Relaxing history facts while Henry slaughters the entire monastery

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

As all History facts should be delivered.

@ThePoll321

2 жыл бұрын

Monks: hey! Henry's come to see us! ... Hshiiiiit!

@sethleoric2598

8 ай бұрын

He was... rather hungry

I like his funny hat. Its interesting, that as such a powerful monarch, one of the most popular photos you can find of him is the one with him wearing that hat. I just love it.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

I also find his interesting hat to be an awesome choice for a royal portrait.

I think with characters like Sigismund and Wenceslas, its all about point of view. You're more likely to forgive the faults of the guy who fought for your country, especially if you were taught about them in a positive light.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

I think that is most often true. Bias dictates how you view historical events.

@user-vp8mu5fj7o

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, from an outsider's point of view, they are both wrong. Wenseclas for practically abandoning his people and not ruling as his predecessor did and Sigismund for taking advantage and raiding Bohemian lands killing innocents. But yeah I agree it's all about point of view and bias views too. Hungarians would get behind Sigismund but of course the Bohemians would get behind Wenseclas (well not all) but due to his absence, a lot had despised him. Charles' rule was the happiest the Bohemians had been at that point in time.

@svampekake7548

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-vp8mu5fj7o that’s like saying because he wasn’t as good as one of the best kings in history he was just as bad as someone who killed innocent people including children.

@user-vp8mu5fj7o

2 жыл бұрын

@@svampekake7548 who are you talking about? Wenceslas, Sigismund or Charles?

@svampekake7548

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-vp8mu5fj7o I am trying to say that I think sigmund is worse than Wenceslas. I am sorry that my English is not good, I’m not a native English speaker

7:00 I just realised Martin is still alive when she gets stabbed. So he would’ve died seeing his wife slaughtered and believing his son would be next because he was stood there watching

He was a son of Charles IV and younger half-brother of Wenceslas IV of Bohemia.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

That is a factually accurate statement Cyborg Kermit.

My grandmother once told me that she was related to Emperor Sigismund. Some great great great uncle or something was his cousin.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

That is cool. Hard to verify, but interesting.

@imarag1193

2 жыл бұрын

Great great great is only like 100 to 200 years old But I might be wrong

@carinasmirnoff1780

2 жыл бұрын

@@imarag1193 I cant remember how many greats there were. I never really believed the story so I didnt take special note. But she died in 2002 and was 98 years old, and if it was her great great great uncle, that could potentially be pretty long ago.

@imarag1193

2 жыл бұрын

@@carinasmirnoff1780 OK

@IMACTED

Жыл бұрын

He founded the order of the dragon

I mean this respectfully. Please cite your source. Found the article that you read as you made the video. Im sure this is something you might be doing now in your more recent videos. In this one, it doesnt seem right to not mention where you found it and talking about the history is not in your own words. Otherwise i really appreciate you bringing clarity to this historical figure.

Thank you for this. I was tasked to make a family chart for a friend as I have done it for many people i know and have a knack for getting farther then anyone and she is related to Sigismund about 14 generations back

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

That's awesome. i am glad my video was useful in some way.

Im so excited I stumbled across your youtube. This made me excited to play the game again. Makes the roleplay feel that much more immersive

Love this series man thank you for putting all this together 🤘

Every playthrough i go through, Martin still manages to awe me with his skill. If not for that coward who charged him from behind on a horse, he might've carved a bloody path towards the castle. He's not even armored. I refuse to believe he's just a renowned swordsmith, he's definitely someone renowned as a warrior before he settled down.

Great video. I certainly wanted to know more about Sigismund after playing the game. Thank you for this.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Glad I could help!

@xx-lq6el

Жыл бұрын

Hey niko! Let's go bowling!

You kinda sound like sunless khan. And I love all your history videos. They’re the best to watch when you meet or hear about someone new in the game

Thanks for your video! Direct descendant ofSigismund. Someone in our family goes through a lot of labor. Trying to find more on the Drachenorder

" well that's alotta thrones for one A%$" LOL You got me with that line haha. Awesome videos bro

Vlad the Impaler was a hero for his country not a blood thirsty murderer !!! He successfully repelled Ottoman attacks and protected his people from foreign invaders. Vlad was able to win battles against the Ottoman Empire despite having a smaller army for several reasons: Use of Guerrilla Warfare: Vlad III used guerrilla tactics to his advantage. He employed hit-and-run tactics, surprise attacks, and ambushes to disrupt the Ottoman army's supply lines, communication, and morale. Knowledge of Terrain: Vlad III had an excellent knowledge of the terrain in his homeland, which he used to his advantage. He knew the local mountains, forests, and rivers, which allowed him to hide his troops and launch surprise attacks. Strong Defensive Strategy: Vlad III was able to defend his territory by using strategic fortifications, such as trenches and fortresses, to protect his army and civilians from the Ottoman army's attacks. Psychological Warfare: Vlad III used psychological warfare to intimidate the Ottoman soldiers. His use of impalement, which involved placing the bodies of defeated enemies on stakes, was meant to strike fear into the hearts of the Ottoman soldiers and discourage them from attacking. Strategic Alliances: Vlad III formed strategic alliances with neighboring countries and kingdoms, such as Hungary and Poland, to bolster his army and gain support. He was also known for his strict laws and harsh punishments, which were seen as necessary to maintain order in a tumultuous time.

@melkormorgothbauglir.4848

16 күн бұрын

He killed thousands of Bulgarians, Turks and Romanians brutally he was a blood thirsty murderer not that most rulers of his age weren't they just wasn't as bloodthirsty he enjoyed killing a lot and got very weird with it he mostly killed Orthodox Christians most of the Muslim Turks he killed were prisoners from battles he won and their deathtoll is second still to the amount of Balkan peoples he killed I understand why to you hes a hero but idolise Stefan 'the Great' or any other not pieces of s*it like Vlad.

@ggoddkkiller1342

13 күн бұрын

Stop reading propaganda constantly, Ottoman RAISED Vlad, EDUCATED Vlad and SENT Vlad back to rule as an Ottoman vassal! He never had to fight Ottoman, especially with such wicked tactics. He only defended his country for several years before Ottoman impaled Vlad same as he did to others and Turks ruled his country for centuries. So at the end he achieved absolutely nothing expect causing deaths of thousands of people in absolutely pointless war. He could easily rule as an Ottoman vassal with great autonomy same as Serbians etc did..

Love these videos!

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Glad you like them!

My new favorite channel

“That’s a lot of thrones for one ass” is a helluva sentence, well played

You really did compress Sigismund's lifetime, so I hope you won't be offended if I expand upon it a bit and correct an occasional distortion, because you've omitted a lot of juicy drama, especially from his early life: 1. He was sent to Hungary in 1378, to the court of his future in-laws, but... he didn't marry Mary until 1385, which is actually a source of a lot of his struggle early on. He and Mary were supposed to inherit Poland and Hungary was supposed to go to Mary's younger sister-Hedviga. In 1382, after king Louis died, queen Elizabeth-his widow and now regent for both her underage daughters (Mary was 11 while Hedviga was 8)- suddenly ordered to overturn the succession agreements and crown Mary king of Hungary (yep, king not queen). Sigismund WASN'T crowned with her as they still weren't married. Mary's coronation angered Polish lords who previously accepted her as Louis' heir only after they were bribed with significant tax breaks AND on the condition that she and her husband would rule only in Poland and reside in the capital (which was now impossible). So, queen regent Elizabeth sent Sigismund to deal with them AND to keep him away from Hungary and marriage with Mary as long as possible, because she could only stay in power as regent as long as the marriage didn't happen. Because, like you've said in those times the concept of king consort was wildly different than the image we currently have based off of examples of Prince Albert or Prince Phillip, and all the power would be in Sigismund's hands from the moment of coronation and Mary would-at best-get to co-sign the documents her husband issued. And queen Elizabeth would no official power at all. And so, when Sigismund was busy quenching civil war over Polish succession between from 1382 to 1384, his future mother-in-law plotted to have him entirely removed from struggle for Hungarian throne. in 1384 she brokered a new betrothal for king Mary-with a younger son of French king who was 2 years younger than Mary herself, therefore a fiance that would allow Elizabeth to prolong her regency for another few years. Meanwhile, king Charles of Naples, who also had some rights to Hungarian throne, invaded Hungary and a lot of Hungarian lords pledged to support him, while Polish nobles decided that now they prefer Hedviga as the heir and queen Elizabeth agreed to this. So for a while it looked like Sigismund might not get to sit on any throne. But when forces of the king of Naples and rebelling Hungarian lords really started to threaten Elizabeth's power she recalled Sigismund back to Hungary and finally agreed to his and Mary's wedding in 1385... BUT NOT TO THE CORONATION STILL. He left the capital soon after the ceremony (maybe because he was fed up with his mom-in-law, maybe to muster troops to fight off invasion from Naples). Right after he left, king of Naples took both Hungarian capital and Elizabeth and Mary as hostages. Mary abdicated & king of Naples was now crowned also king of Hungary, while Sigismund stayed in Bohemia. BUT THEN queen Elizabeth managed to arrange a successful assassination of the new king and get her daughter back on the throne (and herself back in power as regent). Not for long though, as they were once again captured by a rebellious faction of nobles, who now supported the son and heir of the murdered king Charles of Naples. They also murdered captured queen Elizabeth, but spared Mary. Meanwhile, ANOTHER FACTION of Hungarian nobles, reached out to Sigismund to come back and put the end to all this madness. He did come back with an army and by 1387 had Upper Hungary under control and was crowned king-without Mary present, cause she was still imprisoned by rebels in the south of the kingdom. Sigismund took time getting around to free her and didn't even lead the troops himself, despite the fact that he didn't shy from the battlefield as a rule. Probably he had little love for her left as she went obediently with all of her mother's plots meant to swindle Sigismund out of the crown. This lack of marital love may explain why it took Sigismund and Mary 8 long years since their reunion in 1387 to conceive an heir. Unfortunately, in 1395 heavily pregnant Mary had an accident during a hunt, suffered extensive trauma and her and her prematurely born son died. Which once again put Sigismund's rule in jeopardy, as he technically had no right to rule without Mary by his side. Also, though accounts of the Nicopolis Crusade vary, in general it is believed that Sigismund was the voice of reason throughout this entire endeavor and it was inexperienced & glory-hungry John of Nevers who was the architect of the spectacular failure there. By the time of the crusade Sigismund had quite a decent track as a battle commander, while John never fought a real war. However, since John's daddy-duke of Burgundy-was bankrolling this whole operation, John was put in charge and he was behind all the disastrous tactical decisions during the entire campaign. This makes it even more ironic, that in the end John was named "The Fearless" for his mad, blind, pointless "bravery", while Sigismund is remembered as the coward who fled the battlefield.

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Of course i do not mind. This extra information is very interesting, and does help to frame a lot of the larger events that i covered in the video.

@anjajanus5504

2 жыл бұрын

@@ParryThis Nice to hear that :) I'm not surprised that the game made by Czech studio paints Sigismund as the villain, since as you've pointed out they have little reason to remember him fondly, even though he was Czech by birth. But he could as easily be seen as an Underdog Success Story: second son, who was meant to inherit nothing but managed to collect an impressive amount of titles, lands, crowns & thrones through pure determination, grit and political savvy. IMO, he's one of the most fascinating personalities of the turn of 14th and 15th century.

@johnlewis3891

2 жыл бұрын

"Because, like you've said in those times the concept of king consort was wildly different than the image we currently have based off of examples of Prince Albert or Prince Phillip, and all the power would be in Sigismund's hands from the moment of coronation and Mary would-at best-get to co-sign the documents her husband issued." It's a common myth that female rulers had to surrender power when they married. Although it was traditional for the husbands of female monarchs to be acclaimed co-monarchs, there were female rulers who kept complete power. Mary's cousin, Joanna I of Naples was one of those women. She married four times and only one of her husbands was made king. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_I_of_Naples Her niece, Joanna II, expelled her husband when he usurped her throne. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_II_of_Naples. Even Mary herself is an example. As you mentioned, she married Sigismund in 1385, yet he became king in 1387, which means that Mary ruled alone for two years while being married. So Mary had the option of elevating Sigismund to the status of co-ruler. When it comes to husbands of reigning queens, there were three options available. He could be a prince consort, a king consort, or a king jure uxoris or king by right of wife en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris. A prince consort was the husband of a queen regnant who did not rule and was not given the regal title. A king consort was the husband of the queen regnant who while given the regal title. was not allowed to rule jointly with his wife. David Soslan, husband of Queen Tamar of Georgia, was a king consort. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Soslan A king jure uxoris was different. He was considered aa co-ruler with his wife and many instances, could continue ruling after her death. The interesting fact about Sigismund was that his position went from being a prince consort, in which he was subordinate to his wife, to being a king by right of wife. While Sigismund had himself crowned king, he could not maintain his authority without Mary's support. Legally, Mary had the authority to continue ruling, but she seems to lack the desire to do so after her mother's death. Truth is, while her mother was domineering and ambitious, Mary was sweet-hearted and reserved. She didn't care much for politics, so when her mother was murdered, Mary was content to let Sigismund rule through her. I don't think that it is accurate to say that Mary and Sigismund were unhappily married. In fact the opposite is true. They had a happy marriage. As to why it took so long for her to get pregnant, we must remember that Mary's sister Jadwiga, also took a while to get pregnant.

@anjajanus5504

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnlewis3891 You make a good point about different "levels" of power a queen's husband could have in Middle Ages and I admit the generalization I used was too broad. The issue varied widely depending on the customs of a particular kingdom. The thing is: both in Hungary and in Poland of that period queen ruling in her own right (with or without a husband by her side) wasn't an accepted option. King Louis had to grant substantial privileges to nobles in both countries for them to even agree to Mary and Jadwiga becoming his heirs. And the fact their husbands would be crowned and actually rule was a crucial part of those agreements. The two years Mary was technically king without a husband, she had a regent, so she actually didn't rule. And Hungarian nobles were very adamant that they wouldn't accept Mary as an independent power: some of them demanded coronation of Sigismund, some preferred rule of king Charles of Naples (and succeeded in putting him on the throne for a while)-but ruling queen Joanna style simply wouldn't fly in Hungary. Mary's mother, queen Elizabeth, tried that as queen regent and it caused a rebellion almost immediately. I absolutely agree that Mary comes off as as being personally uninterested in ruling or exerting any kind of political power. There's no historical record of her ever opposing her mother's plans, while Jadwiga at a similar age apparently took an axe to a castle gate when Polish lords meddled into her marriage prospects without seeking her consent first. Mary on the other hand was apparently ok with the fact that past the first year of her and Sigismund's co-rule her signature and seal were no longer required on the official documents-which in practice meant that from this point onward Sigismund was the sole actual ruler. So it's not quite accurate to say that Sig ruled through Mary or needed her support-it is commonly recognized that Mary had virtually no authority as a ruler and neither she nor the nobles seemed to mind. What Sig needed was her presence. And a male heir of her blood. As to the state of Mary and Sigismund's marriage-yes, stating definitely that it was unhappy is a conjecture. So is saying that they were definitely happy. But... using the example of Mary's sister Jadwiga and Jogaila/Wladyslaw as an argument that the long wait for pregnancy had nothing to do with marital happiness is the wrong choice. It's pretty well documented that they didn't have the happiest marriage, they rarely lived under the same roof and even dined separately, which wasn't the custom. I don't know of any sources documenting Sigismund and Mary's private life but if you have some to share I would be very grateful :)

@johnlewis3891

2 жыл бұрын

@@anjajanus5504 "The thing is: both in Hungary and in Poland of that period queen ruling in her own right (with or without a husband by her side) wasn't an accepted option. King Louis had to grant substantial privileges to nobles in both countries for them to even agree to Mary and Jadwiga becoming his heirs. And the fact their husbands would be crowned and actually rule was a crucial part of those agreements." The problem was that neither Hungary or Poland had women monarchs before and that both monarchies were technically elective rather than hereditary, even though the nobles kept "electing" male members of the royal family. So there was no precedent of what to do with a female sovereign. That being said, Mary's supporters upheld her rights and they insisted on her being according full royal power , which is why they had her crowned "king" as opposed to being queen. "The two years Mary was technically king without a husband, she had a regent, so she actually didn't rule. And Hungarian nobles were very adamant that they wouldn't accept Mary as an independent power: some of them demanded coronation of Sigismund, some preferred rule of king Charles of Naples (and succeeded in putting him on the throne for a while)-but ruling queen Joanna style simply wouldn't fly in Hungary. Mary's mother, queen Elizabeth, tried that as queen regent and it caused a rebellion almost immediately." Mary was king without a husband from 1382 to 1385. She married Sigismund in Aug 1385 and yet Sigismund was only crowned king on March 31, 1387. So for one year and four months,(excluding the three months that Charles ruled) Mary was reigning alone even though she was legally married. The fact that it took so long for Sigismund to become king after he married Mary, shows that Mary's supporters were determined to maintain her sole right to rule alone against her husband. Sigismund left the country is disgust because he not allowed to rule, which is part of the reason why Charles III was able to conquer it. Those who supported the claims of Charles, were opposed not only to Mary but to Sigismund as well, and Sigismund continued to fight these nobles for many years after he became king. As for the rebellions, Elizabeth managed to suppress most of the revolts. True Charles managed to take control, but he only ruled for three months. Charles seized power in Dec 1385, and he was deposed and killed in Feb 1386. At this point, the nobles could have recalled Sigismund and demand that Elizabeth allow him to rule. Instead, they restored Mary and Elizabeth to complete power, ruling independently from Sigismund for another year. Things would have continued this way had Elizabeth and Mary not made the mistake of travelling with a small retinue and getting kidnapped in July 1386. It was only then that the nobility recalled Sigismund. But even then, they did not give him the crown, instead they gave him the position It took Sigismund 7 months to finally convince the nobles to grant him the crown and he was crowned on March 31, 1387. The fact that the nobles did not recall Sigismund after Charles' III's murder and the fact that they were reluctant to grant him kingship, only making him her regent at first, shows that they regarded Mary as their rightful monarch and that they were only willing to accept Sigismund as king because of the anarchy that resulted from Mary's captivity. Had Mary not been imprisoned, Sigismund likely would not have become king despite being Mary's husband unless she consented to it. Even after Sigismund was crowned, Mary did not lose sovereign power. She knighted her rescuer Giovanni Barbarigo and granted him 600 gold florins annually from the royal treasury, something she would not legally be to do if she was just a queen consort. The fact that Mary's signature and confirmation was seen as necessary for the first year of their joint reign and not after, shows that she was still considered as a monarch but that because of her lack of interest in governing, people began to appeal to her less and less. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Hungary The contrast of Mary and Jadwiga is an example. Unlike Mary, Jadwiga never reigned alone while married. The Polish nobility proclaimed her husband, Wladyslaw king three days before they were married. Yet Jadwiga was more active in government than her older sister. "Mary had virtually no authority as a ruler and neither she nor the nobles seemed to mind. " It's not that Mary lacked authority, she wasn't really interested in using it. In this way, she's not much different from Mary II of Britain or Empress Zoe of Byzantium. As for Mary's lack of a child. This may be due to fertility issues as Mary, Jadwiga, and their mother had issues getting pregnant. Elizabeth gave birth to her first child after her wedding

There is a course in my Uni next semester about him. Having played Kingdom Come I came here to get some information about him

Nice vid

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much.

His wife Maria and her sister Hedwig had a deal where if you one them died without an heir the other would inhert the crown. Maria died falling from a horse, but Sigismund did not release the crown to Hedwig. Sigismund was an ally of the Teutonic order. We dont remember him fondly in Poland

Vlad the impaler was a hero and a great crusader who protected The Faith and his lands against the infidel butchers and invaders.

@TheRealRealMClovin

Жыл бұрын

To give credits to him even though being brutal, it did work. His reign kept his country secured from Turks a foreign people and enemy to europe. It was really barbaric and tyranical to impale the turks, but as it mention a whole army of turks turned back and did not invade seeing over 10000 turks impaled on spikes on a whole road. And I'am saying this as non romanian person or non eastern european.

@Truthorfib

4 ай бұрын

@@TheRealRealMClovinI mean if I saw that I’d also be like f*ck that I’m going home.

@vincentcorvus3063

Ай бұрын

​@@TheRealRealMClovin I guess? I mean, it did stop the conquest, but the plan was to let Dracula rule Wallachia regardless. The Ottomans left the royal family in charge before and after so long as they paid tax. So, to the Ottomans, not much really changed other than the Wallachians rebelling as they always did. Not to mention the Hungarians betrayed Vlad later on.

@ggoddkkiller1342

13 күн бұрын

@@TheRealRealMClovin You people are so clueless, how many wars do you think Turks had in their history? Literally hundreds including even some against Genghis Khan himself! But they were scared of some impalement tactic, LMAO! In Turkish history he is literally seen as a traitor not an enemy simply because Ottoman raised, educated and trained Vlad for almost a decade and Ottoman plan was always having him to rule Wallachia as an Ottoman vassal. All he had to do was bowing once a year and he would have great autonomy to do whatever he wanted but nope, he wanted to be a hero moronically. He was successful at first not because Turks were scared at all rather because he was trained on Turkish tactics, he knew all playbook of Ottoman and used it against them. Eventually he got captured and impaled as he deserved, the real difference was Ottoman didn't see Balkan nations worthy of their trust afterwards and treated their nobles poorly. So that's his legacy as a barbaric noble..

There was no kingdom called Germany back then. When elected by the seven Prince Electors, the three Prince Archbishop Electors crown him the King of the Romans. Later on, if the Pope agrees to crown that same king, then he would become the Holy Roman Emperor . The Roman Emperor is the protector of The Faith (the Church), the Pope and all of Christendom.

@saxogrammatikus4195

10 ай бұрын

Regnum Teutonicorum was a one official title of the Ottonians you halfwit! If somebody was Roman Emperor after Otto I there were also king of the germans defacto King of Germany.

@solinvictus2045

3 ай бұрын

It was more of a title I think, same with king of Italy

@JayzsMr

2 ай бұрын

offfical title was king of the romans but that would be confusing , hre title depended on the pope and was often at that time only a prestige title .

To be fair, it makes sense that the game would paint him as a bad guy given the perspective the game is from

Is this the same Sigismund from battle of nicopolis

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

This is indeed.

@JayzsMr

2 ай бұрын

yes the guy was everywhere in central europe at that time, king of hungary, germany, croatia, bohemia, italy , elector of brandebourg, holy roman emperor , fought in crusades .

John the XXIII is from the 20th century though

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

This is a different John the XXIII. This one is the Pisan Antipope. He was the Pisan pope from 1410-1415. If you would like to know more about that situation, check out the video i made about the western papal schism.

@ivanprskalo9415

3 жыл бұрын

@@ParryThis I actually read about him while studying for my midterm. It seemed stranged to me so I googled it. Thank you 😇

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

@@ivanprskalo9415 No problem. I got pretty confused when i was making these videos because of the antipopes. Once i got them all straightened out in my head, the whole situation made a lot more sense.

This is a good video, but you made some mistakes. Sigismund did not become king of Hungary in 1382. Mary succeeded her father Louis as the first female monarch of Hungary, and she was elected "king." Her sister, Jadwiga, was elected "king" of Poland. Sigismund wanted to become king, but Mary and Jadwiga's mother, Elizabeth of Bosnia was ruling as regent. She did not get along with Sigismund and did not allow him to assume any real power. In fact, she tried to break up the marriage and give Mary to a French prince, Louis of Anjou. Sigismund had to force Elizabeth to honor the marriage in 1385, but he did not become king yet. Sigismund left Hungary because he was frustrated with Elizabeth and her refusal to grant him the crown. Mary's throne was contested by her cousin King Charles III of Naples, and he seized the throne and imprisoned the two queens in December 1385. Elizabeth staged a coup and had Charles associated in February 13986, thus restoring Mary to her throne. But both queens were kidnaped by the Horvat brothers on the orders of Charles's widow, Queen Margaret. Elizabeth was strangled before her daughter's eyes. Because of the chaos in the kingdom, Sigismund returned to the kingdom. With the help of Venice, Sigismund rescued Mary and he was crowned king. As king, Mary could have asserted her rights, but she was content to let Sigismund rule. When she died in 1395, many nobles were opposed to Sigismund remaining king because he only gained the throne through her and that is why they plotted against him. Mary's sister claimed the throne on her death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Hungary

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting Perspective.

damn i want to play King dom come Deliverance 2 where Sigismund vs Vlad the impaler have war

@unolisez-5803

Жыл бұрын

But when Sigismund died, Vlad the Impaler was 6-7 years old

Realistically, not a lot of people regarded Vlad the Impaler as a brutal and evil person. Impaling was a common practice for punishing thieves and people who… “didn’t share your views” in all of Europe. The reason people think of him as an evil person is because rich Hungarian and German merchants sent letters to the pope in which they said all sorts of horrible things about him, just because he stopped letting them trade in Walachia without paying taxes.

i think in kcd its the perspective of czech people and hussites etc etc, so in that case sigismund prolly seemed like a enemy and bad guy. So its all about perspective

He was the only Hungarian king who became Holy Roman Emperror

The reason Zikmund is viewed negativvely in most of Czechia is sadly nationalism. We are taught very early about how great Charles was and when he died how the "sly fox" Zikmund went against his brother (something painted as moraly wrong, even though very common in most European history and given no thouhgt in other monarchs for example). This narative was painted during a period in my country known as national rebirth. During that period Austria and Hungary were viewed really negatively for their imperialism and when trying to distinguish ourself as independent in culture and history, we painted anything foreign as bad, especially Austiran and Hungarian, thus the negative view of Zikmund that is taught in schools to this very day with no revision done to the materials...

@mihaiserbu8447

2 күн бұрын

Good!!!

historically Markvart gets sniped with a bow

These are nice to listen to while I make 20k per day through deer hunting for Pribyslavitz.

It is pronounced Znojmo. No need to thank me.

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

There may be no need, but i will still do so...Thanks.

I hear Genghis is a hero in Mongolia, point of view stuff. I can only imagine that the low and out country no one seems to care about in popular media have That Guy that everyone knows

@TheRealRealMClovin

Жыл бұрын

not really, but also yes from what I heard from my cousin who went to mongolia as one reason to visit Genghis Khans grave. He found out that some mongolians knows the approximate area of Genghis Khan's tomb. But they never want to search/discover it or dig up his grave for the fortunes or riches he was buried with and is actually illegal to be in the area. As some people in mongolia believe that if the grave is disturbed the world will end or go into a dark age. Which I wouldn't really see as hero or something to praise if they think he would bring the end of the world just disturbing his tomb. But at the same time they do celebrate him as a hero, but maybe out of fear? But also they might just celebrate him as the man who created and united mongolia and not the what he did or the person he was. Because yeah all nations in the world agree that Genghis Khan is probably one of the most evil people in the world, depends how you judge evil. For example if you judge evil by how many people he killed than Genghis Khan is on top as he killed more people than Hitler and Stalin ever did. This is also counting in Hitler and Stalin was during like modern times, with guns, super weapons and other stuff.

as a Romanian i contradict your dracula (Vlad Tepes) statements

Bro, 40k in real life

YEET

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

YOTE

Ive been doing my own research and so much basic information in this is wrong, for one It was Mary of hungary not Maria that he married....

3:09 I think you fail to drive a point here. the order of the dragon = evil

The red fox

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Probably the coolest nickname.

@melkormorgothbauglir.4848

16 күн бұрын

The Ginger bullying never stops.

1st view

@ParryThis

3 жыл бұрын

Congratulations.

imagine if the house of luxemburg would be alive today...

@vine01

Жыл бұрын

they are.. sometimes they try to invoke their inheritance right to some castles in Czechia still..

@TheRealRealMClovin

Жыл бұрын

well they are, just in lost/uknown heirs spread out but yes not the house itself, that died out. But not the relatives.

God save you Henry

So then movie Medieval is not accurate? 🤔🤔🤔

2:52 Why would Vlad the Impaler be considered a bad guy? He saved hungarys ass by fighting against the ottomans.

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. I see him as a local hero for his people. However, for many people, his methods were too brutal. So, many people don't believe that the ends justified the means. I disagree, but it is a commonly held viewpoint.

@thedankboyo2460

Жыл бұрын

Vlad was a man of his time and he was damn good at it

@TheRealRealMClovin

Жыл бұрын

You have to remember many people put modern day views into history, which should never be done as it was a different time. But yes there sure was people who thought Vlad was cruel and probably had something psycological "wrong" in the head with impaling thousands of turks. Remember he is doing this when they are alive. But at the same time to give credits to him as a foreign non Romanian and non eastern european guy. He did succede keeping his country and people safe from a foreign people and great power entering europe. Then also the impaling worked as turks armies turned away home seeing all impaled people.

@melkormorgothbauglir.4848

16 күн бұрын

He impaled people and seemed to take pleasure in it also he did kill a lot Bulgarian peasants when he raided into Ottoman lands.

I get what you are trying to say with the Vlad The Impaler thing however he literally mentored and helped put Vlad’s father on the throne, also named Vlad. I also wouldn’t consider either of them as “bad guys” were they brutal? Sure, but not anymore so than the rest of the world at the time.

Sigismund in the era of the Muslim Ottomans and lost to them

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, he famously lost at the battle of Nicopolis.

Sigismund wasn't as one dimensional portrayed as you describe it. Think you had to find mistakes. The game gives the player clear perspective. At the start the player is obviously nationalistic and with that he is pro his King. But you meet the one or other person, like the German guy in the tavern who sees Sigismund as a saviour. So the different perspectives are in the game. And what you are talking about Vlad the Impaler is bullshittery you are just making up to prove that you are right. Meaning indirectly knew about your bullshittery. You should know that a game can't just have a full overloaded stupid Wiki Artikel. So they picked some interesting facts. Like the order of the dragon. Btw. fighting the hussite doesn't make Sigi a good guy. It's like saying the Catholic Church is raping boys so they won't become gay. It's just a wrong argument in sooo many ways. But anyways...little things in a big picture. 👍

@TheRealRealMClovin

Жыл бұрын

Well its not really bullshittery as it says in the game. But I find his reasoning stretching. They probably added that just as fun fact as Vlad the impaler is freaking more known than Sigismund. There is a reason Dracula even exist in fiction as vampire in first place, ofcourse the devs will take it as a reference xd So people will be like "oh cool" "wow really?". As to remember this game even take place in a country close to neighbouring transylvania and Romania.

Showing modern borders of Hungary. yuck

@ParryThis

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, its not ideal in hind sight.