Excellent! The rainbow flag will become the standard to which all of the pink knights rally and a new age will dawn ushered in by men with hairless chests and women with hairy legs!
They have this big octopuses in river Vltava??? Omg I’m cancelling my beer trip to Prague this minute! XD /just kidding
Hillarious. xD But I very much hope not…
Fear not my friend. Warhorse has made their position quite clear on that subject. ^_-
I’m sure this is unintentional, but statement appears to be asserting something it really shouldn’t… 
Religion has always been divisive/contentious. I see much arguing for kid gloves, but in the interests of accuracy, organised religion was rife with corruption at the time… why should this not be faithfully presented?
Care to provide some examples of the Church keeping people in the dark? I keep seeing this sort of thing asserted across the internet (including this forum), and I still have not yet seen any good evidence for these claims. On the subject of starvation, medieval western Europe had been experiencing an agricultural boom stimulated by a period of global warming and technological innovation (the horse collar, the heavy plow, the improved construction of wind and water mills, etc) before the 14th century that stimulated a massive population explosion. Instances of mass starvation more often than not were irregularities rather than the norm, a side effect of special circumstances (such as war or the Black Death) that brought on periodic times of scarcity in which everyone (not just the peasantry) suffered, and it would be a mistake to assume that this was the norm.
I take it you have surely heard of Francis of Assisi and the Franciscans? Bernard of Clairvaux? Dominic de Guzman and the Dominicans? Please, please don’t reduce medieval clergymen to cartoonish stereotypes, because they weren’t. Some were rich, some poor; some fat, some thin; some good, some corrupt, and I for one hope the finished game will accurately reflect this.
Torture was common practice in legal trials dating back to the Roman empire as a means of procuring evidence, and its usage in medieval Europe was part of its inheritance of Greek and Roman intellectual and legal thought. Its usage in the Inquisition was in imitation of the secular courts of law, which in their turn were imitating the aforementioned Roman precedent. While torture is unjustifiable, it must be noted that the Inquisition used it far less often than the secular courts; indeed, the historian Henry Kamen notes in his “The Spanish Inquisition” that “In statistical terms, it would be correct to say that torture was used infrequently.” He cites the trials of some 400 conversos (that is, Jewish converts to Catholicism) in Ciudad Real in the period of 1483 to 1485, in which only two out of the four hundred were subjected to torture. Periodic escalations in the usage of torture occurred throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, but even then the Inquisition’s activity was far less brutal than that of the prosecutors of secular courts.
He concludes:
Unfortunately I don’t have any books or sources on the Inquisition’s activities in Bohemia (I’m more familiar with its operations in Spain, France and Italy), so I don’t have much to extrapolate on the specific conditions of 15th century Bohemia beyond the generally consistent practices of the Inquisition in the rest of Europe.
A practice inherited again from Roman law, specifically the Codex Iustinianus, which saw heresy as a threat to the ruler’s authority because it brought into question the source of his power (that is, God); as such, monarchs would often prosecute heresy ruthlessly. The creation and formulation of the Inquisition owed a great deal to ecclesiastical frustration with theologically ill-trained secular authorities trying and executing people on the flimsiest of grounds. Thomas Madden, one of the leading medieval scholars over here in the United States, has summed up the issue thusly:
[quote]From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep that had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.
Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely departed out of hostility to the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense.[/quote]
No one is saying that injustices did not happen, or that torture or killing heretics was justified - although I most certainly will protest that your comparison to Holocaust denial is downright absurd and speaks of a poor knowledge of the time period. Speaking for myself, what I’m asking for is an accurate treatment of the time period that will hopefully help people understand why and how people behaved the way they did rather than engage in the anachronistic, cartoonish and condescending pandering typical of medieval-themed literature. I have no interest in yet another game that furthers the ridiculous stereotypes of the time period popularized in works like Kingdom of Heaven or Assassins Creed.
6 Likes
What you say is very interesting. It show, we should never trust common believes but always check and do our own research.
1 Like
EDIT: The intent of this post was to demonstrate that while burning of the witches probably did occur in Bohemia, it was quite uncommon in the time period portrayed in the game.
The most infamous witchhunts on Bohemian (more precisely Silesian) territory occurred not earlier than in 17th century. Despite popular beliefs church had little to do with them directly.
The Inquisitor was a lay lawyer, who acted on authority of local countess and was probably mostly motivated by greed, as he could confiscate property of those “proved” of whichcraft. He also had an ally in bishops secretary and the bishop himself probably tolerated (if not approved) the trials, but the whole case was so much complicated and many other people, both from the church and outside of it, were involved. For example a local dean opposed the inquisitor, until he was finally handed over to the secular authorities by the bishop and burned at the stake as well.
You may find basic information (and some references to literature, which is only in Czech, I am afraid) here:
Or if you want to know more, watch the film adaptation of the book, which was quite historically accurate. The film is near perfect classic and should be available with English subtitles.
2 Likes
Committed by some men?! Way to sugar coat the Christianity history, lets say it was just a few man, do not matter if does men’s were under orders from the Popes, forget how the church used the inquisition to force people to their dogmatic views of the world, and those that refused at all cost were tried as “heretics” including killing visionaries like Galileu Galilei just because “they dared to question god’s word”, their ruthless persecution lead to the formation of the armed group Illuminati, (evil brings evil) not to talk about their own crusader army, bringing Christ love and god’s name to the “heretics” by force. Is true that not all Christians were bad some were certainly good persons and others just because of lack of better knowledge did what the church said was right.
Erm, lets not try to boil the crusades down to, “bringing Christs love and God’s name to the heretics by force.” Europe was near collapse due to the assault of the moor armies. Spain had been occupied for many years and the people there suffered atrocities that made anything the crusaders did look tame by comparison. France was on the verge of collapse and the remaining European countries that held out against this assault turned to the church for help. It was only then that the church actually started pushing back. It wasn’t to “bring Christ to the heretics,” it was to defend their lives, their lands, and their freedoms and to take back the areas lost and restore those same freedoms to the people living there. I’m no expert in the history of the crusades but I know enough not to buy into the modern political BS that Christianity needs to apologize for them.
1 Like
Excuse me. Would you mind looking back at the date on those wikipedia excerpts? Do you know what time period the mainstream designates as the middle ages? Do you know what time at which this game takes place? Do you know how much change happens in 200 years? I’m sorry but your post is irrelevant.
He was a christian by the way(Copernicus and Newton were also). Oh and no christian that soundly understands christian theology should say that anybody is “good”. The crusades were originally launched because Muslims were slaughtering innocent christian pilgrims. Atrocities were committed but that wasn’t the original goal. Oh and although some teachings were/are not biblical, the core teachings are. Every thing (or even most of the things) the church did was not corruption.
Excuse me. Would you mind reading my post? I replied to DuxNormanorums post, where he argues with some misconceptions about inquisitions in middle ages. He wrote that he is not familiar with situation in Bohemia. So I posted link to this information, from which you can deduce, among other things, that inquisition and withchunts did not occur very frequently in Bohemia until late 17th century and that there was little involvement of the church in the processes (except that SOME catholic clergymen did intentionally support witch hysteria in mostly protestant regions, either of fanaticism or pure cynicism and other clergymen opposed them). That is exactly why forcing some cliches about medieval church burning witches into this game would be totally inadequate. Yes, much changed in 200 years, but that was exactly my point. So how is my post irrelevant and what do you then think this discussion is about?
1 Like
Please stick to the topic, which is “Religion in Kingdom Come”
Yeah i also hope thet they nail the right feel for the religion. I am not religious but i like my jistorical authenticity. In these times EVERYBODY believed in some kind of religion. Sure there were different oppinions about it(Jan Hus). Atheism was almost an imossibility. Therfore I dont want the standard view on religion like per say the witcher were all priests are sadists, evil and biggots.
1 Like
If the christian religion of that time is to be depicted in game, no sugar coating please, or any tentative to make it look nice with a version of “the good, the bad, and the ugly”.
And what about muslims in game, the loading screens shows a templar with a big sword trying to hack a muslim with a shield and scimitar. is it just for the “art”?
I think it is just a Bohemian man at arms fighting a Cuman warrior.
And cumans were christians at that time. Kingdom Come can’t be tagged as being islamophobic this time 
so cumans with scimitars??
Scimitars are just weapons. It has nothing to do with religion it’s a part of the art of smithing and fighting style.
Also the sword existed and was used before christianity existed.