louise-p

[louise-p]

My commission artist and I also colored their name illumination, we considered Istvan’s main colors are black and golden yellow, stars represent him as a mentor to Henry; then Henry with dark and scarlet sun implies his uneven future.

To the abyss where you should go

This is the another version of my istenry commission, designed as kind of tarot looking. Please do not use without permission, thank you <3

[louise-p]

To the abyss where you should go

This is the another version of my istenry commission, designed as kind of tarot looking. Please do not use without permission, thank you <3

[louise-p]

Wanna talk more about Henry’s nightmare, and why I designed that commission, in fact, I think nightmare reflects kind of self-hate tendency, he split self-perception into two parts, one is Henry, another obvious is Itsvan. Istvan carries some emotions that he can’t face directly, for instance, coldness, violence, cruel, and self-hate, Henry is afraid of losing ppl the cares about, perhaps he thinks he’s not capable enough, he’s a sensitive man, bears too much feelings that not his responsibility, but he couldn’t be truly cruel to himself, so this is Istvan’s scenario. This istenry is not the real characters for each two ppl, and I think Istvan in reality wouldn’t do such an execution, but because it’s a dream, anything can happen.

[louise-p]

Another nightmare

This is the first commission of this year, thanks for kcd gave me new inspiration, please DO NOT use without permission, thank you :)

[louise-p]

My hunger, my appetite, my revange

[louise-p]

[louise-p]

A dead mercenary’s bride.

[louise-p]

bedtime sketch

he may not be good, but he's definitely a dog

[louise-p]

呵呵呵真是美丽的关系

Sir Knight

[louise-p]

istvan toth: nicopolis, 1396.

now that i've gotten my nicopolis post out of the way, i can finally talk about my next point of interest; what was istvan toth's role in the crusade on nicopolis?

the game gives us only a vague outline: istvan was born in banat, on the borderlands with the ottoman empire, and lost his parents to a turkish raid. orphaned young, he likely grew up shaped by conflict.

later on, istvan was granted noble status and welcomed into court. the most likely context for that is the battle of nicopolis in 1396, where sigismund led a crusader army against the ottomans. but there are no details about what exactly istvan did in the campaign itself besides "saving the king's life".

it is fair to presume that being a hungarian, istvan would've been a part of the hungarian part of sigismund's troops; the central one.

granted that he isn't named as a part of infantry, cavalry, etc we can't accurately assume his position within sigismund's army either, but since he wasn't granted the title of nobleman yet before this battle, we can assume he wasn't in the cavalry. that leaves archers, which are also unlikely as istvan particularly wondered about martin's (henry's) sword and pondered the outcome had he had a sword like that at nicopolis.

that leaves him mostly likely as infantry, simply for the lack of evidence that proves otherwise (and correct me if i'm wrong!). so why would have sigismund granted him the title of nobility for such a disastrous battle, and for such a nobody at that?

my guess(!) is that istvan toth was part of the (hungarian) troops that assisted sigismund's hurried retreat towards danube and perhaps manned a fishing boat that secured his further passage to the venetian ships.

as for the his other role in this crusade; oryahovo massacre?

by the time of KCD2 we are well acquainted with istvan's scheming and disrupting nature.

if istvan had strong personal motivations like trauma, anger towards the ottoman-aligned populations, and a belief that war should punish more than just soldiers, he may have seen the campaign as an opportunity not just for victory but for personal vengeance. if he had already come to see himself as a "pragmatist" shaped by frontier violence, he may have believed that destroying morale and breaking civilian networks was just as important as battlefield success (under his own hidden agenda).

istvan may have already been frustrated with how lenient the campaign had been toward ottoman subjects—such as in vidin, where the garrison was attacked but the civilians were spared. oryahovo might have been his way of correcting that.

after hearing that oryahovo was next in line in their conquest, he might've started planning and scheming between the two settlements. aware that sigismund's plans didn't constitute of careless violent pursuits before reaching nicopolis, it would've been plausible to think that istvan might've had a hand in sowing chaos within the crusader army.

the franco-burgundian knights, still young and reckless, hunting for glory, would've made an easy target as they were already a source of discord within the army. though he likely didn’t speak french, i don't believe that would've prevented him from manipulating them indirectly. soldiers can be easily swayed by rumor, resentment, or fear. and promises of glory...

istvan was methodical, opportunistic, and skilled at working from the margins. i fully believe he would have been able to manipulate the inner working of a branch of their campaign to serve his personal revenge.

and when the crusaders spared the civilians of oryahovo, istvan would've only watched the franco-burgundian knights as they descended upon the ottomans in a sight that was much similar to the one he had witnessed long ago.

[louise-p]

🫣

[louise-p]

battle of nicopolis, 1396.

ever wondered what that notorious battle of nicopolis was within the context of KCD2? well, look no further as i try to summarize it in a (not so) few key paragraphs.

____

the battle of nicopolis was significant because it was one of the last crusades in europe (alongside the battle of varna in 1444). at the time, sigismund, hungarian-croatian king, set his sights on the bulgarian region because he believed that re-establishing christian rule in that region would sufficiently serve as a future buffer to his kingdom against the ottoman expansion. this would mark the first part of his crusade likely towards constantinopole, which was besieged by the sultan bayezid i.

this campagin began by sigismund gathering western european forces, which had arrived all the way from france, spain, burgundy, poland, german states, hungary, croatia, wallachia, venice, genoa and others. (even both of the popes agreed on the necessity of this 'holy war' at the time of the western schism). these armies would later split into two, with venetian and genoan naval forces cutting off bayezid's forces from anatolian supplies at bospor passage.

in the north of bulgaria, sigismund and his troops arrived at vidin, where they were welcomed by the locals even though they were ottoman vassals. the crusaders slaughtered the ottoman garrison at vidin to provoke bayezid, and moved onwards towards nicopolis. sigismund believed that conquering and re-establishing nicopolis, the brief ex capital of the bulgarian region, was vital to establishing order.

on their way to nicopolis, the crusaders would pass through another place—oryahovo. the residents of oryahovo surrendered to sigismund, who had spared the inhabitants, but the franco-burgundian forces decided to disregard this and slaughter the inhabitants of oryahovo. thus, the local ottoman garrison along with the muslim and orthodox populace were slaughtered, much to sigismund's horror and frustration.

sigismund's continental advances along with the naval provocation forced sultan bayezid into action and to recuperate his forces and advance north.

the execution of the prisoners in nicopolis, in retaliation for the earlier oryahovo massacre of the ottoman prisoners by the crusaders.

what followed next was nothing short of a foolish, imature defeat.

there have been many internal clashes within the crusader army, but the franco-burgundian knights, young and overconfident, were perhaps the biggest contributors to this battle's ultimate failure.

sigismund had orchestrated a solid plan of attack with wallachian and bulgarian leaders who already had prior experience with battling ottomans along with sigismund's own experience. however, the french knights, seeking glory, accused sigismund of trying to take all the glory for himself and insisted on placing their own cavalry at the frontlines.

to prevent further inner conflict, sigismund was eventually forced to agree with the new plan of attack.

on the day of the battle, the ottoman army had cleverly set up atop a hill with deadly spikes at the bottom. restless, the french knights set out ahead of sigismund's own forces and began their own attack at the archers atop the spiked hill, lost their horses and were forced into submission by bayezid's forces.

by the time sigismund's reinforcements arrived, the ottomans had cut the french knights off from sigismund, and bayezid launched another attack on sigismund's flank via his serbian vassals, stefan lazarević, cavalry. this was the final push which forced sigismund and all his forces into retreat.

their retreat was messy and hurried, with many drowning in danube in the process. there are several recounts on how sigismund escaped, be it via fishing boat or venetian/genoan ships, but he had managed to escape via river with few of his forces remaining.

sultan bayezid, outraged by the crusaders treatment of the inhabitants of oryahovo, had almost the entire french crusaders executed in retaliation, with a rare few being ransomed for a very high price (such as john of nevers).

this battle was one of the main catalysts for western europe's creation of the image of ottomans according to its own christian standards—the west's subsequent poetic mourning of nicopolis was largely a religious and political tool for reuniting the rapidly dissolving christian ideals of unity.

a large number of chronicles on the threat of ottoman expansion were produced because the west wanted to propose a normative discursive order to legitimize the state building process led by the princes and their officials.

this defeat at nicopolis would go on and echo for decades in the european collective consciousness as it dampened the appetite for future crusades and revealed how fragile and divided christian europe had become in the face of a rising power.

on the other hand, the battle of nicopolis was hardly a footnote in ottoman chronicles, and even then it was written down decades later. the infighting within the ottoman empire and the turkish dynasties, along with the battle for constantinopole were far more important in this period of the ottoman empire and western european battles were barely noted in ottoman chronicles. this, combined with the looming threat of the timurid dynasty would prove as far bigger enemies to the ottoman empire than the dying european crusaders.

you could say that battle of nicopolis was 'business as usual' for the ottomans—and that, perhaps, was the most unsettling part for the defeated.

european chroniclers even recounted this defeat as a moral failing of the christian armies, the lack of faith the main 'insurgent' among crusaders, in the attempt to lessen the victory of the enemy.

___

this is a pretty bare bones explanation of the events, but i wanted to size it down into something more manageable and consumable for the average person on here. i leave some useful sources in my wake, as some people had shown interest in them. i hope you find it useful!

- https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_2013_num_91_4_8474#rbph_0035-0818_2013_num_91_4_T2_0931_0000 (personal favourite)

- https://historyofcroatia.com/2022/03/21/battle-of-nicopolis-1396/

- https://www.historico.blog/post/battle-of-nicopolis

- https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/crusader-disaster-at-nicopolis/

- https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?524449-DISCUSSION-The-forgotten-battles-of-the-DotS-timeline!&p=11077885#post11077885

videos:

- kings and generals: battle of nicopolis part 1,

- part 2 (improved)

___

now, all that's left is inserting istvan toth into this mess. can you imagine? should be fun (:<

[louise-p]

I have two more guests to attend to and I want to get some sleᵉᵖ

[louise-p]

more yuri

[louise-p]

"𝑰𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒅... 𝒚𝒐𝒖'𝒍𝒍 𝒔𝒆𝒆 𝒊 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕"

---------

A quickie color experiment, done on my ipad~

Credit to Resurgere for the background textures

[louise-p]

I’ve rewatched many times of scenes in Trosky, this meme is what I want to summarize their toxic and maniac relationship

[louise-p]

henlo i would love.... to hear your henry/istvan thoughts...... 👉👈 something about them has me in a vicegrip

omg okay YES thank you for giving me the opportunity to ramble about them ♥

I think you can absolutely read the Istvan/Henry relationship in the game as having a sexual undertone, particularly in light of Istvan/Erik being canon.

For Istvan, Henry could be another Erik- if Istvan has a “type,” then Henry fits it exactly. I won't rehash what I said yesterday, but I think Istvan does feel similarly toward Henry as he does Erik: a desire to mentor him, a protectiveness, and an interest in him, despite being enemies. It's why he keeps the sword- he wants Henry to chase him down.

If Istvan canonically feels a mix of fatherly and sexual/romantic love toward Erik, I think you can easily extrapolate he has or could easily develop similar feelings toward Henry. He does smack him on the ass while he's torturing him at Vranik, after all.

Henry, though, is obviously older than Erik was, and not nearly as impressionable. He pushes back a lot harder on Istvan's philosophy. Based on what we see in game, I think Istvan likes that about him. He likes fucking with Henry, he likes the challenge of it. But ultimately, he sees himself in Henry and wants to bring him to his side- he wouldn't waste the time trying to convince him, otherwise.

MEANWHILE. Henry is obsessed with Istvan. In a very 'Istvan-represents-the-ID' way, given the dream sequences. Istvan represents for Henry his worst desires, letting himself be selfish and ruthless and violent. It's perfectly illustrated in the scene at Maleshov where Henry is given the choice to burn down the village or not, with Dry Devil parroting Istvan's "the stronger dog" line.

Add onto this the idea that Henry is starting to realize he's attracted to men around the same time. Istvan and Erik are the only two men in a relationship he's probably ever been aware of. I can see Henry quietly thinking about Istvan and Erik a lot- his own desires, how he's similar to them, how maybe he wishes he could have that.

All together, Istvan represents to Henry this temptation to the dark side- giving into his baser desires, doing what he wants, and tumbling further into the darkness that's weighed on his soul since Skalitz. Istvan is the outstretched hand to Henry, saying "come with me, and become strong" and Henry accepting that path to strength through violence and selfishness. It's tragic, for a Henry that never wants to be hurt like Skalitz again, who is desperate not to allow the people around him to die like that again. It's seductive.