Since I’m currently stuck in a bad episode of autistic brain zoomies about KCD, I have spent way too much time thinking about the nature of the relationship between Istvan and Toth and why Toth seems so ambivalent about Henry. On one hand, most of the time, he seems to rejoice in taunting and humiliating him whenever possible, on the other, he keeps on comparing similarities with him and even empathizing with him. Since I have recently discovered that the only efficient way of temporarily interrupting the zoomies is getting shit down on paper, I have compiled some thoughts so you too may taste my delicious slop and engage in some shared delulu as is tradition on this blue hellsite. (and also tear me to shreds for completely misunderstanding ur fav character and being shit as structuring my writing).
A question of merit and fairness
First thing that came to mind is the difference in the course of Toth’s and Henry’s life; at a first glance, they have a shared origin, and yet, their fate is very different.
As far as I've understood, Istvan came to nobility from basically nothing; his parents were slaughtered in a war he or they had had no part in starting or fueling, and after that, Istvan was presumably left to fend for his own until he was made nobility by Sigismund for his act of saving the mans life.
Meanwhile, from Istvans perspective, Henry may very well have come into status relatively easily; he loses his village and his family, but is pretty quickly taken in by Radzig and the other nobles (including Hans) and given opportunity to establish and prove himself despite being but a peasant.
A question of culpability
As is well known, both Istvan and Henry suffered devastating loss at the hands of a conflict which they had no part in. But there seems to be a key difference in narrative.
Toth seems to understand Sigismunds' pillaging in Bohemia as a direct consequence of Czech nobles choosing to rebel, rather than cooperate, implying that they "just could have chosen differently". If they didn't want their subjects to be slaughtered, they should have chosen the right side. Simply put, it could be assumed that in Istvans mind, unlike Istvan and his compatriots who were cut down by the Turks due to no fault of their own, the Czech nobles (including Radzig) could have chosen differently for their subjects, but refused to do so for own benefit and are merely making everyone else pay the price. In that perspective, Skalitz would be a victim not of Sigismund or Istvan himself, but of Radzig and other nobles royal to Wenceslas – including Henry by association.
One may also wonder whether Eriks explanation of his parents’ death being justified by their weakness was passed on from Istvan himself, whose way of making meaning of the trauma of his parents’ slaughter was to blame them for – maybe in his eyes - being passive and helpless as opposed to victims of a circumstance far outside of their control.
(also I swear to god Istvan is just jealous that Henry has not one, but two fathers).
Defending a status quo vs accepting the price of change
A critical component in the conflict between Henry and Istvan is their difference in political beliefs.
Toth seems to perceive a serious and ongoing threat from the Turks, and implies that the petty squabbles of Wenceslas’ nobles to preserve their own privileges is distracting Sigismund from a potentially much more catastrophic threat that would involve both Czech and Hungary: a Turkish invasion. According to Toth, this is one of the reasons why he supports Sigismund.
Meanwhile, Henry is opposing Istvan on principles which Istvan may consider naive, ignorant and selfish: supporting a king who is harmful to his country; opposing a change in management that would be beneficial long term, and thus enabling and fueling the conflict which is taking a heavy toll on both sides; killing other cogs in the machine for simply using the necessary means to achieve the right end. Henry may very well by the virtue of being Radzigs bastard be the encapsulation of everything Istvan Toth seems to hate about Wenceslas' reign; lowly nobles with little to no merits being given power by a similarly meritless and incompetent king; a peasant being given responsibility, resources and power he may very well not have matured to handle or even be equipped to bear. Istvan may think that to Radzig, Henry is nothing but an expendable pawn to manipulate and ingratiate for his own cause, while Radzig continues to wipe his own hands off all involvement and responsibility.
A thorn in Istvan’s conscience
I also personally wonder whether part of Istvans animosity towards Henry stems from Henry refusing to validate Istvans belief that violence and cruelty are simply acceptable consequences of conflict; Henry struggles, he falls, but ultimately, seems to abhor indifference about the cruelty of war and strives to perform as righteously as he can. Istvan himself does not appear to be without humanity; his love for Erik as well as the fact he took Erik in seems to suggest that Istvan is capable of experiencing guilt or remorse. As such, Henry may very well be a thorn in Istvans conscience, reminding him that he could have chosen differently or chosen to rectify his path at an earlier point in life. Another point of contention between the two seems to be their perception of their own empowerment; during their final confrontation, Istvan states to Henry that he can't change anything. This seems to be an expression of Istvans personal disempowerment – or refusal to take accountability for his own actions. Meanwhile Henry just doesnt give a fuck and continues opposing what he seems to think is wrong with the world. Finally, being called out for being a treacherous cunt by a fellow war crime victim orphan at every opportunity would probably antagonise and/or trigger most people.
However, depending on how Henry acts canonically, the opposite could also be true; Istvan resenting Henry for being a hypocrite, villainizing Istvan but refusing to look at himself or his compatriots and recognize that he himself has no moral high ground, and on top of that, he is fighting to preserve a status quo which would harm his country and everyone he loves long term, while also depriving himself of any personal gain.
izzy806
origamiaround
gummygunk
prguitarman
annaxmalina
dailybridgerton
titsay
kaledo-art
