I don’t want to bash the creators of this game, and I like the setting and story, well ass much as I’v seen, but since every article I read tend to push that this game its historical accurate, I need to point out that the conflict that this game chose to use, was a religious conflict between Papacy and Utraquists and Taborites known as the Hussite Wars, began by priest and scholar Jan Hus denounced what he judged as the corruption of the Church and the Papacy, and started religious controversies, which prompted the Papacy to send the already formed and effective force that defended Europe from Turks, to quell the rebellious, and that meant Sigismund.
There a lot more to point out, but I think that not including this makes Sigismund a mad man.
This is before Hussites. That happened after burning the priest Jan Hus in Kostnice at 1415… More than a decade after this game.
The role of Sigismund is well written. He made piece with his brother in 1404. To be honest lot of this is (on purpose) explained at the very end of game, where the Czech nobles are curious about Sigismund’s behaviour, which is explained to them.
The story is written from Henry’s point of view who is unfamiliar with big policy and so the Sigismund is “portraited” as simple raider. Which he was from the be of the areas he raided, but it was part of bigger game. Having his brother imprisoned, he was crushing opposition in Bohemia and taking the land by force.
In the context of time and situation - a conventional strategy.
9 Likes
There are quite a few historical inaccuracies (some of which can be justified by saying “It improves gameplay”) but not this. It’s set in 1403, long before those problems. Sigismund made peace with his brother in 1404 and a decade later helped him defend Bohemia. And later in 1419 Wenceslaus died and Sigismund became the ruler of Bohemia. But anything past 1403 is not in the game.
(Though I still support Sigismund over Wenceslaus, a king of questionable quality is better than no king at all.)
1 Like
@skallagrim & @Voxdalian Nicely written and I agreee, game is accurate on this.
I only want to add something to this … Sigismund was a betrayer in eyes of Bohemian people, and actually he still is to these days, mainly because of what he did to Jas Hus (who was supported by Wenceslaus) and for turning against own people. After Sigismund become the king of Bohemia in 1419, people were against him and started uprisings and that is the beginning of the Hussite wars. That’s a very simplified and short version. But that’s later than the game is placed.
Edit: But Sigismund was hated in Bohemia earlier than that. He was a king of Hungary and when asked by Wenceslaus for help, he started occupy Bohemian castles and country. He later imprisoned Wenceslaus in Viena for a while too. In 1403 or 1404 they reconciled.
Every coin has two sides. Wenceslaus was a lazy incompetent idiot. That’s what started the whole thing.
So you’re discussing now who’s the true King of Bohemia in 1404? This Game truly did Things right 
4 Likes
Wenceslaus didn’t do his job as a king, Sigismund did, but didn’t do it very well. I think Sigismund was better than Wenceslaus, but that doesn’t mean much.
Though Sigismund did know at least 7 languages and was very educated in many ways and also founded the Order of the Dragon, which is very admirable.
Well I know that the place of this game its before the war, but still the religious aspect existed, and the atrocities were excused by religious mad man, sure there was also the plundering of cities, but it was another time, when tings like that could happen, and were considered “normal”, lords battled all the time, and did those things, the killing WAS because religion. I just don’t think that the game presents Sigismund as it should, and I understand why, because the actual problems and factors in conflict were complicated, to complicated for a game, and a villain was a lot easier, and for history too, for some.
Also the religious conflict began a lot before the war, and was the cause of the war.
If your country is in a war your government will tell you how horrible the enemy is, look at how much people hated Hitler or currently Kim Yong Un, both of those do plenty of good too. In 500 years people will see it more objectively, but back then they also made Sigismund out to be worse than he really is.
3 Likes
Tell me you are kidding. Please.
4 Likes
You made my day.
2 Likes
All I know about Sigismund is that my character no longer has a home or a family because my so called king thought it wise to burn down where he lived.
Now call me old fashioned but I’m not sure that’s really morally justified Kingly behaviour.
1 Like
Actually raiding, pillaging, and putting cities who resisted to the sword were all very common.
I don’t really get a “sigismund is evil vibe”. To me he simply seems to be a man of his time, wanting to increase his wealth and power.
3 Likes
Common or not, doesn’t make it morally justified. Some of the villages in Rattay say this exact thing. Raiding and pillaging was done, but the raid of Skalitz was kinda extreme.
Not by our 21st century morals no. But back then it was the average thing to do.
1 Like
Just because it was common, it doesn’t mean the church and the people justified it. Killing is killing, no matter the era.
I’m not trying to make the moral case for pillaging and raiding, I’m simply saying that’s what happened during war, and it honestly still does to day in many parts of the world.
And the Church wouldn’t give a shit about raiding or pillaging back then. As for common people, a large reason it often turned into a blood bath when an army go into a city, is because the armies were made up of common folk, and not professional soldiers.
2 Likes
Wait 500 years and then look at what people think about Hitler. You’ll see.
Or you can just look up the facts about EVERYTHING he did and you’ll be a lot less sure about whether he’s good or bad.
3 Likes
Are you gonna bring up the fact that he was a vegetarian and loved animals? Is that going to be your argument?