# The Hussite Wars/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V
It is impossible to overrate the influence of the sudden death of Žižka on the course of the events of the Hussite war. At no other moment had the Hussites been so strong and so united. At that moment only it was perhaps possible to establish in Bohemia a national Church and a national kingdom under a Slavic dynasty. After Žižka’s death Prince Korybutovič assumed the command of the whole army, and after having rejoined Bořek of Miletinek obtained considerable successes, forcing the Austrians to evacuate almost the whole of Moravia. The Hussite armies, however, soon returned to Bohemia. It appears from the scanty records which we have that the plan of campaign was not methodically carried out and that discord soon again broke out among the Utraquist parties. Korybutovič, who, while under Žižka’s influence, had acted strictly in accordance with him, now entered into direct negotiations with the Roman see. Though it appears that he always considered the acceptation of the articles of Prague as an absolute condition of an agreement, yet the more fanatical Táborites viewed these negotiations with suspicion. That party was also now, at least for a time, divided against itself. Only the more extreme levellers, who had often opposed Žižka, continued to adopt the name of Táborites. The moderate Táborites, among whom had been Žižka’s intimate friends, considered that Sigismund had, through his treachery, forfeited his right to the Bohemian throne, but they were not on principle opposed to monarchy; as regards matters of religion they limited their demands to the recognition of the articles of Prague. These men now adopted the name of “Orphans,” thus indicating that they considered no man ​worthy to replace their lost leader. As in all the religious difference of this period, questions of ritual here also played a great part. The Orphans, like Žižka himself, did not approve of all the innovations introduced by the clergy of Tábor. The priests of the Orphans celebrated the holy mass according to the ancient rules and wore vestments. It is certain that with regard to other matters also their views were nearer to those of the Praguers than to those of the Táborites.
As had become customary during the Hussite wars, the partly religious, partly political differences were now again discussed at one of those meetings which were so frequent and generally almost resultless. As has already been mentioned, immediately before Žižka’s death all the Utraquist parties had agreed henceforth to act in common, and they had concluded an armistice with the lords “sub una.” The alliance between Prague and Tábor had placed the nobles who upheld King Sigismund in a very difficult position, and even their religious and dynastic zeal did not prevent them from making certain concessions for the purpose of preserving their estates. It was settled that the Praguers and Táborites should first meet at Beroun and the lords “sub una” at Žebrák, and that after these preliminary conferences the members of all parties should meet together at Zdíc. The joint conferences at Zdíc began early in October, and were afterwards continued at Kouřim. Here also no permanent results were obtained. The members of the conference limited themselves to the expression of a general wish that peace should be restored in Bohemia, and to a protest against the false accusation of heresy which had been brought against the Bohemians. ​This was a point on which the Hussites of all parties laid great stress. It was also decided to prolong the truce with the nobles of Sigismund’s party, who again promised to permit Communion in both kinds on their estates. The terms of the agreement referred only to the Bohemians, and the Utraquists were thus able to continue their warfare against Sigismund and his son-in-law without fear of intervention on the part of their internal opponents. The lords of the Roman party even agreed to allow their men-at-arms to enlist in the Utraquist armies during the time of the armistice. In contradiction to what occurred on similar occasions, no attempt was now made to establish a provisional government or elect regents. The Praguers, the Utraquist nobility and some of the moderate Táborites considered Prince Korybutovič as regent, and may have hoped that he would eventually be recognised by the Roman party also. The assemblies of Zdíc and Kouřim are notable also for the then exceptional circumstance that no theological disputations took place. The lords “sub una," who were constant, though not very selfsacrificing, adherents of King Sigismund, perhaps adopted his theory according to which laymen had no right to judge questions of ecclesiastical dogma and ritual.
It would, however, have been impossible to restrain even for a time the intense theological combativeness of the Bohemians of that age, which was equalled only in the Constantinople of the Eastern Empire and, perhaps, in the England and Scotland of the Commonwealth. It had, therefore, been settled, probably at the Treaty of Libeň, that representatives of the Utraquist or Calixtine Church should meet some of the priests of Tábor at the same time as that on which the conferences at Zdíc took place. It was hoped that the disputations begun at Konopišt would here be continued and satisfactorily ended. The meeting between the clergy of the town and university of Prague and the Táborite divines took place at the Hradčany castle of Prague on October 16, 1424. It is sufficient to state ​that here, as at Konopišt, the divines found it impossible to agree. The division between the two great Hussite parties continued as before. According to the custom of the time the theologians of the university formulated their views in a certain number of “articles”; they referred principally to the seven sacraments, the ritual of the mass, purgatory, and the invocation of the saints. The leader of the Hussite High Church, Master John of Přibram, to whose authority the articles were probably largely due, took a prominent part in the discussion which followed. He appears to have spoken with some violence. Nicholas of Pelhřimov, one of the representatives of Tábor, who, in his “Chronicon Taboritarum,” has left us the only detailed account of the conference, but who, of course, cannot be considered as an impartial witness, attributes the failure of the negotiations entirely to Přibram. Both parties, however, in view of the evermenacing attitude of Germany and Austria, were reluctant to accept the responsibility for a complete rupture between the Hussite parties. The assembly, therefore, before separating agreed to hold another meeting at Prague, which was to take place in the university college. This meeting was also resultless. The author of the “Chronicon Taboritarum,” who, it must be remembered, was a vehement partisan of Tábor, again attributes the failure to John of Přibram. The latter divine, he writes, stated that it was from the ranks of the Táborites that had sprung the agitators who discredited the Hussite movement. It must be admitted that Přibram’s assertion was not entirely devoid of truth. One of the other ever-recurring questions of theological controversy was then discussed. The Táborite ​clergyman, Marcold, declared that the Sacraments, when dispensed by an unworthy priest, were invalid. Marcold quoted many passages from Scripture and finally maintained that it was better for the Church to have no priests than unworthy ones. The disputation thus ended, both parties continuing to hold their former views.
The great historian Palacký has noted with his usual penetration that if the continuous internal strife in Bohemia—which sometimes took the form of actual civil war, sometimes that of lengthy and animated theological disputations—did not prove more disastrous to the country than was actually the case, this was the result of the reluctance of the German princes to act jointly against Bohemia. King Sigismund had invited the German princes and free imperial cities to a diet which was to have met at Vienna on September 29, 1424, but was afterwards postponed to November 25. The German princes, however, complained of the remoteness of Vienna and declared that the journey was a dangerous one. It appears that the fear of the Hussites, which afterwards became so great, here already manifested itself. Sigismund expressed great indignation at the attitude of the German princes, and even accused them of secret sympathy with the heretics. He thus brought against them the same accusation which they had levelled at him during the siege of Prague. It was only after the great defeat of the Germans at Ústi (Aussig) that they seriously began to plan a new crusade against Bohemia. One of the consequences of the failure of the attempts to organise a new crusade was the recall of Cardinal Branda by the papal see. Though he had been very active, he was thought not to ​have shown the skill which at that period usually distinguished papal envoys.
It has already been mentioned that the Táborites, after the death of their great leader, divided into two parties, one of which continued to bear the name of Táborites, while those belonging to the other called themselves the Orphans. In consequence of this scission the two parties chose different leaders. Hvězda of Vicemilic became the first commander of the Táborites, while Kuneš of Bělovic; who belonged to the Orebite community, led the Orphans, whose strength was mainly in the north-eastern district, of which Králové Hradec is the centre. That religious differences largely contributed to this scission has already been stated. The contemporary chroniclers, however, also tell us that the division among the two parties of the many cities which had acknowledged Žižka’s supremacy led to considerable troubles. These dissensions appear to have been temporary and not of great importance. On the other hand desultory warfare between the united Táborites and Orphans and the Praguers continued almost uninterruptedly during the greater part of the year 1425. On this occasion; as on previous ones, the Táborites took up arms because they suspected Korybutovič and the men of Prague of negotiating secretly with the Pope. In September 1425 the Táborites besieged the castle of Vožic; which, though situated very near the town of Tábor, was still in the hands of Sigismund’s partisans. The garrison; commanded by Materna of Ronov, defended itself bravely, even after the forces of the Orphans, under Kuneš of Bělovic, had joined the Táborites. The Utraquists here seem, according to the account of a contemporary chronicler, to have made considerable use ​of their artillery; and to have subjected Vožic to a regular bombardment. The united forces of the Táborites and Orphans appear to have been so considerable that they were able to detach a force under Bohuslav of Schwamberg in the direction of Prague. The little army arrived at Vršovice, then a village close to the capital of which it has now become a suburb. The Táborites were here met by representatives of the municipality of Prague, who wished to enter into negotiations. The pourparler was afterwards continued in the camp before Vožic, to which the Praguers sent their envoys. A treaty or armistice was here concluded, under conditions very similar to those of other truces that have been previously mentioned. It was decided to elect twenty men from all the different Utraquist parties, who were to act as judges in all moot cases of doctrine and ritual and to whose decision all were to conform. The document containing this agreement has not been preserved, but we are justified in conjecturing that a cessation of all hostilities between Utraquists was decreed, and that reciprocal forbearance and tolerance with regard to minor questions of ritual were enjoined. Experience having proved by now that the Hussites could only remain united when confronted by a foreign foe, it was probably also decided here to march again into Moravia, where Archduke Albert of Austria had just defeated the Utraquist party. The garrison of Vožic now, despairing of all hope of relief, capitulated immediately after the signature of the treaty. Towards the end of the siege the Táborite leader, Hvězda of Vicemilic, was killed by an arrow-shot. Bohuslav of Schwamberg, who had commanded the forces that had marched on Prague, succeeded him as commander of the Táborite army.
​The united Hussite forces marched to Moravia immediately after the treaty of Vožic. They first undertook to relieve the city of Třebice, which was then besieged by King Sigismund and his son-in-law. On the news of the approach of the Hussites Sigismund, cautious as usual, retired from the camp before Třebice and was contented with burning down many villages belonging to Utraquist nobles in the vicinity of Brno. Somewhat later Sigismund’s son-in-law, Albert of Austria, also retired in the direction of Hungary. Not heeding these enemies on their flank the Bohemians, under Prince Korybutovič and Bohuslav of Schwamberg, after occupying the city of Znoymo, crossed the Austrian frontier. The warfare in this borderland had a distinctly racial character. The inveterate antipathy between the Austrian and the Bohemian, which still exists, already prevailed in those remote days. The attack on Austria is noteworthy, as being one of the earliest instances of the system of offensive warfare which the Bohemians adopted during the last part of the Hussite wars. The Bohemians besieged the town and castle of Retz in Lower Austria. The city was obstinately defended by the Austrians, under John of Hardegg, Count of Retz, who, though of great age, displayed youthful energy, as the contemporary chroniclers tell us. The Hussite losses were very considerable, and Bohuslav of Schwamberg received a severe wound, in consequence of which he died shortly afterwards. The city at last capitulated on November 25. The Count of Retz was treated with the comparative leniency which usually distinguished the Utraquists from their Romanist antagonists. He was conducted to Prague, where he remained in honourable captivity. Many of the Austrian soldiers were, however, killed by the Hussites, who were exasperated by the loss of their leader, Bohuslav of Schwamberg. We have unfortunately but very scant information with regard to this important campaign. ​After this success the Bohemians returned to their country, where they remained during the winter.
As successor of Bohuslav of Schwamberg the Táborites chose the priest Prokop, surnamed “the Great,” who became the protagonist in the later part of the Hussite wars almost to as great an extent as Žižka had been during the earlier period. If even as regards Žižka the energy of the Bohemian scholars of the last and the present generation has not entirely succeeded in elucidating many moot points, the events of the life of Prokop were up to recently quite obscure. Recent research, however, shows it to be nearly certain that Prokop was the son of a merchant of Prague, named Andrew, who probably died during Prokop’s infancy. Andrew’s wife, Anna, was the sister of a man of knightly birth, who is mentioned in contemporary documents as “Jan de Aquis” or “John Voda.” He appears to have owned the estate of Čelakovice, as we sometimes find him—according to the Bohemian custom of that period—described as Johannes de Čelakovice. John’s sister Anna was probably the mother of Prokop, and after the early death of his father he was brought up under the direction of his uncle, John de Aquis. In his youth Prokop accompanied his uncle on extensive travels through France, Spain, and Italy, and even visited Jerusalem. On his return from these travels he took Orders; the Polish historian Dlugoš calls him “apostata ordinis Minorum,” and we have evidence rendering it at least probable that he spent some time in a Minorite monastery at Králové Hradec. It is conjectured that Prokop was born between 1370 and 1379, but it is only after the year 1419 that ​we have any reliable information concerning him. He was then one of that group of priests which included John of Zělivo, Venceslas Koranda, Marcold, and others, who most strenuously opposed the High Church Hussitism of the university of Prague. He was, however, by no means a visionary or a fanatic, as were some of these men, and it was principally his teaching with regard to the Sacrament and to the questions of ritual which rendered him obnoxious to the masters of the university. Both Dlugoš and Æneas Sylvius, contemporary writers, state that great friendship united Žižka and Prokop. We have now no contemporary Bohemian records vouching for this, but as most Bohemian historical documents, particularly those referring to the Hussite period, were destroyed after the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, Dr. Neubauer’s conjecture that the writers mentioned above derived their information from some now unknown source appears very plausible. The writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries generally described Prokop as the immediate successor of Žižka. The study of the contemporary chroniclers who have now become accessible proves that this is untrue, as has already been mentioned. It is not easy to ascertain the exact position which Prokop at first occupied in the Hussite armies. From the beginning of the war Hussite priests—as has been noted in the case of John of Zělivo—accompanied the national armies. If we consider the intense religious fervour of the Utraquists, it is not surprising to read that during their campaigns their priests not only preached, but also celebrated mass in a wagon specially fitted out for that purpose, which constituted what may be called a moveable chapel. In consequence of the state of intense religious excitement which then prevailed in Bohemia these army ​chaplains soon obtained great influence. When this office was held by a man of great political insight and military talent such as was Prokop, he soon and surely obtained what was practically, though not theoretically, the rank of commander-in-chief. Some of the many disputations among the Utraquist priesthood had dealt with the question whether a priest could take an active part in warfare. Prokop, according to the most reliable accounts, took no active part in the battles at which he was present, differing in this respect from Žižka and all the generals of the period with the exception of King Sigismund. It is only on the day of the battle of Lipany, the last day of his life, that we find Prokop joining in the battle. He seems to have realised the difficulty of this ambiguous position, and the credentials which he took with him to Basel describe him as “Procopius exercitum Taboritarum in Spiritualibus rector.”
The successes of the national armies at this period induced many Bohemian nobles to rejoin the Utraquist Church. Among them was Čeněk of Wartenberg, who now again received Communion in both kinds and recognised Prince Korybutovič as Regent. This was to be the last transition of the great waverer; he died shortly afterwards in the autumn of 1425. One of the motives which also induced many nobles to rejoin the Hussite ranks was the fact that Prince Korybutovič, as far as circumstances permitted, adopted a conservative policy. Thus it was through his influence that in the new and old towns of Prague, which had been united on the advice of the fanatical priest John of Zělivo, separate municipalities were again established. It was hoped that the more conservative old town would counterbalance the power of the new town, in whose counsels fanatics and demagogues played a considerable part. It appears certain that during the short rule of Korybutovič comparative order and tranquillity prevailed in Prague. Though the Lithuanian prince, as has already been noted, always remained firmly faithful to the articles of Prague, ​he certainly favoured the more moderate party among the theologians of the university. This circumstance, as well as the fact that the nobles, whom they hated with the blind hatred of the leveller, now rejoined the Utraquist in great numbers, soon caused suspicion among the extreme Táborites. It seemed probable that new internal dissensions would break out in Bohemia, when the news that the Germans were again planning an invasion of their country caused all Utraquists to unite.
The papal see had replaced Cardinal Branda, whose recall has already been mentioned, by Cardinal Giordano Orsini. The new papal legate in Germany of course maintained the theory—which prevailed up to the convocation of the Council of Basel—according to which laymen could under no condition discuss laws laid down by the Church of Rome. He was really in this view entirely in accordance with King Sigismund, though this has escaped most writers on this period. If Sigismund and the lords “sub una” constantly entered into negotiations with the moderate party among the Hussites, their purpose was to cause these men to be suspected by the Táborites, and thus produce disunion in the ranks of the national party. In the summer of the year 1426 the new papal legate wrote to King Sigismund from Nürnberg, where the imperial diet had assembled: “I think the opportunity” (for attacking Bohemia) “is good; all here are willing, and necessity demands an immediate attack. All the princes are ready for the campaign; nothing now remains but to carry out the design.” This, however, proved difficult, and the cardinal, who had just arrived from Italy, was obviously unaware of the political situation in Germany. King Sigismund had intended to preside at the diet of Nürnberg, and had actually started from Hungary on his way to Germany. He, however, as early as in May 1426, informed the princes ​and free cities of Germany that the state of his health prevented his continuing his journey. Largely in consequence of the absence of Sigismund the results of the diet at Nürnberg were very slight. The ecclesiastical princes were naturally present at the diet in great numbers. We read that among those present were the Archbishops of Maintz and Trier, numerous bishops, Duke Frederick of Saxony, the Margrave of Meissen, and representatives of many free imperial cities. All present seem to have used the absence of King Sigismund as a pretext for limiting their armaments against the Hussites. The imperial cities declared that the forces they were asked to supply were proportionately greater than those which the other states had promised to provide. This caused much controversy and long discussions. The German dukes and princes, occupied with intestine feuds, also mostly proved very unwilling to take part in a new invasion of Bohemia. War had broken out between the Duke of Holstein and the King of Denmark. That sovereign, therefore, refused to take part in the expedition, though the German princes appealed to him for aid. Almost at the same time a feud had begun between Duke Bernhard I of Brunswick and the Archbishop of Bremen. In Bavaria civil war had broken out between the princes of the house of Wittelsbach. The feeling in Germany, except in such lands as Saxony and Austria, which bordered on Bohemia, was, therefore, strongly in favour of non-intervention. Somewhat later, however, the news of the great victory which the Bohemians obtained at Ústi on June 16, 1426, somewhat impressed the Germans. Now believing their country to be really menaced, they in the following year attempted a new crusade.
It has already been mentioned that after their victorious campaign in Moravia and Austria the Bohemians returned to ​their country in the autumn of 1425. Hostilities entirely ceased during the winter, but in the following spring the Bohemians were obliged to defend their frontiers against foreign enemies. The Bohemian city of Ústi nad Labem (Aussig an der Elbe) had, by King Sigismund, been pledged to Duke Frederick of Saxony. It is probable that the ever-impecunious King had thus obtained a loan, and it was certainly not displeasing to him that an important city situated on the banks of the Elbe should by a foreign occupation be secured against the Hussites. The Bohemians, equally aware of the importance of the town, began to besiege it in the spring of 1426. This caused great apprehension in Germany and particularly in Saxony. Duke Frederick was at that moment taking part in the deliberations of the diet of Nürnberg, but his energetic wife, the Duchess Catherine, succeeded in assembling in a very short time a large army that was to march to the aid of the menaced city. Catherine accompanied the German soldiers to the foot of the mountains which separate Bohemia from Saxony, and there took leave of them “with many tears.” As soon as the report of the new invasion reached Prague the Bohemians—for once united—determined to march on Ústi with all the forces they could raise. The forces of the Praguers and of the Utraquist nobles, under Prince Korybutovič, marched immediately in the direction of Ústi, while Prokop’s army of Táborites, probably to avoid the difficulty of victualling, marched by a less direct route, and on its way captured several towns that were held by the partisans of Sigismund. As soon as the national forces had united, an attack was made on Ústi on June 6, but was repulsed by the Germans. Prokop the Great with the tacit assent of all the troops, now assumed supreme command. Following the tactics of Žižka he placed his army on the slopes of a hill named Běhani, between the villages of Předlic and Hrbovic. He ordered his soldiers to await the attack of the enemies here under the shelter of the wagon-forts. The Hussites here, as ​on almost all occasions, were opposed to vastly superior forces. The united Bohemian army, according to the most trustworthy sources, comprised only 25,000 men, while the German forces, commanded by Boso of Vitzthum, numbered 70,000 men. The Bohemians had, however, the advantage of better discipline. As was usually the case with them all dissensions among them ceased at the moment when they faced “the enemies of God and of the Bohemian nation.” A contemporary chronicler writes: “As soon as the Germans arrived at Ústi, the Bohemians sent a gracious letter to them, saying: ‘Should God favour you receive us as prisoners in mercy, and should God help us we will do the same unto you.’ But the Germans answered: ‘This is impossible; for we must, because of the papal ban, kill all, women, old men, girls, children.’ Then the Bohemians decided that they would take no German prisoner, but all prayed to God, remembering their honour and their faith. Then Lord Vaněk Černohorský, a field-captain, said: ‘He who would rightly fight God’s fight must be reconciled with God. Then on Friday, early in the morning, the Bohemians heard a sermon and received the body and blood of God, that they might fight bravely for the law. Prince Sigismund (Korybutovič) also did this; with tears he prayed to God and exhorted the soldiers to fight bravely.”
The Bohemians expected to be attacked on Friday, June 14, but no fighting took place on that day, and on the 15th only slight skirmishing began. The following day—the 16th—being Sunday the pious Bohemians hoped that no battle would take place on that day, but the Germans, sure of victory, ​admitted no further delay, fearing that their enemies might escape them. The Germans bravely scaled the hill, on which the Bohemians awaited their attack. Their wagons were connected by chains, and a considerable number of guns which had been placed at short intervals immediately opened fire on the advancing Germans. Behind the guns some of the soldiers were placed, partly protected by large shields, whose pointed lower ends had been driven into the ground. In spite of the incessant fire of the guns and muskets of the Bohemians the Germans continued to advance, and reached the Bohemian encampment, though the great loss of life and the fatigue of the ascent had already weakened them. When the Germans, almost blinded by the smoke caused by the primitive firearms of those days, halted for a moment, the Bohemians, faithful to the teaching of their dead leader Žižka, immediately assumed the offensive. First the Táborites, then the Orphans, then the Utraquist nobles under Prince Korybutovič, then the Praguers and the townsmen allied with them, closed with the enemies. Employing a stratagem that was frequently used during the Hussites wars the Bohemians raised the cry, “The Germans fly, they fly!” Some of the German captains then turned their backs on the enemies, exclaiming that everything was lost. The mass of the infantry, hearing this, fled in great disorder, and many were killed while descending the hill. The slaughter was so great that, as we read, the stream that flows from the hill in the direction of Ústi and the fish-pond into which it falls were on that day coloured blood-red. The pond up to the present day bears the name of “Blut Teich” (the pond of blood). As is so frequently the case when an army has been unexpectedly and signally defeated, rumours of treachery were immediately rife. The German nobles who had ​taken part in the campaign were by the traditions of their caste prevented from joining in a disgraceful rout, which began long before the result of the battle was certain. Deserted by their followers, they for a time attempted a hopeless resistance. They were soon forced to surrender, in consequence of the bravery of the Bohemians, upon which the chroniclers lay great stress on this occasion. Prince Korybutovič and his standard-bearer, the knight Vacha of Rican, fought in the front rank, and the other nobles gathered around the standard. Krušina of Lichtenburg and Victorin of Poděbrad are mentioned by the chroniclers as the bravest of the Utraquist nobles. The German nobles were obliged to surrender, and hoped to find greater mercy on the part of men of their own rank than on that of the ferocious Táborites. In the village of Hrbovic twenty-four counts of the empire and nobles of lower rank dismounted, struck their swords into the soil and kneeling begged for mercy. This was, however, impossible, as the Germans had previously declared with foolish arrogance that they would spare no heretic. The German lords were thus all mercilessly cut down. Lord Jakoubec of Bilina attempted to save the life of the German lord of Wolkenstein. He ordered him as his prisoner to mount on his horse behind him; the merciless Táborites, however, did not permit this. They fired at Wolkenstein from the back, and he dropped down dead from the horse; when falling he nearly dragged down Lord Jakoubec with him. This incident is interesting as showing more clearly than had been previously the case that disunion between the aristocratic and the democratic Utraquists was constantly increasing. This disunion culminated in the battle of Lipany and the subsequent downfall of Utraquism, for which the democratic party was as largely responsible as the aristocratic one. The clever tactics of the Hussites had left but one way of retreat open to the flying Germans; it lay through the village of Chabořice, and led to the mountains which form the frontier between Bohemia and ​Saxony. Along this road the pursuit continued relentlessly, and the loss of life was even greater than during the battle. The Utraquists, however, always more humane than their antagonists, now became more merciful. A considerable number of Germans were taken prisoners and conveyed to Lipa and to Mladá Boleslav. Though the figures vary greatly, it is certain that the battle of Ústi was the most sanguinary one of the Hussite wars. The Germans, according to the writers, who minimised their losses, lost 15,000 men. Other chroniclers state that 50,000 Germans were either killed or made prisoners. We are told that numerous members of the greatest families of the German nobility perished here. They had, as previously mentioned, continued to fight when the infantry had already fled. The Bohemian losses were very slight, though it is impossible to believe that they amounted to only thirty men, as the contemporary chroniclers write. The only man of importance whose death they record is the Utraquist knight Bradatý, who, since the beginning of the war, had been one of the bravest defenders of the chalice. The contemporary ballad to which I have already referred concludes its account of the battle with these words:
“Now, all ye true Christians, Lords, knights, Praguers and citizens, Follow the faith of your ancestors, Show that you sprang from their blood. Cling to God’s truth; Thus will you obtain praise from God, Thus will your race be blessed by God, Unto eternal life through all times.”
The first and inevitable result of the battle of Ústi was the capture of the town of that name. The German garrison ​attempted to leave the city immediately after the defeat and to join their flying comrades; but the Bohemians at the same moment entered the town walls, and burnt down the city so completely that, as we are told, the site remained entirely uninhabited for more than three years.
It may have been noticed that very little mention is made of Prokop in the accounts of the great victory of Ústi. This is no doubt largely due to the fact that the contemporary chroniclers delighted in recording the brave deeds of arms of the Utraquist lords and of Prince Korybutovič and his Polish followers. Prokop’s reluctance to appear as a warrior and his wish to accentuate his priestly office may also be one of the reasons why his name is not more prominent in the accounts of the great battle. There is, however, no doubt that the Hussites attributed their great victory mainly to Prokop. It was he who, following Žižka’s example, chose admirably the position which so largely contributed to the success, and Prokop and his Táborites were the first to assume the offensive when the Germans had reached the heights on which the national army was entrenched. Prokop’s military genius was henceforth recognised not only by his Táborite followers, but by the members of all Utraquist parties. As Dr. Neubauer writes: “A new epoch of the Hussite wars begins with the victory of Ústi, the epoch of Prokop; it was the epoch of great victories over the crusaders and of the successful incursions into distant lands.”
After the great victory of Ústi the soundest policy for the Bohemians would have been to assume the offensive and invade the neighbouring German lands. They could, indeed, only hope to secure peace if the Germans also endured the hardships and the horrors of incessant inexorable warfare from which Bohemia had now suffered for six years. The feeling in favour of an invasion of the neighbouring countries naturally became stronger after a course of almost uninterrupted victories. The soldiers, particularly the Táborites, became ​more and more self-confident, and desirous to transfer the seat of war from their own exhausted country to other regions where provisions and rich booty could be obtained. This feeling was, however, much stronger among the Táborites than among the partisans of Prince Korybutovič, who wished to found an orderly government in Bohemia and to establish, if possible, friendly relations with the neighbouring countries.
It is certain that in Germany everyone believed in the danger of an imminent Bohemian invasion. The German townsmen in all parts of the country began to repair and strengthen the city walls, and many towns such as Jena, Halle, and Magdeburg erected new fortifications. Even in the distant regions near the Rhine it was thought necessary to arm against a probable invasion. The apathy of the Germans disappeared, at least for a time. The German princes were unable to ignore this popular movement, and agreed to attempt a new invasion of Bohemia in the following year. Before referring to this new crusade it is necessary to consider the internal state of Bohemia at this moment, and to allude briefly to the domestic troubles which immediately followed the victory of Ústi. Shortly before the battle Victorin of Poděbrad, one of the greatest Utraquist nobles and a personal friend of Žižka, had abandoned the Táborites, joined the moderate Utraquists, and recognised Prince Korybutovič as his sovereign. It is evident that the Utraquist nobles had not the same confidence in Prokop which they had formerly had in Žižka, with whom many of them had been on terms of friendship. Victorin’s step, which he no doubt considered as a defection, infuriated Prokop. He marched with his Táborites on Poděbrad and besieged this principal stronghold of the lords who took their name from it. Poděbrad was strongly fortified, and in one direction protected by the river Elbe. We have here, as so often in the annals of the Hussite wars, little authentic information; but it appears certain that ​the attempt to capture the stronghold failed. The abandonment of the siege may also have been caused by the news that the Archduke Albert of Austria, that inveterate enemy of the Utraquists, had again invaded Moravia. He laid siege to the important Moravian town of Brěclava (in German, Lundenburg), situated close to the Austrian frontier, which had been occupied by the Táborites. Prokop’s victorious army easily defeated the Austrians and forced them to raise the siege.
These incidents of local warfare are of little interest in comparison with the new civic revolution that broke out in Prague about this time. The real plans and intentions of the Lithuanian Prince Korybutovič are one of the many enigmas which we encounter in Bohemian history. Korybutovič has almost always been judged severely, and, indeed, unfairly by Bohemian historians. He has very frequently been accused of treachery to the Bohemians during his second stay in their country. This accusation requires some definition. It is certain that shortly after the victory of Ústi Korybutovič entered into negotiations with Pope Martin V. The pontiff had informed Ladislas King of Poland and the Grand Duke Vitold of Lithuania, both relations of Korybutovič, that “he was willing to grant a hearing to the heretics” if the princes consented to act as mediators. In consequence of this a Polish ambassador started for Rome to open negotiations, and his mission only ended with the subsequent fall of Korybutovič. It is distinctly unfair to describe these negotiations as “an attempt to deliver up Bohemia to the Pope and deprive the people of all the results of their many victories.” It is far more probable that Korybutovič wished to obtain certain concessions from Rome, similar to those afterwards granted ​at the Council of Basel, on which occasion the Bohemian leaders, including Prokop the Great, did not hesitate to negotiate with the Roman Church. It is probable that Korybutovič, a man brought up in Lithuania, where the majority of the population belonged to the Eastern Church, cherished a very genuine reverence for the tenets of Utraquism. Even if we set aside these considerations and consider Korybutovič merely as an ambitious adventurer, as some German writers have done, there could have been no worse policy for him than unconditional surrender to Rome. Almost the only Bohemians who desired this submission were the lords “sub una,” and these men were as entirely devoted to Sigismund, whom they considered their legitimate sovereign, as they were to the Church of Rome. Even the statement that Korybutovič favoured, among the clergy of Prague, priests such as Christian of Prachatice and Peter Mladenovic, who were known as men of moderate views, proves rather the contrary of what it intended to prove. These men had been the intimate friends of Hus and were better than others acquainted with his views, which, as I have written elsewhere, were far less antagonistic to the Church of Rome than is usually supposed. Christian of Prachatice and Mladenovič were accused of using vestments and of retaining part of the Catholic ritual. They were, however, known as fervent adherents of the articles of Prague. It is probable that the accusation of negotiating with Rome, which then had the same effect as the cry of “no popery” once had in England, was mainly raised by the city demagogues of Prague, with whose anarchical plans Korybutovič’s endeavour to establish orderly government in ​Bohemia greatly interfered. It is certain that Korybutovič, in agreement with the Utraquist nobles, intended to maintain order in Bohemia with a strong hand and to suppress the seditions which, particularly in Prague, were constantly caused by fanatics. Though all Bohemians had hitherto rallied to the national standard whenever the country was attacked by foreigners, it was doubtful whether this would always be the case. It was, on the other hand, certain that the country, if divided against itself, would eventually succumb to its numerous and powerful enemies.
As was invariably the case during the Hussite wars, renewed dissensions among the clergy led to civic disturbances. The fact that John of Přibram, the leader of the Hussite High Church, Peter Mladenovič and Christian of Prachatice enjoyed the full confidence of Korybutovič greatly incensed the more advanced Utraquists, whose leader was then the priest John of Rokycan, who afterwards became Utraquist Archbishop of Prague. Rokycan and his followers denounced the priests who used vestments and the ritual of the Roman Church as idolaters who were betraying the Bohemian Church to Rome. Popular excitement became very great, and according to the generally accepted account, Korybutovič conceived a plot—concerning which we are given no information—to arrest the hostile Utraquist priests. He is stated to have invited to a banquet one of his pages, Svojše of Zahradka, and his under chamberlain, John Rozvoda of Stakov, and to have given them secret instructions, which are unknown to us. The two courtiers, we are told, were to leave Prague at night-time, and then to re-enter the city, and to leave open one of the gates- It is hardly necessary to point out the vagueness of these statements. Korybutovič is also said to have been mistaken in the choice of his confidants. The two courtiers immediately informed the enemies of Korybutovič of this plot, and though they left Prague they returned on the following day (April 17, 1427). ​Rozvoda, who appears to have acted as leader of the party opposed to the Lithuanian prince, was accompanied by numerous partisans. One of the tumults so frequent in Prague at that period then took place, but it was this time unaccompanied by bloodshed. The bells of all the church towers were rung, and the people hurried to the market-place. John of Rokycan, followed by many priests of his faction and carrying the Sacrament, then left the neighbouring Týn church and appeared on the market-place. He declared that a plot against him and his followers had been discovered, and called on the people to defend him. Jerome Šrol, formerly one of the adherents of John of Zělivo, also called the people to arms. The citizens immediately began to attack the residence of Prince Korybutovič, who was greatly surprised at this sudden invasion and quite unprepared for resistance. He was, therefore, taken prisoner, without any struggle and conveyed in disguise to the Hradčany castle on the left bank of the Vltavo. From here his captors afterwards brought him to the castle of Valdštýn, where he remained a prisoner for some time. The coup d’état was carried out so suddenly and secretly that even his most intimate followers were for ​some time unaware of the place to which he had been conveyed.
As Professor Tomek writes, our information concerning this civic revolution is very scant, and it is hardly necessary to point out how very improbable some parts of the generally accepted account appear. It is scarcely imaginable that Korybutovič, whom his enemies describe as a traitor and intriguer, and who had at any rate much experience of the political life in Bohemia and other Slavic countries, should have entrusted two members of his household with a weighty political mission without informing his numerous and powerful allies among the Utraquist nobility of his intentions. Yet none of these allies were ready to come to his aid, and Korybutovič himself was obviously taken by surprise when suddenly attacked in his dwelling. In the almost entire absence of trustworthy evidence, it may be at least conjectured that the coup d’état of April 17 was not a plot of Prince Korybutovič, but a plot against him. This view is confirmed by the fact that almost immediately after the imprisonment of Korybutovič Rozvoda and Svojše obtained important offices under the new municipality of Prague. As far as we are able to judge, public opinion disapproved of this sudden outrage inflicted on one who had proved himself a true friend of Bohemia. I have already quoted on this subject passages from the contemporary chroniclers and from a ballad of the period. The author of this ballad probably expressed the general opinion at the time when he wrote:
“Thus did they [the enemies of Korybutovič] act. They set us at variance with the whole world. We then lost [the help of] Poland, Whence we formerly received aid. They [the enemies of Korybutovič] did not heed this; They took good care of themselves in Prague.”
As the last lines of the ballad which I have quoted indicate, great changes took place in the distribution of the municipal dignities in Prague, and the principal offices were given to ​those who had taken a prominent part in the revolution; among these were, as already mentioned, Svojše and Rozvoda. The imprisonment of Prince Korybutovič was immediately followed by that of the priests Christian of Prachatice, Peter Mladenovič, Master John of Přibram, and Master Prokop of Plzeň. They were conveyed to the prison in the town-hall, where they remained in safety, though the rabble demanded that they should be drowned.
Though the deposition of Prince Korybutovič is noted by the contemporary writers rather as an incident of civic strife than as the turning-point in the Hussite war, its great importance is very evident to the modern student. The rule of Korybutovič, though it had, except in Prague and in the cities allied or subject to the capital, been but a nominal one, had yet, to a certain extent, united the antagonistic Hussite parties. The powerful Utraquist nobility, which had played so great a part in the Hussite movement, now began to foresee that the fall of Korybutovič would slowly but surely undermine its influence in the country and transfer all power to the ultrademocratic party. If this evolution did not immediately take place, the reason is to be found in the fact that a new and—as was then believed—dangerous crusade at that moment menaced Bohemia. In September 1426 the Hussite general Přibik of Klenov had, almost without resistance, obtained possession of the important city of Střibo (in German, Miess), which is situated on the direct road between Plzeň and Cheb. The occupation of this town, in which the Utraquists immediately established a nationalist municipality, was considered as a permanent menace by the inhabitants of the neighbouring German districts, as well as by the Bohemian cities which had remained faithful to King Sigismund and the Roman Church. The spot most menaced by the Hussites was the town of Tachov, situated at a short distance from Střibro. The townsmen of Tachov were greatly alarmed, and wrote to the town-councillors of Cheb, begging them, “for the love of ​God and of His dear mother Mary, of all Saints, and the Christian faith and our beloved King (Sigismund), to come to their aid; they hoped with their aid and with that of the knights and nobles and other pious men to recapture the town and castle of Střibro.” The Hussite occupation of Střibro certainly caused considerable anxiety in Germany, and it seemed probable for a time that the Germans would abandon their habitual apathy. The German electors met at Frankfort on November 27, 1426, for the purpose of planning a new crusade. They appear, however, to have arrived at no conclusion, and contented themselves with summoning all the German princes and free imperial cities to another meeting in February 1427, which was again to take place at Frankfort. This new meeting, however, proved a complete failure; not one of the German electors was present in person.
In the early spring of 1427 the Hussites again assumed the offensive and invaded Silesia and Austria, obtaining considerable successes in both countries. In the absence of King Sigismund, who, during the years 1427 and 1428, was entirely occupied in defending Hungary against the Turks, the Margrave Frederick of Brandenburg summoned the German princes to another imperial diet, which was again to meet at Frankfort in April. This time the proceedings led to more serious results; the Germans were evidently impressed by the fact that the Bohemians now assumed the offensive and began to invade Germany. In a comparatively short time—the assembly broke up on May 4—it was resolved that a new crusade against Bohemia should be proclaimed, and that that country was to be simultaneously invaded by four armies, who were to start from Nürnberg, Saxony, Silesia, and Austria. The largest force was to assemble at Nürnberg, the usual residence of Margrave Frederick, who held the office of burgrave of that city. The diet also issued military regulations in view ​of the new enterprise. Knowing how greatly the indiscriminate slaughter of the whole population had exasperated the Bohemians, the diet decreed that only those who were undoubtedly heretics should be killed; other enactments attempted to limit the indiscriminate plundering which had taken place during the former invasions of Bohemia by the Germans. It is certainly somewhat surprising that shortly before the day fixed for the meeting of the crusaders at Nürnberg, Frederick of Brandenburg, who was believed to be the intended leader of the crusaders, should have entered into negotiations with the Bohemians. In a letter addressed to the citizens of Prague on June 25, Frederick, after deploring the state of Bohemia caused by incessant internal and foreign warfare, formally offered his mediation. He told the Praguers that both he and his ancestors had received many favours and benefits from Bohemia, and that he was ready, as far as his God and his honour permitted, to prove his gratitude. He promised to do his utmost to obtain a peaceful settlement. The magistrates of Prague, in a letter dated July 5, thanked the elector warmly, and also expressed an ardent desire for peace. They declared, however, that only a general assembly of the nobles, knights, and townsmen of Bohemia was entitled to enter into definite negotiations in view of peace. The margrave’s chancery sent a similar letter favouring a peaceful agreement to the citizens of Žatec. The answer of the citizens of Žatec was more explicit. They declared that they were not enemies of the holy primitive Church, and with God’s grace never would be; they would, on the contrary, follow God, ​as far as it was in their power, according to the laws of our Lord Jesus Christ, the dear holy apostles, the dear holy fathers, and the other saints.
These negotiations were certainly a strange prelude to the new crusade. The Elector of Brandenburg had for some time been on very bad terms with King Sigismund, and for reasons with which I have not to deal here, war between the two princes for a time appeared to be imminent. The elector, therefore, may not have considered so great a victory for the house of Luxemburg-Habsburg as the submission of Bohemia would have been favourable to his own far-reaching plans, and it is at least not impossible that the first Hohenzollern who became prominent in history may already have coveted the Bohemian crown.
By the end of June the main army of the crusaders had assembled at Nürnberg, though many cities had not yet sent their contingents, who started on their march slowly and reluctantly. There was no enthusiasm, and never perhaps has the term “crusade” been so grossly misused. On July 9, ​after the arrival of the forces of the Archbishop of Maintz, the German army at last marched to the Bohemian frontier. It consisted of two divisions, one of which was commanded by the Archbishop Otho of Trier, while the other had as its leader the Margrave Frederick of Brandenburg. No plan of campaign seems at first to have existed, and the two armies operated quite independently. Frederick began his campaign by occupying the frontier-town of Cheb. As he afterwards informed King Sigismund in his report, he attempted here to obtain information concerning the movements of the other German princes who had crossed the Bohemian frontiers. Having heard that the army of the archbishop, after crossing the frontier, had marched directly on Tachov, Frederick decided to have an interview with Otho of Trier and agree on a plan of campaign. Though this does not appear very clearly from Frederick’s report, Dr. Juritsch is probably right in conjecturing that it was decided at this interview that the crusaders should continue to form two armies, which were to advance separately on Prague, the centre of the Hussite movement and unite before the city. The southern army, under the Archbishop of Trier, with whom were the Duke John of Bavaria and many temporal and spiritual German princes, was to march by way of Tachov, Střibro, and Plzeň, and then follow the course of the Vltava river in the direction of Prague. The northern army, under the Elector of Brandenburg, was to combine its movements with those of the Saxons, indefatigable enemies of the Hussites, against whom they were again preparing to march. The northern army and the Saxons—whom the crusaders wrongly believed to have already crossed the frontier—were to unite at Podersam to march to Slané (Schlan) and thence to menace the neighbouring capital of Bohemia. The plan was not unskilfully conceived, but was founded on entirely false premises. A diversion was expected on the ​Austrian frontier, but Archduke Albert, who had been signally defeated by Prokop in the spring, now considered himself unable to take part in the crusade. When Frederick entered into communication with the Elector of Saxony the information he received was also unsatisfactory. The elector declared that all his North-German allies who had promised him assistance had failed to send their contingents, and that he himself was prevented by illness from taking part in the coming campaign. He stated, however, that he entrusted his son, the Duke Frederick, with the command of his troops. It was then settled that the Saxon forces should join the Elector of Brandenburg at Maštov (in German, Maschau), a small town near Karlsbad. The young Saxon prince, however, after at last crossing the Bohemian frontier, halted at Kadaň. It is a proof of the great terror which the Hussites then inspired in all Germany that he should here have refused to continue his advance, probably fearing to be attacked by the Bohemians on his march. He begged the Elector of Brandenburg to join him at Kadaň, and Frederick, already somewhat disgusted with the campaign—as appears from his correspondence—reluctantly consented to do this. The united forces then marched to the small town of Žlutice (in German, Luditz), which they occupied without resistance, as the Bohemian commander, Jakoubec Bilinsky, unable to resist the overwhelming forces of the enemy, hastily evacuated the city.
The southern army had meanwhile marched on Tachov, where the crusaders were enthusiastically received by the citizens, who welcomed them as their saviours. They then marched to Plan, no doubt to be in closer contact with the northern army. The Germans seem at this moment to have been very confident of victory. Duke John of Bavaria, in a letter dated from Plan on July 14, announced to the Bishop of Regensburg that the Archduke Albert of Austria, with the gracious aid of the King of the Romans (Sigismund), had already arrived at the frontiers of Bohemia and Moravia with a large ​army, that the Silesians were besieging the town of Nachod on the Bohemian frontier, and that he hoped that with God’s aid everything would be well. A letter of Hans Stallbogner, commander of the Nürnberg contingent, is also written in a somewhat hopeful spirit, but he alludes to the dissensions among the crusaders. He writes that “the Duke of Saxony is at the head of a force of 20,000 men, and he should join us, but he wishes rather than we should join him; but this our Lord of Trier (the archbishop) and the princes will not do; they wish rather to march to the aid of castles (of the Roman Catholic nobles) in the district of Plzeň.”
The discord among the Germans to which Stallbogner alluded soon became very serious. Some of the crusaders, among others the Bishop of Augsburg and the commander of the forces of the Suabian league, were already preparing to return to Germany. Wishing to act in agreement with the elector of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Trier invited him to a conference, and suggested the former monastery of Tepl, situated between Žlutice and Plan, as a meeting place. When, however, the Archbishop of Trier, who was accompanied by Duke Otho of Brunswick, reached Tepl it was ascertained that the Elector of Brandenburg had not arrived there. This news seems to have caused great depression in the ranks of the crusaders. One of the captains of the Suabian troops wrote: “It would have been better if we had never come here.” Those who were not absorbed by the thought of the dangers which menaced the army seem to have been in a state of complete indifference. The crusaders had also greatly over-rated the value of the aid which they hoped to obtain from the owners of the neighbouring Bohemian castles who were ​Catholics. These lords “sub una” were often closely connected with the Utraquist nobles, and knew that the religious views of the latter did not differ widely from the Church of Rome. Many of the lords “sub una” were also nationalists in their views, and did not wish to help the Germans to subdue their country.
It was not, therefore, under very favourable auspices that the crusaders marched to Střibro on July 22. The army was not complete even then, and troops of crusaders were still crossing the passes from Bavaria to Bohemia. Much disappointment was caused by the delay of the arrival of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, who had now been appointed papal legate, and who was to proceed to the site of war accompanied by 1000 English archers, then famed in all parts of the continent. Cardinal Beaufort arrived at Nürnberg on July 13, and remained there up to the 28th of that month. He then proceeded to Tachov, but travelling leisurely only arrived there on August 4. On July 23 the siege of Střibro began. The city was bravely defended by Přibik of Klenov, who was aided by the strong natural position of the town. In one direction the Misa river and in another a stream that runs into that river rendered it almost impregnable to the armies of the fifteenth century. The bombardment appears to have been carried out with little energy, and to have been directed almost exclusively against the town walls. It is at any rate certain that the city, though garrisoned by only 200 men, remained in the hands of the Hussites. On the last days of July the crusaders were joined by the troops of the Elector of Brandenburg, and by those of the Saxon prince. Almost immediately after his arrival in the camp before Střibro the Elector Frederick was suddenly seized with illness. According to his report to King Sigismund, “he was suddenly attacked by so great a bodily weakness that the Archbishop of Trier, who was also there (in the camp), and ​other friends counselled and advised him to go to Tachov, and to remain there for some days, according to the advice of the doctors.” The Bohemians were meanwhile actively occupied in preparing the defence of their country. On July 11, the first division of the Taborites marched through Prague to the neighbouring White Mountain. Prokop the Great joined them on the 15th of that month, and somewhat later the forces of the town of Prague and of the Utraquist nobles also met there. The united Hussite army then marched on Plzeň. They were joined on their march by the troops of one of the Utraquist nobles, Lord Beneš of Kolowrat, and this is said to have caused some delay. It was only on August 2 that the vanguard of the Bohemians arrived in view of the city of Střibro. Henry of Plauen was sent by the Germans with a small troop of cavalry to reconnoitre, and the leaders of the German army immediately held a council of war. Though one of the German princes suggested that they should adopt the Bohemian tactics and await the attack of the enemies under the protection of their armoured wagons, this proposal was rejected, as the Germans had not—as the Bohemians generally had—a sufficient number of these wagons. It was finally decided to abandon the siege of Střibro and to march with the whole army in the direction in which the Bohemians were expected. Though we have fuller information concerning the third crusade against the Bohemians than on other events of the Hussite wars, it is not very clear what now occurred. It is certain that as soon as the news of the approach of the Bohemians became known among the crusaders great con​fusion, almost a panic, broke out among them. On the evening of August 2 Henry of Plauen returned to the German camp with the news that Prokop and the whole Hussite army were advancing on Střibro by the Plzeň road. The German generals ordered their troops to advance on the following morning, and also gave the order that all the tents in the camps should be burnt. This caused a panic—as incomprehensible as such panics often are; it began among the wagoners, but soon spread among the soldiers also, and the whole army fled in disorder in the direction of Tachov before even a single shot had been fired. The panic was so great that many of the fliers did not halt even at Tachov, but continued their hurried and inglorous retreat till they reached the frontiers of Germany. Abandoned by most of their men the German princes, with the cavalry and a few guns which they had retained, retreated to Tachov on the evening of August 3. The flight of the crusaders was all the more dishonourable because the Hussites, exhausted by long marches, had no intention of attacking immediately. The crusaders, therefore, fled on that day without being pursued, as the chronicler whom I have just quoted wrote.
On the evening of August 3 the German princes held another council, at which Cardinal Henry of Winchester presided. This gave great offence to the Germans, as the previous papal legates who had accompanied their armies had never claimed such a right. The Germans may not have known that Henry of Beaufort was far more a warrior than a dignitary of the Church. The Elector of Brandenburg was specially offended, as he was considered the commander-in-chief, and as he had, ​as already mentioned, negotiated with the Hussites in the name of the German princes. The council of war decided to oppose the advance of the Bohemians, and made a last attempt to raise the spirits of the despondent crusaders. It was, however, fruitless. While the heralds proclaimed in the streets of Tachov that the army would attack the Bohemians on the following morning, an incessant stream of fugitives, with many provision- and ammunition-carts, was pouring through the town, intent on reaching the Bavarian frontier as quickly as possible. When, therefore, Cardinal Beaufort on the following morning appeared on a hill near Tachov bearing the banner of the Church and exhorting the soldiers to defend their faith, he must have known that this step would prove resultless, and Dr. Juritsch is hardly too severe when he describes the cardinal’s attempt as an act of theatrical display. According to a German contemporary ballad, the young Duke of Saxony offered to lead his troops against the Hussites, while Frederick of Brandenburg rightly foresaw that under the circumstances any attempt to encounter the Hussites would result in a disaster worse than that at Ústi had been. It is probable that a very angry dispute between the two princes arose, and the English cardinal, perhaps to prove his impartiality, entrusted the papal standard to neither of them, but to the Count Palatine John of Neumarkt, requesting him to lead the army against the Hussites. This caused further trouble, as the German princes disputed the right of an English ecclesiastic to appoint the leader of their armies. This new quarrel, almost in view of the enemy, seems not unjustifiably to have irritated the cardinal. He threw the banner to the ground before the German, and expressed himself in very strong language. This dispute seems to have continued up to the moment when the Bohemian cavalry was approaching. The Hussites marched with their usual rapidity, and rested for a ​short time near Střibro in the quarters where the crusaders had encamped on the previous night. The result of the approach of the enemies was immediate, and a general stampede began, in which the cardinal was obliged to join. The Elector of Brandenburg only halted when he had reached the little town of Wunsiedel in Bavaria. The Hussites on this occasion followed in hot pursuit and massacred a very large number of the Germans during their flight through the mountain-passes which here divide Bavaria from Bohemia. If we include the wagoners, camp-followers, and others who followed the mediæval armies in large crowds, it can be stated that the Germans killed during this flight numbered about 100,000 men; this—the figure given by the contemporary chroniclers—is probably but slightly, if at all, exaggerated. A certain number of Germans and some Bohemian Catholics, who had found the roads blocked by the enormous crowds of fugitives who were hurrying in the direction of the mountain-passes, took refuge in the city of Tachov, which was strongly fortified according to the ideas of that time. With their usual rapidity the Bohemians began immediately to bombard the city. The siege began on August 5, was carried out with great energy, and within a week the Bohemian artillery had set fire to considerable parts of the town, and the Hussites had also succeeded in undermining the city walls. Prolonged street-fighting took place after they penetrated within the city walls on August 11. Some of the defenders finally took refuge in the castle, but they were also obliged to surrender on the 14th from want of provisions. The Bohemians here also showed that comparative humanity which distinguished them from their German antagonists. The garrisons of the town and castle were led off as prisoners, and the woman and children—according to the usual custom of the Hussites—remained unharmed. In less than a month after their ​departure from Prague Prokop the Great and his victorious army returned to the capital of Bohemia. By no means intoxicated by their brilliant successes, the Bohemians proposed to their enemies to enter into fresh negotiations, which were to take the customary but generally ineffectual form of a religious disputation. I shall again refer to these deliberations in the next chapter.
It will, I think, appear clearly from this account that the third crusade, as indeed all the crusades against Bohemia, was doomed to failure from its beginning. It is evident that the German princes, with the exception of those of Austria and Saxony, countries which always had much intercourse with Bohemia, were far more absorbed in their own quarrels and rivalries than in the affairs of Bohemia. The Germans were at first inclined to underrate the importance of the Hussite movement. When bitter experience taught them that this supposition was erroneous they, with the superstition so characteristic of that age, took refuge in the idea that the Hussites were superhuman beings sent by a demoniacal power to chastise mankind, and that it was therefore hopeless to attempt to resist them. Another circumstance which contributed largely to the failure of these expeditions was the incapacity and mutual distrust of the generals. King Sigismund was above all things desirous to be recognised by the Bohemians as their King, and then to obtain their aid in his incessant wars against the Turks. He was in some respects no very strict upholder of the claims of the Church of Rome, and it is noteworthy that while bitterly opposing the articles of Prague, which demanded the poverty of the clergy, he himself acted in accordance with these articles by largely distributing Church lands among those members of the ​Bohemian nobility who had remained faithful to his cause. The fact that on many other occasions Sigismund appeared as very subservient to the Church of Rome may be attributed to conscientious remorse for his scandalous private life, the record of which it is well to leave to those who wrote in Latin. With regard to the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg, the official leader of the third crusade, it is very difficult to express a positive opinion. Dr. Juritsch recently, in his study which I have frequently quoted, practically accuses the Elector of Brandenburg of treachery. It has already been mentioned that the elector had for some time been on bad terms with King Sigismund. He had entered into an alliance with Poland at a moment when the rulers of that country were greatly exasperated against Sigismund because of the judgment, favourable to the Teutonic order, which he pronounced at the meeting of the imperial diet at Breslau in 1420. Frederick himself had on several occasions been involved in quarrels with that order, and it appears clear from his letters that his policy had what would now be called an “anti-clerical character.” It should also be mentioned here that in 1430 Margrave Frederick made an agreement with Prokop the Great according to which papal and Utraquist divines were to meet at Nürnberg and discuss the question whether the articles of Prague could be accepted by the Catholic Church. It is therefore certain that the Elector Frederick maintained a conciliatory attitude and favoured a peaceful agreement with the national Church of Bohemia; this feeling naturally became stronger when the elector observed the incapacity of the German leaders, the discord among the princes and the complete absence of all discipline among the soldiers. German writers have, however, gone much further, and have accused Frederick of having treacherously attempted to obtain the Bohemian crown. I have already alluded to this conjecture, which is at least very improbable. In distinction from most of the other German princes, Frederick was at that period ​well informed with regard to the state of affairs in Bohemia. He employed secret agents in Prague, from whom he received lengthy reports. He must have known through these men how large a part of the Bohemian people was then opposed to all monarchical rule, and what great difficulties even Korybutovič, a Slavic prince who had accepted the articles of Prague, encountered when he attempted to obtain the Bohemian crown. Frederick must also have known through his agents how strong the anti-German feeling then was in Bohemia; nor could he be ignorant of the fact that no assistance could be expected from the nobles “sub una,” whose dynastic affection for Sigismund was as great as their devotion to Rome. It should also be noted that the extreme adherents, both of the Roman Church and of Hussitism, have in their writings a tendency to accuse of treachery all moderate men who desired a peaceful agreement and were not carried away by unreasoning fanaticism.
About this time the career of Prince Korybutovič came to an end in Bohemia—at least for a time. It is evident that the Lithuanian prince, who had certainly succeeded in re-establishing order in Bohemia to a certain extent, and who had been imprisoned on the strength of very doubtful accusations, still had many adherents in Bohemia, not only among the Utraquist nobles, but also among the citizens of Prague. One of the most prominent adherents of Korybutovič, Lord Hynek of Kolštýn, planned an attack on Prague. He hoped in this fashion to force the city magistrates to reveal the spot in which they had imprisoned the Lithuanian prince, and to liberate him. The Utraquist nobles, no doubt, intended also to expel the magistrates and to appoint new ones who were favourable to Korybutovič. Kolin, a city which, after the imprisonment of Korybutovič, had thrown off its allegiance to Prague, became the centre of the Utraquist nobles who had ​entered into this plan. They had numerous partisans in Prague, among whom were John Rak, chief judge of the old town, and several councillors, both of the old and new towns. The accounts of this attempt to liberate Korybutovič are very contradictory, but it seems probable that the plan was betrayed to the town-councillors by Lord William Kostka, one of the Utraquist nobles; finding less support among the Hussites than they had hoped the Utraquist nobles had confided their plan to some of the lords “sub una.” The latter then proposed that as soon as Prague had been captured Sigismund of Hungary should be proclaimed king. This was, of course, opposed by the Utraquist nobles, who were faithful to the articles of Prague. When the nobles arrived at the city gates on September 6 they found them open, but as soon as they reached the market-place they were attacked by large numbers of townsmen. As their force consisted only of 600 horsemen resistance was hopeless, and they could only attempt to escape. Some succeeded in doing this, but many were made prisoners, and some of them were afterwards decapitated.
Though this attempt had completely failed it resulted in the liberation of Prince Korybutovič. The leaders of the advanced party in Prague, thinking his presence in Bohemia more dangerous to them than his absence, caused him to be liberated on September 9 and conducted under escort across the Bohemian frontier.
* ↑ Professor Tomek, History of the Town of Prague, Vol. IV. p. 318.
* ↑ The dilemma which confronted these nobles appears very clearly in the correspondence between King Sigismund and Lord Ulrich of Rosenberg, the leader of these nobles. (Published in the Cěsky Archiv, Vol. I.) Rosenberg informed the King that he was entering into negotiations with the Hussites. Sigismund in his answer blamed him, expressing his surprise that Rosenberg should allow “townsmen and common people to sit in judgment on him.” Rosenberg in his answer pleaded the necessity of making concessions because of the superior strength of the enemies.
* ↑ “Facta per magistrum Joannem Přibram declaratione terminorum positorum in propositionibus in Konopišt per magistros sacerdotibus Thaboriensibus oblatis blasphemia et fratrum Thaboriensium multum et minus juste confusiva et detractoria omnes ad propria redierunt” (Nicholas of Pelhřimov, “Chronicon Taboritarum” in Höfler, Geschichtsschreiber der Hussitischen Bewegung, Vol. Il. p. 590).
* ↑ “Joannes Přibram more suo in verba diffamatoria prorupit, dicens quod de numero sacerdotum Thaboriensium hic assidentium prodita pessima Picardica hæresis” (Pelhřimov in Höfler as above, p. 590).
* ↑ [Marcold] “dicebat quod utilius esset populo dum deficerent in bonis sacerdotibus, ut nullum habeant talem quia si fuit expediens ecclesiæ militantis quod careat corporali præsentia Jesu Christi, sicut contigit quando crevit ecclesia post ascensionem Domini; quanto magis prodesset militanti ecclesiæ quod careat talibus qui non æquiparantur Jesu nostro” (Pelhřimov in Höfler as above, pp. 592–593).
* ↑ “Et sic illa prædicta audientia eorum sine finali inter partes decisione est finita utrisque circa sua opinata remanentibus” (Pelhřimov in Höfler as above, p. 593).
* ↑ “In the year 1425 after Žižka’s death there was great discord between the Táborites and the Orphans, and they seized the towns (that had been common property) and fortified them against one another” (“Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum,” Vol. III. p. 64).
* ↑ Bartošek of Drahonic. See my Lectures on the Historians of Bohemia, pp. 47–48.
* ↑ [The Táborites] “processerunt hostiliter ad castrum Vožic et ibi cum machinis et pixidibus magnis per quinque septimanas facentes et tres dies ipsum castrum mediante tractatu sic quod tantum duo capitanei se in eorum militarem darent captivitatem, lucraverunt, alios liberos dimiserunt et ipsum castrum rupuerunt; et ibi fuit Bzdinka [a nickname of Hvěžda of Vicemilic] letaliter sagittatus” (Chronicon Bartošek de Drahonic, p. 594 of Professor Goll’s edition).
* ↑ In Paltrami Chronicon Austriacum we only read: “Hussitæ congregaverunt fortem exercitum nimis in Bohemia et in Praga et venerunt in Austriam cum potentia magna et vallaverunt unam civitatem quæ dicitur Recz et debellaverunt eam et interfecerunt multos homines. Et in eadem civitate ceperunt Comitem qui dicitur de Hardegg et duxerunt eum at [sic] Pragam et devastarunt sibi omnes res circumquaque, quidquid habuit et ibi mortuus est in Praga” (Pez, “Scriptores rerum Austriacarum,” Tom. I. p. 733).
* ↑ Dr. Alphons Neubauer has, in the Cěsky Cǎsopis Historický (Bohemian Historical Journal) for 1910, published a series of articles on Prokop the Great, which throw much light on the career of the great Hussite leader. I wish here to acknowledge my great indebtedness to these valuable articles.
* ↑ “Voda” signifies “water” (aqua) in Bohemian.
* ↑ “Sciant omnes et singuli quod falsum nobis adscribitur; non enim in communibus lapidibus absque omni strato sacramenti cumulos conficimus ut experiencia docet; scitur enim, quia in civitatibus in quibus missamus habemus utensilia specialiter distincta et in exercitu campestri specialem currum distinctum in quo deducebantur” (Pelhřimov in Höfler as above, p. 565).
* ↑ “Reichstagsacten unter Kaiser Siegmund,” VIII, nr. 406 (quoted by Dr. Juritsch, Der dritte Kreuzzug gegen die Hussiten).
* ↑ Dr. Juritsch calls them “höchst unerquickliche und langweilige Verhandlungen mit den Städteboten von Köln, Mainz, Strassburg, Constanz, Ulm und Nürnberg” (Der dritte Kreuzzug, p. 5).
* ↑ The two principal contemporary sources are the “Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum,” which I have so often quoted and the ballad entitled “Bitva před Ustim” (“The Battle before Usti”), published in the Výbor z Literatury cěske (Selections from Bohemian Literature), Vol. II.
* ↑ i. e. the German army sent by Duchess Catherine to relieve the city.
* ↑ The Catholic writer Bartošek of Drahonic shared his countrymen’s dislike of engaging in battle on Sunday, and attributed the defeat of the Saxons to this circumstance. He writes: “Hæc facta sunt ipso die dominico, quare nullus die dominico conflictum sapiens intret quia Misnenses inceperunt” (p. 595 of Professor Goll’s edition).
* ↑ The “Chronicon Adami Ursini” (quoted by Toman, Husitske Válečnictvi) states: “Als nun das deutsche Volk . . . kam, als was es durch Verrätherei mit etlichen Hauptleuten da bestellt, die sich da umkehrten und rannten diesem Volke alles unter Augen, und machten da eine Flucht mit wenig Behmen und schrien es wäre alles Leib und Gut verloren. Also war das Volk alles noch ungeschickt und ward flüchtig.”
* ↑ Palacký, in his Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., publishes letters written by the municipalities of Nürnberg and Görlitz, which deal with the ransoming of prisoners who were detained as captives in Bohemia (Vol. I. pp. 466, 467, 476).
* ↑ These words are interesting as proving that the belief that Utraquism was the original form of Christianity in Bohemia was already general at that time. (See my Bohemia, a Historical Sketch, pp. 94–95 and my Master John Hus, pp. 10–11.)
* ↑ See Grünhagen, Hussitenkämpfe der Schlesier, particularly pp. 104–105.
* ↑ Bartošek of Drahonic writes: “presbyter Procopius ... cum sectis castrum Poděbrad ... circumvallaverunt, et ipsum cum magnis pixidibus et machinis hostiliter conabantur expugnare ultra quinque septimanas et nequientes lucrare ob duram defensionem et audacem, abinde recesserunt” (p. 595 of Professor Goll’s edition).
* ↑ Professor Goll, Cechy a Prusy (Bohemia and Prussia), p. 190–193.
* ↑ Palacký, with his usual acumen, noted that neither Korybutovič nor any party then contemplated unconditional surrender to Rome. He writes: “Solch eine Unterhandlung und Versöhnung, wo die Sieger als büssende Sünder und verirrte sich freiwillig dem bisherigen Feinde auf Gnade ergeben sollten; lag keineswegs in der Absicht der Mehrzahl, selbst der gemässigten Kelchner” (Geschichte von Böhmen, Vol. III. ii. p. 425, German edition).
* ↑ See my Master John Hus, pp. 235 and 275.
* ↑ See my History of Bohemian Literature, particularly p. 145, and Master John Hus, pp. 241–243, 283–285, etc.
* ↑ See my Master John Hus, pp. 361–362.
* ↑ The author of the contemporary ballad “O zajeti Sigmunda Korybutoviče” (“On the Capture of Sigismund Korybutovič”) writes: “First will I mention Rozvada, who was the leader, and took the part of the deceased Judas” (Výbor z Literatury cěské—Selections from Bohemian Literature, Vol. II. p. 311).
* ↑ See my Prague (“Mediæval Towns” series), p. 155–156.
* ↑ The ancient chroniclers thus describe this event: “On Thursday in Passion Week there were great disturbances in Prague because of a plot made against Sigismund of Lithuania, who was then in his princely residence, by Master John of Rokycan, then preacher at the church of the Mother of God at the Týn, together with some citizens of Prague and knights, particularly Svojše of Zahradka and Rozvoda, surnamed Rameš; they seized him [one of the MSS. here adds the untrue statement “because he would not receive Communion in the two kinds”] and brought him by night in disguise to the castle of Prague [Hradčany], and then conveyed him to the castle of Valdštýn, and [afterwards] drove him out of the country. Thus did the Praguers repay him [Korybutovič] for his services and his aid against their enemies. But the Lord God did not leave these traitors unpunished; for Rozvoda, surnamed Rameš, was shortly afterwards shot dead by one of his servants, and Svojše before his death became insane, and the others also ended their lives miserably” (“Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum,” Vol. III. pp. 70–71).
* ↑ Letter printed by Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkriegs, Vol. I. p. 473.
* ↑ Though this fact was long known it is only recently that Dr. Juritsch, in his valuable monograph entitled Der dritte Kreuzzug gegen die Hussiten, has attributed the failure of that crusade to Margrave Frederick, and indeed directly accused him of treachery, in a similar fashion to that in which he accuses Prince Korybutovič of the same offence. It must be said that Dr. Juritsch—as was once said of Mommsen—invariably ascribes men’s actions to the lowest motives.
* ↑ Printed by Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., Vol. I. p. 516.
* ↑ Also printed by Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., Vol. I. p. 519.
* ↑ Dr. Juritsch, Der dritte Kreuzzug, etc., p. 22.
* ↑ Dr. Juritsch, in his endeavour to prove the Hussite sympathies of the Elector Frederick, here quotes the well-known ballad of Lawrence of Březova on the battle of Domážlice, to which I shall again refer later. In this ballad Frederick is made to say:   “Queratur certum medium Per prudentum concilium Quo queat ille populus [the Bohemian people] Vobis reddi benevolus Mihi videtur optimum Tanto morbo remedium Instemus omnes seduli Ut ipsorum articuli [the articles of Prague] Quos et scripturis comprobant Pro quibus semper litigant Serventur in ecclesia Tota certe Katholica Prout servarunt pariter Primi fideles fortiter.”   Březova’s ballad can certainly claim little historical value, but it undoubtedly tends to prove that popular opinion at the time believed Margrave Frederick to be more favourable to the Hussite views than the other German princes.
* ↑ Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., Vol. I. pp. 539–542.
* ↑ Der dritte Kreuzzug, etc., p. 30.
* ↑ The chronicler Andrew of Regensburg, who publishes this letter, adds the characteristic remark: “Hic [Albert of Austria] isto tempore nunquam venit in campum. Vide hic quomodo etiam principes falluntur.”
* ↑ Palacký Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., Vol. I. pp. 527—528.
* ↑ Dr. Juritsch writes: “Es herrschte bei den Herrn in Plan eine grenzenlose Sorglosigkeit; sie scheinen sich hinter dem Bierkruge ausserordentlich wohl zu befinden und ganz vergessen zu haben was der Krieg erheischt.”
* ↑ Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., Vol. I. p. 539–542.
* ↑ Bartošek of Drahonic writes (p. 596 of Professor Goll’s edition): “Pragenses vero cum presbytero Procopio et aliis sectis Taboriensium et Orphanorum cum aliis eorum capitaneis et eorum complicibus inter quos nullus notabilis dominus erat, congregantes de civitatibus et villis ad XV centena equitum et XVI peditum cum curribus et pixidibus eorum versus prædictos principes, qui ut dicebant plus quam LXXX milia equitum et tantum vel plus peditum processerunt.” The statement that no territorial nobles took part in this campaign is of course incorrect. Palacký conjectures that Bartošek, a bitter enemy of the Hussites, insinuated that the Utraquist nobles followed Prokop reluctantly.
* ↑ The chronicler Andrew of Regensburg writes: “In hac vero tertia expeditione [the third crusade] quod dolenter scribo nemine persequente de Bohemia sic festinarunt ut ad literam videretur adimpletum illud Isaiæ prophetæ: ‘Cuncti principes fugerunt.’” (Höfler, Geschichtsschreiber, etc., Vol. II. pp. 452–453.)
* ↑ Ebendorfer of Haselbach writes: “Dum Misam [Střibro] . . . Principes Electores cum ceteris obsedissent Capitaneo Exercitus Burgravio Nurimbergensi ipsi quoque fugam iniisent nemine persequente” (Chronicon Austriacum Pez Tom. I. p. 852). It will be noted that Ebendorfer describes the retreat to Tachov in the same words as Andrew of Regensburg.
* ↑ “Cardinalis . . . vexilla distraxit et in terram ante ipsos Teutonicos projecit et ipsos non modice maledixit” (Bartosek of Drahonic, p. 596).
* ↑ “Mulieribus tamen et parvulis, qui primos impetus evaserant parcentes, eos autem qui de exercitu Katholicorum ibi manserant, ex quibus quamplures ad custodiam civitatis positi erant et alios qui ad conservandum se ad castrum ibidem confugerant numero plus quam MCCCC, viros exulis omnibus quae habebant in captivitatem ducunt” (“Andrew of Regensburg,” Höfler, Geschichtsschreiber, Vol. II. p. 454).
* ↑ Some of these reports are printed in Bezold, König Sigmund und die Reichskriege gegen die Hussiten.