The Hussite Wars

Front matter

THE HUSSITE WARS

THE

HUSSITE WARS

Preface

PREFACE

It is impossible when studying the events connected with the life of Hus not to devote great attention to the lengthy wars in Bohemia and the neighbouring countries that were the inevitable result of his unjust condemnation, and not to realise how great the influence of these wars on the development of Europe was. It is certainly due to the military genius of Žižka and the other Hussite leaders that Hussite teaching and Hussite thought long prevailed in Bohemia and largely influenced the neighbouring countries. Had the Bohemians been defeated in the battles of the Žižkov and the Vyšehrad, their doctrines would have been immediately suppressed, and Hus would have appeared in history as an isolated enthusiast, such as Savonarola.

Yet the history of the Hussite wars is, I think, little known in England. The late Bishop Creighton, in his History of the Papacy, gives an admirable outline of the Hussite movement, but he stated that he did not intend to attempt a detailed account of the Hussite wars. In Bohemia itself no reliable account of this great struggle existed before the days of Palacký. For political reasons, into which I do not wish to enter, the Austrian Government which, after the year 1620, obtained absolute control over Bohemia, wished to obliterate in that country all recollections of the time when Bohemia had played a great part in European politics, and successfully repulsed the attacks of countless invading armies. It is from this period that date many of the fables that have long taken the place of historical facts in the records of Bohemia, though it must be admitted that the Historia Bohemica of Æneas Sylvius is responsible for the descriptions of Žižka and Prokop as wizards or magicians, and for foolish tales such as that concerning Žižka’s drum.

In this respect Palacký’s monumental history of Bohemia produced a complete change. He was the first to collect in the archives of Bohemia and other countries authentic evidence on the period of the Hussite wars. With an amount of courage which English readers can, perhaps, hardly realise, Palacký published an impartial and authentic account of the Hussite wars, regardless of the relentless molestation and persecution which befell him, as having ventured to judge unfavourably the policy of the papal see with regard to Bohemia. Since the time of Palacký, the late Professor Tomek and many others, whom I shall mention presently as authors of works which I have used, have written freely and independently on the great Bohemian civil war.

While this great civil war has thus comparatively attracted but little the attention of historians, and those who have written of it have very frequently misrepresented both the motives and the events of the struggle, the Bohemian people, since it has been allowed to study the annals of its country, has been deeply interested in the Hussite wars. This feeling has been so eloquently described by the Bohemian historian Gindely, that I cannot do better than quote his words. “The Hussite battles,” he writes, “were fought for a national cause; poets and painters have chosen them as their subject; the most stirring popular songs date from that time; the names of the leaders of this movement still linger in the memory of the people; the name of no Bohemian king is as familiar to them as that of the blind leader of the Hussite armies. The violent destruction of the national constitution by Ferdinand II, the sufferings which the country endured during the Austrian war of succession at the hand of Prussians, Bavarians, and Frenchmen, events that occurred but one or two centuries ago are forgotten. On all these occasions the peasant was a mere sufferer; he was deprived of his religious creed, or of his worldly goods, but he never defended himself. In the Hussite wars he had himself been a fighter; he had been a victorious warrior, and his flail and fighting-club had successfully beaten back the enemies of his country and his faith.”

It is necessary to refer briefly to the principal sources on which the historian of the Hussite wars has to rely. I will first mention the collections of contemporary chronicles published by Palacký in the third volume of the Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum. These chronicles, written in the Bohemian language, are the work of various writers. The manuscripts were afterwards collected and first published in the nineteenth century.

Of other contemporary writers Lawrence of Březova, author of a Latin work, de gestis et variis accidentibus regni Bohemiæ, is the only one who can be considered as a historian. He writes as a moderate Hussite or “Calixtine,” equally opposed to the tyranny of Rome and to the fanaticism of the advanced Táborites. If we make due allowance for the personal sympathies and views of Březova, his chronicle is very valuable, and he may be considered as almost the only genuine contemporary historian of the Hussite wars. I have here largely used the contents of his work. It is deeply to be regretted that Březova’s chronicle breaks off suddenly in the middle of his record of the year 1421. Professor Goll has edited, together with Březova’s chronicle, two other contemporary chronicles, that of the university of Prague—a not very valuable compilation—and that of Bartošek of Drahonic. Bartošek was a knight in the service of King Sigismund during the Hussite wars. He writes as a soldier, little interested in theological discussions; but with regard to the details of warfare—so sadly neglected by the other writers of the time—his work is most valuable. A large collection of mostly contemporary records was published by Professor Höfler under the title of Geschichtsschreiber der hussitischen Bewegung in Böhmen. This collection was published under the auspices of the Government of Vienna, and Professor Höfler did not limit himself to the editing of these ancient records, but violently attacked in his commentary the leaders of the Hussite movement. His collection, however, contains some very valuable documents that were previously almost unknown. Of these the Chronicle of Canon Andrew of Regensburg (“Andreas presbyter Ratisponensis”), written from a thoroughly German and anti-Hussite point of view, and the Chronicon continens causam sacerdotum Taboriensium, by the Táborite priest, Nicholas of Pelhřimov, one of the few writings by Táborite divines which have been preserved, require special mention. I have, in my notes to this work, referred to other writers contained in Professor Höfler's collection. Another chronicler who, like Andrew of Regensburg, writes with a strong Roman and anti-Hussite bias, was the Professor of Theology at the University of Vienna, Thomas Eschendorfer of Haselbach, who took part in the negotiations at Basel which preceded the agreement known as the “compacts.” His chronicle is printed in the second volume of Pez, Scriptores rerum Austria carum. I mention last the work of a contemporary writer which has been more largely quoted by later writers on the Hussite wars than all others, and has up to lately been the foundation of all accounts of the Bohemian religious warfare. I refer to the Historia Bohemica of Æneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius II. Æneas Sylvius had as a young man been present at the arrival of the Bohemian ambassadors at Basel, and he was on terms of friendship with Cardinal Cesarini. That the tendency of his work should be strongly hostile to the Calixtine or Utraquist cause was, no doubt, inevitable, but Æneas often attacks his enemies in a distinctly unfair manner. Thus he lays great stress on the appearance of the Adamite fanatics in Bohemia, though they had no connection whatever with the Hussite movement, entered Bohemia as strangers, and were almost immediately extirpated by the Hussite general, Žižka. Žižka himself and the Bohemian nobles are described as savages whom Providence permitted to obtain victories to punish the sins of the Christian world. I have already alluded to the repulsive and untruthful description of Žižka’s death. The value of Æneas Sylvius’s book is also lessened by the humanistic manner of the author, who is always endeavouring to imitate the historians of Greece and Rome. He always strives to adorn and enliven his narrative by often quite unauthenticated anecdotes, and he follows the classics in introducing imaginary speeches, which the modern student of Bohemian history knows to be quite out of harmony with the character of the supposed speaker.

The period of the German reformation again shows a slight revival of interest in the Hussite movement, which, after the “compacts” and the restoration of King Sigismund, had for a time attracted but little attention. Founding their view on Luther’s words, the early German Church reformers glorified the Hussites, whom they considered as their predecessors. The German writers of this time, however, attributed all the success which the Bohemians for a time obtained to the extreme Táborite fanatics, and quite ignored the merits of the conservative Hussite party—consisting mainly of the lords sub-Utraque and the citizens of the old town of Prague—which, under more favourable circumstances, would, perhaps, have established a national church and a national kingdom in Bohemia. We find the same tendency also in the work of Zacharias Theobaldus, entitled Hussitenkrieg, which belongs to the seventeenth century. After the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, and the suppression of Protestantism and the national constitution of Bohemia, all literary activity in that country ceased, and the Bohemians were prevented from obtaining any information on the history of their country. They were even forbidden to read the Historia Bohemica of Pope Pius II. Late in the eighteenth century Pubička’s Chronologische Geschichte von Böhmen was published. Though the period of the Hussite wars is, as was then necessary, treated with great caution, yet it is not without value, and includes some interesting documents.

In the nineteenth century the monumental historical work of Palacký appeared, to which I have already referred. It threw an entirely new light on the history of the Bohemian revolution. Palacký proved that the Hussites were not, as had been believed, brutal and fanatical savages, but Christians, very zealous for their religion, disgusted by the corruption of the period, and anxious to return to the simplicity and fervour of the primitive church. Besides his great historical work and numerous minor works, Palacký also published two very valuable collections of documents referring to the life of Hus and the period of the Hussite wars. The volume, entitled Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hussitenkriege, is invaluable for all who wish to study the story of the great Bohemian rising. Of the works on the Hussite wars published after Palacký’s history the most valuable are those by the late Professor Tomek. His great work, the History of the Town of Prague, becomes, during the period of the Hussite wars, in which the “Praguers” played so great a part, a complete record of all the battles and negotiations that took place in Bohemia at that time. We are also indebted to Professor Tomek for a most interesting biography of Žižka, the first record of the great warrior that has any historical value at the present time. Though we, of course, do not find here the grotesque fables concerning Žižka which circulated at the time when independent study of the Hussite wars was prohibited in the Austrian Government, the tendency of the book is obviously adverse to the Bohemian general, and its motive was undoubtedly to lessen the great admiration for Žižka which, as already mentioned, is general among Bohemians. It is unnecessary to enumerate the many recent writings, of greater or lesser value, which have recently appeared in Bohemia—particularly as they are mostly written in the national language, which is almost unknown in England. Much important information is contained in the publications of the Bohemian Museum, of the Bohemian Society of Sciences, the Bohemian Academy, and particularly in the Bohemian Historical Review (“Český Casopis Historicky”). A Bohemian work dealing specially with the Hussite system of warfare was published recently by Dr. Toman under the name of Husitske válečnictor (“Hussite Warfare”). Dr. Toman has made very profound study of the different campaigns of the Hussite wars, and has visited most of the battlefields. The plans and sketches contained in the book have the greatest interest. That Dr. Toman was entirely devoid of all practical knowledge of military matters is evident even to one whose own military experience is founded only on a short period of service in an Austrian regiment of lancers. Some information on the military organisation of the Bohemians during the Hussite wars will be found in General Köhler’s very interesting work Die Entwicklung des Kriegswesen und der Kriegführung in der Ritterzeit bis zu den Hussitenkriegen. As the title indicates, General Köhler’s work ends with the Hussite wars; but incidentally the work contains very interesting remarks on Žižka’s system of warfare which I have frequently quoted. It is impossible to refer here to the vast amount of literature on the Hussite wars that has recently appeared. The books of some of these writers are mentioned in my notes to this work. I must, however, acknowledge my indebtedness to two works by Professor von Bezold; they are entitled Zur Geschichte des Hussitenthims and König Sigmund und die Reichskriege gegen die Hussiten.

I have dedicated this work to my American friends, in recognition of the great friendliness and kind hospitality which I met with everywhere during a visit to America in the winter of 1912. I have retained a most pleasant recollection of my countrymen who have settled in the United States, and many of whom I met, particularly in Illinois and Nebraska. Their energy, courage, and self-reliance often recalled to me the Bohemians of old times to a far greater extent than do those of my countrymen who have remained in their old homes.

When writing, in 1895, the preface to the first edition of my Bohemia, a Historical Sketch, I wrote the following words: “I must add one remark which is only intended for readers who are my countrymen, in the unlikely case that this little book should come into their hands. In no country has the habit of using the events of the past as examples or arguments applicable to the political dissensions of the present day prevailed so extensively as in Bohemia. Nothing is to my mind more unscientific, and, indeed, more reprehensible. I have exercised special care in avoiding any remark which might have even the appearance of an allusion to the religious or political controversies in Bohemia at the present time.”

I find it necessary to repeat this statement, particularly at a moment when the largest Bohemian party, abandoning its former attitude of opposition, endeavours by great subserviency to win the favour of the present Ministry of Vienna.

Lützow

Žampach, December 1913.

Chapter 1

THE HUSSITE WARS

CHAPTER I

All writers on the Hussite wars agree that these wars were the result of three causes, the antagonism of the Bohemians to the Church of Rome, the revival of the Slavic national feeling, and the rise of the democratic spirit which is, to a greater or lesser extent, evident in many European countries at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Where these writers differ widely is in their opinion as to the relative importance which should be attributed to each of these causes. The contemporary chroniclers, who hardly deserve the name of historians, have, both in their Latin and in their Bohemian writings, considered the Hussite movement mainly from the point of view of religious controversy; only occasional remarks indicate how great the racial antagonism was at that period, and how strongly democratic, and for a short time even communistic theories influenced the Bohemian people.

That the contemporary writers should have laid so great a stress on the religious controversies is natural, if we consider that the immediate cause of the national uprising was the execution of Hus. The first manifestation of opposition to King Sigismund, the famed “protestatio Bohemorum,” which was signed by the principal Bohemian nobles, refers exclusively to the life and the doctrine of Hus. The revival of the feeling of solidarity between the different branches of the Slavic race undoubtedly played a considerable part in the determined resistance which the Bohemians offered to the attacks of vastly superior armies of Germans. As will be noted later, this motive appears on several occasions in the slight fragments of Žižka’s writings that have been preserved. It can be stated generally that the beginning of the fifteenth century is notable as producing a strong reaction on the part of the Slavic race, which, since the time of Charles the Great, had constantly receded before the Teutonic aggression. The first symptom of the Slavic revival was the great victory which the Poles obtained over the Knights of the Teutonic Order at Tannenberg in 1410. According to a well authenticated tradition, Žižka took part in this great battle, and Hus, in a letter which has been preserved, congratulated the King of Poland on his victory. It was in consequence of this feeling of solidarity between the different branches of the Slavic race that Poland generally favoured the Hussite cause. The unswerving fidelity to the Church of Rome, which was frequently disadvantageous to Poland, and contributed considerably to the final downfall of that country, however, prevented the Slavs of Poland from rendering sufficient aid to their Bohemian kinsmen. It should also be mentioned that at this period the revival of the Slavic national spirit extended even to already semi-Germanised lands, such as Mecklenburg and Pomerania.

The third principal motive of the Hussite movement was the awakening of the democratic spirit, which we find in other countries as well as in Bohemia at this time. In consequence of this spirit the Bohemians after their brilliant victories—whose fame soon spread over all Europe—found many friends, even in traditionally hostile Germany and in distant France. It was, no doubt, the fear that this democratic movement might extend to their states which induced the European princes to use their influence on Rome for the purpose of conciliating the Bohemians. In close connection with this democratic feeling we find among the Hussites a strong movement in favour of the emancipation of women. The Czech women of this period not only showed interest in the religious and political struggles, but they also exercised a considerable influence on the councils of the nation. Some even laid down their lives for the creed of their country.

The faithful friends and adherents of Hus in Prague had, of course, anxiously and feverishly followed the development of the tragedy of Constance, which ended in the condemnation and execution of the Bohemian divine. The letters addressed “to the whole Bohemian nation” and “to the faithful Bohemians,” written by Hus during the last weeks of his life, soon reached Prague, and were read out from the pulpits of the churches. When the fatal news of the death of Hus became known, an ominous silence at first prevailed. Then general lamentation arose and loud indignation was expressed. All saw that a death-struggle was imminent, but the statement of some writers hostile to the Hussite cause that attacks were at this moment made on Roman Catholic priests is unfounded. The people crowded to the churches, and with the musical instinct innate in the Bohemian nation hymns in honour of the new martyr were improvised and sung. Pictures were carried through the market-place representing on one side Christ riding on a mule and followed by the barefooted apostles, on the other the Pope and the cardinals riding richly caparisoned war-horses. The women of Prague, who had from the first shown great interest in the cause of Church reform, and who had always venerated the saintly Hus, inveighed strongly against the treachery of Rome. The ladies of the court of Queen Sophia—whose confessor Hus had been—were foremost in expressing their grief and indignation. Even the Queen’s generally apathetic consort, King Venceslas, expressed disapproval. “He (Hus) should not have been executed, as he had a letter of safe conduct,” the King is reported to have said. Both Venceslas and his courtiers were greatly irritated by the conduct of the Bohemian clergy, whose complaints and depositions had largely contributed to the condemnation of Hus. The movement caused by the execution of Hus, though it had a somewhat revolutionary character, was, therefore, not at first anti-dynastic, as it was favoured by the Queen and the ladies of her court, and at least not discountenanced by the King.

On the other hand, the secession of the Bohemian people from the Church of Rome became complete. This was mainly due to the general consent to the custom of receiving Communion in the two kinds, Utraquism, as it was generally called. Towards the end of his life Hus had maintained the necessity of Communion in the two kinds. He had at Constance written a tract in defence of this practice as well as a letter in which he warmly upheld it. After the death of Hus, Utraquism became one of the fundamental doctrines of his adherents. I have in other works attempted to state the reasons why the Bohemians attached such great importance to this tenet. This can to a great extent be explained by the strongly anti-clerical feeling that was at that time almost general among the Czechs. They resented the claim of superiority over all laymen which Bohemian priests—often very unworthy priests—raised, and they resented their attempt to administer Communion in what the Bohemians considered an “incomplete” form. Though recent research has proved that all traces of Communion in the two kinds, as it had been established when Cyrillus and Methodius introduced Christianity into Moravia and Bohemia, had long disappeared in Bohemia, a sentimental recollection of the Eastern Church, to which the “apostles of the Slavs” belonged, may still have influenced the people.

It is at any rate certain that the practice of receiving the Sacrament in the two kinds soon became the characteristic article of faith to which all Bohemian friends of Church reform conformed. The chalice became their emblem, and the whole national party was soon known as that of the Utraquists. The two parties into which the Bohemian nobility divided are by the contemporary chroniclers always described as the lords “sub Utraque” and the lords “sub una.” These distinctions, indeed, continued up to the time of the suppression of religious liberty in Bohemia in 1620.

The Bohemians, full of zeal for the doctrine of Utraquism, soon began to expel from their churches those priests—they were not numerous—who refused to administer the Sacrament in the now established fashion, and acts of violence began to take place. The nobles “sub Utraque” also now expelled from their estates those priests who refused to conform to Utraquism. Soon after Hus’s death violent letters were sent from Constance to Bohemia, accusing the inhabitants of that country of being heretics. A letter addressed to King Venceslas by Bishop John of Litomyšle, though it was of a somewhat conciliatory character, greatly irritated the Bohemians, who knew that Bishop John had been one of the principal instigators of the trial and execution of Hus. The vast estates of the very wealthy prelate were seized by the neighbouring Utraquist nobles. On July 26, 1417, the Council of Constance addressed to the nobles and knights of Bohemia and to the citizens of the three towns of Prague a somewhat menacing letter. After having severely censured the deeds of John Hus and Jerome, “those most wicked men, so dangerous to the Church, who had followed Wycliffe in many of his most damnable tenets,” the letter ended by stating that should the Bohemians audaciously attempt to oppose in any way the Council’s sentence on Hus, which was most pleasing to God and most salutary for the whole Christian people, and should they persist in their damnable heresy, or in any way aid or abet it, then, besides the Divine punishment, which they should certainly expect, the Council would proceed against them in the deserved manner according to the canonical regulations, so that such a punishment should be a useful warning to others.

This letter, which contained no reference whatever to Church reform, the cause which Hus had always had most at heart, and which had at first been considered one of the principal tasks of the Council, caused great indignation among the Bohemians. It appeared to them that their choice lay between unconditional surrender to Rome or a call to arms. It was not for a moment doubtful what their decision would be. The powerful Bohemian nobles who at this moment appear as the leaders of the people had, during the reign of the weak King Venceslas, obtained an almost independent position, and they bitterly resented the interference of foreigners in the affairs of their country. Bohemia was at that moment intellectually more advanced than Germany, and many of its nobles, though they were brave warriors, felt a genuine interest in religious questions, and had anxiously hoped for the very necessary reform of the Church. Some of the nobles and knights, particularly those connected with the court, had known Hus personally and had greatly admired his saintly character. The treacherous conduct of King Sigismund—whose letter of safe conduct had guaranteed to Hus the right to be judged in his own country and by his own countrymen—was resented by the whole Bohemian nation. Some of the nobles already opposed the eventual succession to the Bohemian throne of Sigismund, whose brother, King Venceslas, was childless. On the other hand, Sigismund made no attempt to conceal his opinion of the religious views held by the great majority of the Bohemians. In a letter which he sent to his brother Venceslas on December 4, 1417, he wrote: “We cannot consider thee as our beloved brother if thou doest not, as did our ancestors, exterminate all heretics,” and further on, “Let every Bohemian, German and Latin, know that we can hardly await the day when I shall drown all Wycliffites and Hussites.”

In the last months of his life the weak King Venceslas entirely abandoned the cause of Church reform and endeavoured to stem the Hussite movement. This, as was inevitable, precipitated the course of events. Venceslas issued a decree, declaring that all parish priests whom the Utraquists had expelled from their parishes because they refused to administer Communion in the two kinds should be allowed to return. On the other hand, the Utraquist services were in future to be permitted in three of the Prague churches, and all Utraquist priests not belonging to these churches were to leave Prague. They suffered many indignities at the hand of the Germans of Prague, who had almost all remained faithful to the Church of Rome. Many of these priests fled to the country districts, where they continued to preach and to administer the Sacrament according to the rites of what soon began to be called the Bohemian Church. The priests who had been expelled from Prague mostly sought refuge in the southern districts of Bohemia, where, being deprived of churches, they generally preached, celebrated mass and administered the Sacrament in the open air. The movement spread rapidly, and large crowds flocked to the meeting-places, not only from all parts of Bohemia, but also from the neighbouring districts of Moravia. One of the favourite meeting-places was a hill near the small town of Ústi on the Luznice, to which they gave the biblical name of Tábor—a name which they afterwards transferred to the neighbouring hill of Hradiste, where they founded the still existing town of Tábor. Lawrence of Březova thus describes one of the early meetings of the Hussites: “In the year of the Lord 1419,” he writes, “the evangelical priests who favoured Master John Hus and administered the Sacrament to the people in the two kinds, and who were called Wycliffites or Hussites, carried the Sacrament in procession, and assembled a large multitude of people of both sexes from all parts of Bohemia, from towns and villages, on a hill near the castle of Bechyn, to which they gave the name of Tábor. They here administered the Eucharist with great reverence to the people, particularly on feast-days, as their rivals did not permit the people to communicate in this fashion in the neighbouring churches. On the day of St. Mary Magdalene a large multitude of people of both sexes and many children assembled on this hill from all parts of the kingdom, and more than 40,000 people very reverently communicated in both kinds according to the tradition of Christ and the custom and observance of the primitive Church. On account of this, Venceslas, King of Bohemia, became very uneasy, fearing that he would be driven from his royal throne, and dreading that his place would be taken by Nicholas of Hus, whom he had shortly before banished from Prague; for Nicholas had, near [the church of] St. Apollinaris, when surrounded by a large crowd of people, who were, however, unarmed, spoken to the multitude in favour of the right of both adult people and children to receive freely Communion in the two kinds.”

It is a proof of the strong Hussite sympathies that prevailed at the court of King Venceslas, that even after their sovereign had abandoned the cause of Church reform many of those who were nearest to him continued to favour the national cause. Nicholas of Hus, who has just been mentioned, had been a member of the royal court, but having been banished from that court because of his Utraquist or Calixtine views, he soon became one of the leaders of the national party. Whether Březova’s statement that Nicholas of Hus aimed at obtaining possession of the Bohemian throne has any foundation cannot, in the absence of sufficient evidence, be ascertained. It is, however, certain that these popular meetings, one of which Březova has described, were not entirely confined to religious practices, but that men such as Nicholas of Hus and Žižka used the opportunity afforded by these vast gatherings for the purpose of giving a certain military training to the numerous peasants, farmers and townsmen who assembled on these occasions. It is more than probable that at the meeting on July 22 the leaders of the people determined soon to march on Prague, should the King continue to be obdurate. It is certain that the nationalists determined that their next meeting should take place at Prague on the day of St. Venceslas (September 28).