of pillaging was pretty common if an army was anywhere else than in its home territory (which the Kingdom of Bohemia wasnât for the forces from other parts of the Empire). And sometimes even there, depending on what sort of a hypocrite was in the field command.
It always started with confiscating some food and other goods from the locals âfor the war effortâ to ease off the regular military supply lines and every now and then the commanders in the field let their soldiers to go ahead and do as they please if they encountered any kind of resistance. Especially if there was not much of fighting or loot recently so that the boys could at least let off some steam. And if there was a lot of fighting and resistance, then double time.
If you donât trust modern movies or even other, more serious contemporary sources, as making this up, I recommend checking some more historic sources directly. Like the satirical works of Johann Grimmelshausen from 17th Century that show a pretty raw (even if slightly fictionalized) insight into the life in the field during the Thirty Yearsâ War. Even though it was some two centuries later, in some things the war doesnât really change much. In some places not even today (Africa).
And btw. Hitler wasnât really very capable himself, he was nuts. But he had a lot of capable people around him that effectively used him as a popular mascot. (End offtopicâŚ)
1 Like
I am sorry, but I have to side with PhanTom on this issue. Such hostilities were quite common in these days, even in internal conflicts. Nowadays we are used to human rights, but in those days they were unheard of.
I can even give an example from the 15th century to proof my claim. During the ArmagnacâBurgundian Civil War (1407-1435) in France the two opposing parties took any measures available to win including excessive plundering. The Armagnacs even employed troops known as âĂcorcheursâ (slaughterers).
I recommend reading about it yourself, if you still donât believe it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmagnacâBurgundian_Civil_War