Join The Community
Besides its dazzling open world and quirky questlines, did you know that Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 is celebrated for its historical accuracy? Well of course you know, because that’s all everyone and their great aunt have been talking about for the past few weeks. As a historical RPG set in the year 1403, Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 has no elves, goblins, or dragons – just peasants, knights, and drunken priests.
Despite all this talk, however, a closer look reveals that the game does contain many historical inaccuracies. As in all games, some of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2’s core features must fundamentally differ from real life, such as world size, a lack of bathroom breaks, and the protagonist’s impressive carrying capacity. While it’s only fair to accept these as absolute necessities, at a slightly more ‘surface level’, some features might’ve been more realistic – so why aren’t they? And more importantly, why doesn’t it matter?
Let’s have a look at historical accuracy versus authenticity in Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2. Brace yourself for a lot (and I mean a lot) of nitpicking ahead.
Article continues belowThe power of sauerkraut
Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 review: "Even if some friction can lead to frustration, its realization of medieval life remains utterly absorbing"
Perhaps the most obvious ‘unrealistic’ mechanic in Kingdom Come is Henry’s miraculous health recovery. Got a broken foot? Just sleep it off. Sword in the head? Bandage it. Feeling a bit under the weather? Nothing a nice plate of sauerkraut won’t fix! It would be far more realistic to have the poor lad suffer more, especially for longer periods of time, but then again… Having to limp through the remainder of the game is logistically undesirable, to say the least.
A similar issue can be found in the equipment system. Somehow, Henry can dress himself in plate armor, which a real person would never be able to do. The game could theoretically implement a feature where he needs to ask an NPC for help… But that sounds like a bit of a drag, doesn’t it? In both cases, it seems sensible to pick playability over realism.
But what if playability is not a concern? Some of Kingdom Come’s weapons and armor sets don’t quite match with the year 1403 - hunting swords, for example, weren’t commonly used until the 17th century. Developer Warhorse clearly prioritized fun over realism here, similar to the first game (cue Sir Radzig’s wannabe-pirate loadout), and this is where we steer into dangerous waters.
Historical inaccuracy in the name of being playable is easily forgiven, but when it’s ‘for fun’, the matter becomes more subjective. What looks cool to one player may look silly to another, so whether a deliberate change from history makes the game more fun or not depends on who you ask – a history buff may not love an armor set that had gone out of fashion decades earlier. Still, I’d dare to conclude that Warhorse made the correct decision for most players as the majority will undoubtedly accept a stunning fit as long as it looks medieval enough.
Fact vs. fiction
That said, perhaps it’s wrong to include historical inaccuracies and present them as truth. Take Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2’s timeline, for example; the game opens with the siege of Suchdol, which took place in 1402 instead of 1403. One of the game’s main antagonists, a real historical figure, had already died prior to that year, which means his character is involved in events he never truly witnessed. Later on, we get a quest involving an orange carrot - there were no orange carrots in the Middle Ages. Most notably, however, Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 tells the story of how the legendary general Jan Žižka loses his eye. As funny as the reimagined version is, the general scientific consensus is that the real-life Žižka lost the eye in his childhood or early adolescence – well before the year 1403.
These are mere details, but they beg the question: is it okay to present fiction as fact? From an educational viewpoint, I’d say the answer is an easy ‘yes’: in part because Kingdom Come isn’t a history lesson, but also because the educational value of such choices outweigh the downsides.
Had the siege of Suchdol not been shown in the wrong year, we wouldn’t have known about it at all. Had we not witnessed Jan Žižka’s eye troubles in some pretty memorable scenes, we’d hardly remember him. I don’t mean to offend your old history teacher, but by including historical facts and tweaking them to fit the game, Warhorse is honestly doing more for our education than many a schoolbook has done.
All about authenticity
Despite the many mitigating circumstances, I still felt confused about Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2’s unrealistic side. If the game is less historically accurate than we thought, why does it feel so realistic? And then it dawned on me: when celebrating its accuracy, we’re really applauding Kingdom Come’s authenticity. The landscape, greater narrative, and architecture are mostly spot-on, so the details don’t always have to be. Weapons and armor aren’t always exactly right, but they have to be right enough, so that we may look at it and think “yup, that’s medieval all right”. For me, the only noticeable inaccuracy that broke the medieval immersion for a second was the orange carrot - not bad for such a lengthy game!
A good example of an improvement in authenticity compared to the first game is the crime system: where a murderous, rampaging Henry could easily pay off the guards before, he’s now caned, branded, or even executed for his heinous deeds. The response to crime may not be exactly the same as in the real Middle Ages, but we expect it to be harsh – now that it is harsh, it feels authentic. In a similar fashion, Warhorse has chosen not to make Henry impaired for life, but the player still needs to make some effort to fix him up, so again, it feels authentic. Historical authenticity, more than historical accuracy, is the true brilliance of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2.
Does this mean that Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 does everything right? Well… Almost. There’s one part of the game that begs for improvement, but it seems due to development limitations rather than the result of a deliberate choice: the lack of diversity in NPCs. Kingdom Come is inhabited by adults only, who miraculously lack diseases, scars, and malnourishment. Some authenticity is lost here; while medieval people took good care of their teeth, they most certainly didn’t have an orthodontist to bless them with Hollywood smiles.
That said, the fact that I hardly noticed this is a testament to Kingdom Come’s excellent historical authenticity in all other aspects of the game. If Warhorse sprinkled some kids through Kuttenberg next time, Henry’s world wouldn't magically become a time machine - but it would certainly feel like one.
