Will we be be fighting Teutonic Knights?

Story & Setting
#1

Hey, in the Kickstarter Trailer it showed Henry killing a whole lotta knights of the Teutonic Order, this is something that has bothered me for a while. I thought that Bohemians had no quarrel with the Teutonic Order until 1410, even then I think it was only Bohemian mercs hired by Poland that fought The Knights. Am I mistaken?

I really hope the game doesn’t make you fight The Knights, I’m a huge fan of the Teutonic Order, I’m even kinda tempted to pay the €150.00 to become an official “Friend of the Teutonic Order”, I would do it if it wasn’t for how they are nothing like the Order from the 13-15th centuries.

If act 2/3 features Teutonic knights, will the battle of Grunwald be present and will Malbork castle be in the game?
#2

So I thought sombody should respond to this. The least I coud do is post this link right: The Battle of Tannenberg / Grunwald / Žalgiris 1410
It should answer some of your questions.

Than I also googled “Friend of the teutonic Order” because that seemd curious. That led me to this page: http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/index.html. It’s not the offical page of the Teutonic order! It’s not even avalible in german. This is: http://www.deutscher-orden.at/ So becoming an “official” friend seems like a scame to me.

Edit: btw the proper teutonic order was already aware of the pages existens.

And the page about the “Germanic People”, pleas. That is so obviosly not what the 21 century “Deutsche Orden” would post on there page. Even having a passage about “The Classification of The Germanic Race” is a sure way to discredit the Order as Nazis in Westcentral europe. This is obviously writen for a very different audience, that isn’t very sensitive to the issue. The offical page starts it’s history with the orders founding, because that’s what’s relevent from a clerical and historical perspectiv. Including pan-germanic history would attract the wrong kind of people and make a bad impression.

#3

Do you also often buy online university degrees?

#4

Besides, what is the problem with fighting against them? :smiley:
I’m hungarian, my grandfather was born in a historically cuman settlement, and in this game, I “have” to murder people serving under the banner of the Hungarian Kingdom. …so? It’s a game, and I even understand the little “demonizing” that needs to be done in order to get a motivation against the enemy. And if someone, I believe Warhorse will handle the issue mature enough. After all, soldiers of Sigismund plowed Henry’s village into the ground, so I’m not surprised at all if he feels a slight need to gut some - or all - of them. With a similar scheme, or simply by getting ordered to so, Henry (or a new protagonist - i neglected the word “hero” on purpose) might need to fall into line against teutons. My question is, again: …so? :smiley:
Your question would get a totally different color regarding a current conflict, with living personas and living revulsions, but if my math is correct, we are talking about something that happened six hundred years ago.

#5

To be honest if your countrymen are the villains in a movie or game it can make it more interesting. Instead of Russians, Nazi’s or Asians being the bad guys it was good to see Dutchmen and Frenchmen as villains in Alatriste: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395119/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

I really believe historical films should focus more on other things than World War two and costume drama, same goes for video games who often have historical fantasy as background. Truth is that history can truly be stranger than fiction and make for a good story if you edit it a little.

#6

I already clearly stated that I wasn’t going to do it, If I was actually going to follow through I would have given it more scrutiny. If it were the real Teutonic Order it would be a donation. It would be completely different from buying credentials, I would be contributing funds to a organization I liked.

#7

Yeah, but the Teutonic Knights are German Crusaders. I’m tired of Germans always being the bad guys, and the new hot thing to do recently is demonize Crusaders.

#8

New? Hell ive been getting shit all my life as a Catholic for the crusades. :smiley:

Everyone thinks the Muslims were sitting there peacefully and the murderous Europeans came along and beheaded all of them.

2 Likes
#9

I think the player should have the choice whether he wants to fight with or against them.

#10

more realistically, the crusaders were politically motivated, as in a response to arabic and persian expansionism, but they like to gloss over that in school.

1 Like
#11

It isn’t entirely new, no, but it has certainly gotten worse.

1 Like
#12

Yep many people don’t realize Muslims struck first in Anatolia, butchering Christians and destroying holy sights. It’s only natural Europe would respond to a threat that close to them.

Probably due to the Islam apologists popping up all around Europe and the U.S.

Pasted image1584×1584 1.83 MB

1 Like
#13

How is ‘the holy land’ close from the perspectiv of latin christians? Also they are an entirly diffenent political entities from the ones in spain. That is about as logical as attacking Indonesia in defence against Isis. The map has a very narrow view of crusades, excluding for example the work of the OPs beloved teutons. (Edit: or the Reconquista) I can’t say I am supprised to see you post it though. I can’t tell ofcourse whether this map was already made for this propaganda pourpouse, or you just removed any indication of what timieframe it covers, and what size of battels it counts.

1 Like
#14

Byzantine was a buffer zone between Europe and invading Muslim armies. So again it’s not that hard to understand why Europe would respond to it. I was backing up the statement that the crusades started over Islamic aggression.

The time frames are hard to see but they’re on there. The top map says Death of Mohammed 632 AD

The bottom map says 1090 AD.

Hmm, you certainly seem to have one. I bet you believe that the Muslims were sitting there peacefully and the evil Christians came along and took their land without a reason.

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/truth-crusades.jpg

2 Likes
#15

The maps provided are strange. The muslim one dates from 632AD to 1920AD
and The christian one dates from 1090 AD to 1260AD

Should not the time scale of both maps match, even if there was nothing happening?

Am not sure about this but did not christians forcefuly expand thier believes on pagans destroying their holy sights?
I am not trying to dispute what you say, just asking questions.

2 Likes
#16

Of course i’m not saying Christians were innocent. I’m just trying to point out that the crusades were in response to Muslim aggression and that Muslims committed horrible atrocities as well.

1 Like
#17

I definitly belive ‘the muslims’ and ‘the christians’ are an overgeneralisatzion in this context. There wasn’t one christian faith or state. But atleast we aren’t comparin crusaders to muslims anymore, so that’s progress.

I still hope the map says more than Death of Mohammed. Because anyone how has ever looked at a map of the Caliphat at the Death of Mohammed knows it didn’t have that kind of reach. Also there were bearly any muslims back than. The Mediterain coast was still rather ‘christian’ from romans times. So who supposidly conquered halfe of europe at that time? This map is rediculas. At the very best it compares mediterainian muslim conquest over all to the crusades for the holy land. Only an army of raiders ever made it to southern france, and as far as I know there is no evidence that they intended to conquer that was just the Defenders making there victory sound more impressiv.

Than there is the Ottoman counquest on the map. Why? Who knows. The thing is I am not denying the muslim conquest as you claim I do. I happend that’s a fact. I am not complaining how crul the crusaders were, because it was a long time a ago and I don’t care. I am complaining about your personal crusade aginst ‘the muslims’. (Edit: or witchhunt for muslim sympathizers) It’s anoying. It’s not very original. And sombody might actually belive it.

#18

I can imagin how germans are too often the “bad guys” in an american perspectiv. But in this case the Teutons wouldn’t be the only germans in the game.

Since Kingdom Come seems to be building up to the Huissit wars, crusaders being the “bad guys” is pretty much gurantied. Maybe the game leaves room for a bit of side switching, but not wanting to fight crusaders in Kingdome Come sounds a bit like demanding from an american videogame about the independence war that you don’t have to kill any brits.

#19

I am not going to defend the crusades or the Muslim conquest because both would be bad when you hold them against modern day ideals and laws. One should judge acts and deeds not to our values but those of contemporaries.

Truth is that religious violence was and has been the order of the day until the conclusion of the 30 years war in 1648. Religious violence and conquest under the guise of it before that date can be called ‘normal’ while the same thing happening in the 19th century was wrong even to contemporary people.

#20

30 years war is exactly why it’s impossible to tell where religion begins and ‘political interests’ end. Who actually cared about the theology behind it? On some level it was more like habsburg/rome loyalists versus seperatist/regionalist. Confession created a powerfull ‘us aginst them’ sentiment. In this regard it’s not so diffenent from nationalosm.

To some extent condeming past actions based on modern morality can’t be helped, espectially when you don’t know about the particular morality or school of thinking of the day.

Still I think it’s atleast importaint to be consitent in what you condem. Romans for exemple get away with things that the historical Mongols are still hated for, because the first are considert the standart of morality by which we messure.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz