Hyperfixation Jumble And Bad Jokes

Let’s start with Zizka, since he’s pretty much the tentpole from which most of this information can be found. We know extremely little about his early life, other than that he was born Jan of Trocnova, probably in about 1360, and probably lost his eye during childhood, as in his first appearances in the historical record in 1378 (acting as a witness to a wedding, and aquiring a loan,) he is referred to as ‘Žižka’, which means ‘one-eyed’ in Czech. It’s generally accepted he lost his eye roughhousing as a boy, closer to the story Zizka tells to the woman patching him up on our first visit to Suchdol, rather than any protective bastard bodyguards or drunken dry devils. 

There are a couple of reasons for this lack of knowledge; the first being that church books, land registers, and legal records were common casualties of the violence surrounding the Hussite war. The second is intentional censorship from the Catholic Church during the Counter-Reformation, which sought to eradicate traces of early protestant leaders, with ‘whole libraries’ being burnt by Jesuits. It’s entirely possible that Racek, who didn’t live long enough to participate in the Hussite wars, but was nonetheless a supporter of Hus, (and died by aforementioned limb-rending from a violent mob in an act of extreme religious fervour incited by anti-hussite preachers,) and was certainly NO friend of the Catholic Church, who’s properties he confiscated on the orders of the king, got caught up in this censorship too. 

Zizka was born noble, and was a landowner from a fairly early age, as owning land was a requirement for the loan he procured in 1378 when he is believed to have been at least 18. Victor Verney, from whose book ‘Warrior of God; Jan Zizka and the Hussite Revolution’, I’m drawing most of this information about Zizka from, infers that he was the eldest son, and that his father had died in his teens or earlier. This land was small, the soil poor, and unprofitable in a rural economy that still relied primarily on agricultural success. By 1380, Zizka had moved to the court of King Wenceslaus in Prague, and by 1384, he had sold the last of his land - reducing his social standing to that of an unlanded squire, in this context, a knight without a castle or property. Specifics aside, this firmly lodged him in the caste of the lower nobility that Wenceclas was seen to disproportionately favour (but how accurate a criticism that was will be explored more later.) 

Zizka’s next mark in history comes in 1392, when we know he was on the King’s payroll, likely acting as his Huntsman 65 km south of Prague in the royal castle of Orlík. Wenceslaus’ fondness for hunting as an escape from his courtly duties was another criticism frequently levied against him. However, this gave Zizka ample opportunity to meet with the nobles who accompanied Wenceslaus on his hunts. There is evidence this is where he first met Jan Sokol of Lamberg (Future lord of Skalitz after Racek, more on him in a mo) and Verney speculates Zizka and the King, who is recorded as being generally amicable to people of varying social classes, were of similar ages and held similar interests in the hunt, may have had a friendly relationship, which would go some way to explaining his actions in the following years. Pure speculation, but I think it’s entirely possible for Zizka to have also met and potentially befriended another unlanded squire of a similar age and similar physical/martial interests - Racek Kobyla - at this time. 

In 1394, (Or 1395? Sources differ), Wenceslaus was imprisoned by the League of Lords, led by Henry of Rosenberg, with Jobst and Sigismund joining the rebellion. At the same time, Zizka left his fairly cushy position as the King’s Huntsman to join up with a band of guerrilla fighters - ‘initially comprised of noblemen belonging to the parties supporting the King,’ led by a squire called ‘Mathew the Leader’, to wage war against Rosenberg and his properties. Zizka also remained in contact with Sokol of Lamberg during this time, who may have supported their band.

Now that lines up fairly neatly with our tantalising Racek line; 1394 seems to be the start of his bandit era, and his initial reputation as a robber knight working for Prokop of Moravia, who Sokol of Lamberg also worked for, and who supported the king during this rebellion. 

(Verney, ‘Warrior of God,’ p.44-51)

We also have another indication of Racek, Sokol, Zizka, (and Hynek!)’s collaboration in this… admittedly not *incredibly * convincingly written passage from early Czech historiographer Karel Vladislav Zap’s 1882 Czech-Moravian Chronicle, Book Two. 

‘At an unknown time he had already lost one eye, and we have no doubt that in the frequent wars between King Wenceslas and the League of Lords,* as well as in the wars with King Sigismund and the margraves of Moravia, he fought bravely and boldly alongside the famous warriors Sokol, Suchý Cert, Racek Kobyla and others.’ (p.603)

* this is a machine-translated passage; the original text reads ‘panskou jednotou,’ which translates more literally to ‘lordly unity’, but the Czech name for the group we know as the League of Lords, ‘pásnká jednota’ is typically translated as ‘League of Lords’ by modern scholars. 

(Eloise Adde, ‘The League of Lords between Feudalism and the Modern State’, p.217)

Variable spelling here could be the result of Czech language suppression under the Habsburgs, as the first official Czech dictionaries with standardised spelling started being consolidated in the late 1800s, and weren’t published till the early-mid 1900s, with efforts remaining ongoing, especially for Old Czech. All is to say - I’ve made a translation choice here, here’s the thinking behind it. 

Hang on, but what does that actually mean, that he was a robber knight? 

So, it’s a bit complicated. The most archetypical Robber Knight character in KCD is Dry Devil, who is infamous both in the narrative and the historical record for his viciousness. But, as Kingdom Come tells us fairly frequently, the lines between brigands engaging in common banditry, extortion, and looting, mercenaries fighting for whoever pays them, and knights conducting legitimate warfare for a cause, can be extremely thin. It’s somewhat a matter of perspective, and somewhat up to interpretation. 

This period of Bohemian history was one primarily without disciplined, organised, and loyal standing armies. So when ‘fraternal strife’ amongst the Luxembourg dynasty erupted, warfare was primarily conducted using bands of mercenaries, led by knights and squires of the lower nobility. This kind of proxy war was less focused on murdering enemy knights in pitched combat, and more about harming a nobleman’s land, property, and revenue by targeting ‘crops, livestock, castles, and farms.’ (Verney, ‘Warrior of God’ p.49.) 

(Think of that conversation between Brabant and Hans after escaping Maleshov - ‘Destroying enemy assets in an effective tool of war. Wars are not decided only in battles, there are not even many of those… To strike in the rear, to make the enemy lose and bleed… that is how most conflicts are fought.’ - Brabant.)

This further provided opportunities for these lower noble men-at-arms to ease the economic pressures on themselves, (as being an armoured knight on horseback was OBSCENELY expensive,) and earn the favour of powerful patrons who might be able to intervene on their behalf when in trouble, and ultimately be rewarded if their side won out. 

In addition, this was an opportunity for fun and adventure outside of a dreary provincial life for knights who could be ‘cheery psychopaths’ as a result of aggression being trained into them from an extremely early age by playing at war, and whose enjoyment of such play could easily evolve into an enjoyment of real warfare.

(Sean McGlynn, ‘Pueri Sunt Pueri: Machismo, Chivalry, and the Aggressive Pastimes of the Medieval Male Youth’, p.97)

Wenceclaus was freed in the same year he was taken hostage, when Sigismund negotiated a truce, and was named his heir. This is pure supposition, but it seems possible that after Wenceclas was freed, Racek returned to his side, was rewarded for his loyalty with things like Governorship of Skalitz, (At least by 1403, though Wenceclas was captive again by 1402, so it may have been earlier) and potentially the Royal Hetmann position - though it is unclear when he was awarded this position. 

But, we know in 1403 Skalitz was sacked, Racek gets most of his people out before Sigismund can breach the castle and escapes into a storm, leaving behind only an equally stubborn old lady and a pig (adventures of Old Lady and her Pig companion when?) has a quick pit stop in Talmberg, and then crashes with his good pal Hanush of Leipa in Rattay. Where exactly he goes next is unclear, but it may be the case that he joined back up with Mathew the Leader and Zizka - who we know in c.1405 was back in his home region near Trocnov, continuing to wage war on the Rosenbergs, who remained enemies of Prokop of Moravia and were openly hostile to the king. 

Because in 1405, things changed quite dramatically for Wenceslaus’ faction. 

In Prague, Zikmund Huler, a Prague Burgher who was considered one of the king’s ‘milců’, or favourites, (Like Racek), who had been imprisoned with him in Vienna, and previously had served as Royal Chamberlain from 1387-1405, was convicted for fraud in a matter regarding an 8000 kopek debt that Wenceslaus owed, and was beheaded. Even at the time of Huler’s death, there was doubt in the credibility of his conviction, and some believe he simply got caught up in political intrigue. Nevertheless, he covered for the king, and was in turn ‘sacrificed’ by Wenceslaus, who was then in a better position to negotiate with the upper lords who despised Huler. 

(Robert Novotny, ‘Ráj Milců? Nižší šlechta na dvoře Václava IV. [The favourites' paradise? The lower nobility at the court of Wenceslas IV.], p.222)

Furthermore, Prokop died in 1405, and Wenceclas was forced to ally with Jobst and Henry of Rosenberg. This agreement led to the dissolution of the league of lords that same year, but also afforded the league, ‘supervision of the observance of the law in the regions,’ which implies Wenceclas would no longer be able to extend legal protection to Rosenberg’s enemies, and Zizka and his band suddenly found themselves quite firmly on the wrong side of the law.

(Adde, ‘The League of Lords’, p.215)

Here, we see how perception and the shifting tides of politics can affect who we call a robber knight. To stay on topic; Racek may have been part of this band. This would line up with his later reputation as a robber knight, and the line in his codex about how in 1410, ‘he had apparently been a robber knight and soldiers had been dispatched against him as a scourge of the land. Sources are not clear as to why he was later rehabilitated for "services to the king’.

So what were they actually up to against the Rosenbergs?

Here’s a few maps of the region I’ll be discussing in this next section, to provide a bit more clarity as to the goings-on, and how connected it all is. (/...Maybe a possible KCD3 Map? 👀)

(Kügle, Karl, Ingrid Ciulisová, and Václav Žůrek, eds. “[Maps].” In Luxembourg Court Cultures in the Long Fourteenth Century: Performing Empire, Celebrating Kingship, xviii–xxviii. Boydell & Brewer, 2024.)

We know that Hynek the Dry Devil was operating at this time in the region with Sokol; in 1404 Sigismund and Duke Albert IV of Austria besieged Hynek and Sokol at Znojmo, a castle Hynek was the Hetman of, having captured it some years earlier in the Moravian Margrave wars when he was raiding in Austria. Ultimately, the siege lifted due to a combination of prior knowledge of the approaching army allowing for fortification of the town, raids led by Hynek, and an outbreak of dysentery among the enemy troops. After, Hynek continued to raid in Austria with Sokol. 

When Prokop died in 1405, Sokol pivoted to offer his services to Jobst, who directed him and his men to Duke Leopold of Austria, who was engaged in dynastic struggles with his brother Duke Albert IV. The Rosenbergs, as allies of Sigismund and Albert IV, had their lands, located near the Austrian border in southern Bohemia, targeted in this action.

The Rosenberg archives (which I’d love to get my hands on!) kept detailed records on banditry in the region for a twenty-year period starting in 1389. When Rosenberg and his men captured guerrillas, they were tortured for information on their cohort, tried, and then summarily executed. We know that one of Zizka’s brothers (possibly named Jaroslav?), who also fought as a mercenary in this region, was captured and beheaded in Budějovice some time after 1400, with Zizka narrowly escaping the same fate. Mathew, the leader of Zizka’s band, was similarly tortured and executed in Budějovice in 1409. Evidently, Zizka was in a dangerous position. However, in 1409, he would receive what Verney refers to as a ‘deus ex machina’ intervention from Wenceslaus, who wrote two letters to the town of Budějovice directing them to make peace with Zizka. 

Verney speculates that the king was unlikely to intervene on behalf of a squire turned highwayman without some strong personal connection, or else the advocacy of one of Zizka’s powerful friends, such as Sokol. Sokol’s attention seems a particularly likely factor, as months later Zizka was in Poland fighting in the battle of Grunwald as part of Sokol’s troop, perhaps in order to lay low for a while and avoid tensions with the Rosenberg’s that would inevitably arise if he was brought straight to Prague. 

Although his significance in the battle of Grunwald would be later exaggerated, Zizka’s involvement in the victory allowed him to return to Prague and be suitably rewarded by the king, where in 1411 he was serving as a courtier and bodyguard for both the king and queen. 

(Verney, ‘Warrior of God’, 49-63)

Now let's hop back to Racek, as his own rehabilitation from Robber Knight status, and elevation by Wenceslaus, happened around the same time as Zizka’s. Racek was made Burgrave of Vyšehrad in 1410, and started building his castle Vesele, 10 km from Rattay, by 1411 at the latest. 

What exactly Racek was up to in the period between 1403-1410 is extremely hard to pin down. There’s enough, though not extremely compelling, evidence for me to believe he was involved in the Guerrilla action against the Rosenbergs in Southern Bohemia and Northern Austria alongside Zizka, Mathew the leader, Hynek, and Sokol, in the 1390s, and the decade of 1400. It’s plausible he fought in the battle of Grunwald, though I’ve seen no evidence to suggest this, other than his following a similar timeline to Zizka in returning to the King’s open favour. The fact that the letter of permission from Wenceslaus to build his castle, Vesele, that we explored in the last post makes no mention of Grunwald makes me hesitant to assume his involvement. 

Finally, let's talk a bit more about Vysehrad.

In Robert Novotny’s ‘The Favourites' Paradise? The Lower Nobility at the Court of Wenceslas IV,’ he argues against the common conception that Wenceslaus inordinately favoured the lower nobility to his own detriment. In his quantitative analysis of the social background of Wenceslaus’ court, he finds no great discrepancy between the make-up of contemporary medieval courts, and Wenceslaus’. Rather, the high nobility make up the clear majority, and were indeed overrepresented compared to the court of Charles IV. This perception instead comes primarily from his contemporary critics amongst the higher nobility and the church, who exaggerated the oversized shadows cast by a few unpopular but powerful figures such as the bourgeois Zikmund Huler, alongside Wenceclaus’ inability, or disinterest in defending his reputation through having his own court historiography written, that ensured later historians would carry on this negative perception of Wenceclaus’ court as a place of corruption and cronyism, inhabited by flattering favourites. 

Further, for the high nobility, they believed that ‘class quality was equal to political quality,’ and that the lower nobility were fundamentally less capable, and insufficiently qualified, to conduct governmental tasks. 

But this masks something important: that this reliance on the lower nobility might have been Wenceslaus's attempt to gain some independence from the extant political elite and the church that opposed him. Many of Wenceslaus' inner circle were supporters of church reform, and would go on to become prominent Hussite leaders. 

(Novotny, ‘Ráj Milců?’ 216-221.)

And indeed, it was only when the high nobility were most favoured and dominant in the court of King Wenceclas that they decided to rebel. Éloïse Adde encourages us not to see the League of Lords as responding to legitimate grievances and injustices enacted by the king, but rather as political players taking advantage of a weak king to gain back power they had lost during the apparent golden age of King Charles IV’s reign. 

(Adde, ‘The League of Lords’, 226-227.)

In another tantalising passage that points me towards sources I can’t find, Novonty insists -

‘The deceitfulness of blanket statements that negatively assess the role of the lower nobility at the court of Wenceslas IV is demonstrated by the example of the Vyšehrad [vassel]* system. The courtiers working there, whose status was based on the king's favour and his gifts, can be perceived in a similar light to other favourites of the king. By all accounts, their position would have stood and fallen with the monarch. However, with Wenceslas's death, the opposite process occurred than one might expect. It is enough to mention names such as Jan Žižka of Trocnov, Mikuláš of Husi, Jan Roháč of Dubé, Jan Řitka of Bezdědice, Jan of Smiřice, or Bernart of Valečov, [All prominent Hussite leaders/governers] who were royal servants belonging to Vyšehrad and who demonstrated their political abilities only after the monarch's death. And although their later careers were contributed by their proximity to the centre and the network of contacts they had built, it is clear that Wenceslas managed to concentrate the political elite of the lower nobility in his service, and not just ruthless arrivistes.’

* the word Novotny uses here is ‘manské’, for which I believe the most appropriate translation is vassal? If any Czech speakers could weigh in, I’d appreciate that!

So, what is the Vysehrad vassel system? What role did Radzig, as the burgrave of Vysehrad play in the organisation and actions of this group during his tenure? Uh.. I don’t know! Apparently Miloslav Polvika could tell me more on ‘the mission of the Vsyehrad vassal system, in ‘A Contribution to the Problem of Property Differentiation of the Lesser Nobility in the Pre-Hussite Period in Bohemia,’ and Peter Cornej could even tell me more about the ‘The role of the Vyšehrad vassal system as a place of activity for a number of later Hussite figures!’ And doesn’t that sound interesting! (I need like, three pages total but I CANNOT find these texts for the life of me!😫)        

But lets talk about Vysehrad, and the significance of Racek being made Burgrave there. This would have been a much more substantial, and significant posting than his role as Burgrave of Skalitz. 

Firstly, what exactly is a burgrave?

Burgrave is the title afforded to someone who was the ruler of a castle, especially one who ruled on behalf of the crown or the church. They were responsible for administration, jurisdiction, and military concerns. In Bohemia, the title had further significance as the same level of authority as a viceroy - someone who rules a polity in the name of, and representing the king. From the 14th century, the highest-ranking Burgrave was the Burgrave of Prague, operating from Prague Castle, a position occupied at one time by Divish of Talmberg. This position gradually took on significance as the state’s highest ranking official, who acted as the king's deputy. 

Charles IV ranked Vysehrad as only second in importance to Prague Castle amongst the castles in the city, and we can assume that the title of Burgrave of Vysehrad brought with it significant political status and the assumption of proximity to the king.

It was a practically important position too; when the Hussite militia pillaged Vysehrad in 1420, the Burgrave’s house was the only palace structure to survive, which is attributed to its housing the seat of Vyšehrad’s master of provisions.

Now to the place itself - Vysehrad’s history is intertwined with the mythic origins of the Premyslid Dynasty, who made up the first Bohemian Dukes, and later kings. According to legend, it was the location of the first settlement of the city that would later become Prague, Chosen by the legendary Libuse, who married the ploughman Premsyl and started the Premsylid Dynasty. The last Bohemian Premyslid King and male member of the dynasty was Wenceslaus III, who died in 1306, and was succeeded by John of Luxembourg and the Luxembourg Dynasty. John married Elizabeth of Bohemia, and their descendants, including their son Charles IV, and then his sons Wenceslaus IV and Sigismund, retained Premyslid blood. We may also suppose that Charles naming his son and heir ‘Wenceslaus’ was a way to connect Wenceslaus to the Premyslid dynasty, by presenting him as the successor to Wenceclaus III, and following in the legacy of the Premyslid Saint-King Prince Wenceslaus, patron saint of Bohemia.

Vysehrad had fallen into disuse and disrepair before the time of Charles IV, and his mother died there in political exile in 1330. When he ascended the throne, Charles IV focused on Vysehrad as a significant part of the legendary dynastic saga of Bohemian kings; and wrote new articles of coronation that heavily centered Vysehrad. 

On the eve of his coronation, the future king would journey to Vysehrad with the Archbishop of Prague, prelates, princes and nobles. He was met by the Vysehrad canons [as in church official] who would show him the shoes of Premsyl the ploughman, and hang Premsyl’s plough [?] on his shoulders, ‘to remind him of the humble origins of the founder of the Premysl dynasty.’ 

FRANTIŠEK KAŠICKA, BOŘIVOJ NECHVÁTAL, ‘Vyšehrad a Karel IV.’ p.105

Charles also made major renovations to Vysehrad, including fortifications, a defensive wall, a gothic castle, a palace, and other churches and chapels. It was a significant church site, containing the highest concentration of priests of anywhere in Prague. New gates were also built leading into the city, which meant the only major southern approach to Prague was through Vysehrad.

It’s a different position from the Burgrave, but we can convey some of the significance of having a high-ranking role in this court from the status and benefits afforded to the Provost of Vysehrad. Before Charles IV’s considerable changes to Vysehrad, the title was usually awarded to relatives of the royal family and members of the high nobility, and the office functioned as the chancellor of the Czech Kingdom. Further, it ‘constituted a large feudal estate’, including 41 villages, revenues on imported linen, and other church revenues, meaning the annual total income was around 800 kopeks. 

Kasicka and Nechvatal seem to suggest the association with Vysehrad for this title in the pre-Charles era was largely symbolic, as some provosts didn’t live in Vysehrad, but this gives us some indication of the wealth and political importance associated with Vysehrad even before it’s revival, and the growth of the palace and castle complex. 

So, in conclusion, by making Racek Burgrave of Vysehrad, Wenceclaus rewarded a man who had apparently just been deemed a criminal with a high political position, and entrusted him with a site of extreme dynastic and monarchical significance, crucial defensive capacity, a key trade route, major religious significance, and noteworthy personal importance to his father, Charles IV. All is to say; rather a big deal. If Racek had indeed been a robber knight in the years before 1410, he was evidently forgiven rather swiftly, and rather monumentally.

In conclusion;

Racek almost certainly engaged in Geurilla warfare against the Rosenberg's alongside Zizka, Mathew the Leader, Sokol of Lamberg, in service to Prokop of Moravia when the king was captured by the league of lords in 1395.

Racek and Zizka may have met before this conflict, during one of the kings frequent hunts.

It's credible to believe he re-joined this band c.1405, when the King was forced to ally with the Rosenberg's, and was unable to offer Racek legal protections, resulting in him being deemed a robber knight. How accurate a descriptor this was for him is likely a matter of perspective opinion.

He returned to the king's favour in dramatic fashion with his significant appointment as Burgrave of Vysehrad, and the allowance to build a castle, advancing his social status to that of a landed knight.

We still know extremely little about him beyond inferences and informed suppositions. I grow less certain which 'Dvorce' he's from by the day. 🚬🫩

Bibliography

Adde, Eloise. ‘The League of Lords between Feudalism and the Modern State: Diversity of State Models, Political Agency, and Opposition in Late Medieval Bohemia (1394-1405)’. The Hungarian Historical Review 13, no. 2 (2024): 213–34.

FRANTIŠEK KAŠICKA, and BOŘIVOJ NECHVÁTAL. ‘Vyšehrad a Karel IV.’ Centuries Prague, no. 12 (1979): 103–25.

Kugle, Karl, Ingrid Ciulisova, and Vaclav Zurek, eds. ‘[Maps]’. In Luxembourg Court Cultures in the Long Fourteenth Century. Performing Empire, Celebrating Kingship. Boydell & Brewer, 2024. JSTOR. 

McGlynn, Sean. ‘Pueri Sunt Pueri: Machismo, Chivalry, and the Aggressive Pastimes of the Medieval Male Youth’. Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 42, no. 1 (2016): 88–100.

Novotny, Robert. ‘Ráj Milců? Nižší Šlechta Na Dvoře Václava IV. [The Favourites’ Paradise? The Lower Nobility at the Court of Wenceslas IV.]’. Dvory a Rezidence ve Středověku II, Ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá, Praha 2008 (Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica, Supplementum 2), s. 215-229, n.d. Accessed 22 July 2025. 

Verney, Victor. Warrior of God: Jan Zizka and the Hussite Revolution. Frontline books, 2009.