Timur Dakhaev North Broward Preparatory School, Coconut Creek, FL, USA

Hussite Movement in North American and English Historiography

In the general point of view and level of understanding of the Hussite movement can be presented on the basis of the synthesis and popular research of American and English scientists (Hay 206-210, Malia 53-80, Turnbull and Agnus 6-15). In the fifteenth century, Europe was beginning to transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. A common today is that during this time Eastern Europe was poverty stricken land, but this is a fallacy. More specifically, for Bohemia and the rest of Eastern Europe this was a time of great progress, where people were becoming more advanced and education was at the forefront of societal importance. The church was the central power and it was the most influential institution in many peoples lives. Unfortunately, this was also the time when the church began corrupt practices such as selling indulgences and other abuses of their economic power. This behavior gave rise to much skepticism towards the church. The change in thought, from scholasticism to humanism, brought about an alteration in the general public's perception. In particular, people stopped comparing modern works and began to look for the source of the thought in order to better understand it. This is the time where the voice of heresy first truly spoke out. People began to see that the church was not infallible and people got tired of it infringing upon their economic rights and personal liberties. Heretical ideas like these were pioneered by people such as Jan Hus and his followers.

Jan Hus while not being a revolutionary himself helped bring about the Hussite revolution and forever changed the society of Eastern Europe. The church's opinion of Hus was that he was just a heretical preacher however, Many of the doctrines attributed to Hus were not heretical at all, [doctrines] were not in fact what he had taught, and that his only real heresy was his denial of the denial of the divine institution of the papal headship of the church(Kaminsky 35). Hus heresy was something that common people could relate to very easily because it kept the dogma of Catholicism while taking away the unfair privileges the church was enjoying. This was one reason that Hus was able to gain so many followers despite the overbearing influence of the church. Hus ideology was based on humanism and sought to return the church to its original piety. Jan Hus received much of his inspiration from studying John Wycliffes works and using it as the core for his own ideology. This made it much easier for Hus to define his own ideological framework, but it also aligned him with the negative comments that Wycliffe himself had received due to his own articles of faith. The Church was given a head start on attacking Hus for his heretical teachings. Jan Hus released his theory to the world during an especially trying time for the church, when its leaders were in an outright power struggle over who would rule next. This happened at a time when the Papacy was in turmoil, with two, and for a year even three rival Popes, in Rome, Avignon, and briefly in Bologna With three separate rulers vying for power, it was the opportune time for Hus to disseminate his thoughts to the masses. The Popes did not like his outlook because their income would suffer and they would no longer have economic control over Bohemia. This also negatively impacted the church because Hus was using the selling of indulgences against them by speaking out openly at public forums. Indulgences are basically a safe conduct pass for getting into heaven, regardless of what sins you have committed. The act of selling these indulgences infuriated Hus because actions such as these were not right in the eyes of truly orthodox practitioners. To put indulgences up for sale for cash was clearly an outrage to the truly devout, and Jan Hus of Bohemia emerged as one of Europes strongest critics of the practice. Hus met opposition at the hand of Pope John XXIII who excommunicated him and demolished his church in Prague for being a nest of Heretics. By 1414, Jan Hus had amassed a large following and was even
2

given an opportunity to present his matters to the most eminent in the church's hierarchy. Despite having much popular support, he feared going to speak with the heads of the church because he thought they would brand him a heretic and burns him to death. Ultimately, he was assured safety by Sigismund of Luxembourg, King of Hungary and younger brother of King Wenceslas IV, who were Pope Johns main allies. Just as Jan Hus had feared, the church did not respond well to his beliefs and he was imprisoned and eventually put on trial for heresy. King Sigismunds pledge proved to be worthless, and at Constance 6 July 1415 Jan Hus was burned to death at the stake (The Martydom of Jan Hus). Immediately after hearing of his death, his followers proclaimed him a martyr, which gave them even more reason to forge ahead with the Hussite Revolution. Jan Hus death changed the course of our world forever because his death brought about a movement that, as Turnbull states, crossed over the narrow dividing line between religious dissent and political rebellion. The Hussite revolution was an open rebellion against the questionable actions of the Catholic Church. People began to realize that they sympathized with Hus objective and began to rebel against the church. The first way that people began to rebel against the church was by openly defying the Canon Law. The Canon Law stated that, during the celebration of Mass they (the congregation) received only the consecrated bread, with the clergy alone partaking of the wine. Hus followers began to partake in both the wine and consecrated bread. This was an open act of rebellion because The Council of Constance had condemned this ritual. Despite the ban, it soon became the cornerstone for Hus' supporters to wage their rebellion. Hus followers demanded from church leaders to partake in these open acts of rebellion. The leaders that did not conform were forced out and replaced with members of the community who would. They took the name Utraquists and used the chalice that held the wine as an image that soon became the symbol of the rebel army. Due to the influence of King Sigismund, his brother King Wenceslas IV feared for his throne and decided to take action against the rebelling Hussites. King Weneceslas IV could not handle the turmoil shown by his people and promptly suffered a stroke and died. This gave his brother an opportunity to seize control of all of Bohemia. When the Hussites opposed this cynical piece of opportunism with armed force, the Hussite Wars began. The first leader of the Hussites came in the form of one eyed Jan Zizka, who was the former captain of Wenceslauss guard. Zizkas first strike against
3

King Sigismunds tyranny was his intention to take Prague. From the death of Hus to the first Defenestration of Prague itself was four years, after which hostilities commenced in earnest(Timotheus 2). The first step to taking Prague was to capture the lone remaining citadel, Vysehrad, which was not in church controlled hands. The garrison was comprised of Zizkas old comrades who surrendered to him; this gave way to the Hussites attacking Prague. When the Hussites attacked, such devastation was unleashed that a peace conference within the city was held granting the Hussites freedom of worship in return for ending the conflict and the surrender of Vysehrad. Zizka was infuriated by the demands for Vysehrad and the behavior of the citizens of Prague. After Zizkas withdrew to Plzen in 1419, Hussite communities became targets for Royalists. in March 1420 Zizka decided to move his base further south, to where the Taborite (his followers) had rebuilt an old strategic fortress called Hradiste and renamed it Tabor. This new fortress was the rallying point for the Hussite movement throughout the war. Also, in March 1420 another important event took place, the proclamation of a crusade tasked to exterminate all Wycliffites, Hussites, other heretics, and those favoring and accepting such heretics. The Royalists looked at the Hussite revolution as a Crusade and were actively raiding around Plzen in hopes of stopping Zizka from leaving Plzen. The royalists attempted to ambush Zizka in the village of Sudomer, but were defeated by Zizkas innovative tactics. The battle of Sudomer was small, yet important, because it was the first major victory for the Hussites and allowed for Zizka to ride into Tabor as a leader praised by god. Zizkas skill as a leader led to a reassessment of his capabilities by his supporters near and far. Eventually, the citizens of Prague, who had spurned him, asked for his assistance with the incoming army of King Sigismund due to two main castles still being in Royalist hands. Zizka marched his army of approximately 9,000 at top speed to help fight against the siege of Prague. Zizka took control of the only strategic point remaining, Vitkov Hill. On July 14th Sigismunds armies attacked the Hussites position and were utterly defeated in one of Zizkas greatest victories. He had his men defending the field fortifications while leading a surprise attack on the enemies flank from the south. The defeat at Vitkov led Sigismund to decide that it would be easier to take Prague politically and took the first step by being crowned King of Bohemia on July 28th 1420. The coronation soon proved to be the only
4

success that Sigismund was to enjoy as the First Crusade began to fall apart. Sigismunds troops were sickened by an epidemic and were hostile to the Czech people which gave the king a bad reputation and forced him to retire to Kunta Hora. During the following months, the Hussites secured many victories and spread their influence far and wide. Zizka had neutralized Ulrich of Rosenberg, who was Sigismunds strongest supporter in Bohemia, The Vysehrad was taken by a Hussite group called the Orebites, and Sigismund was forced to retreat from Bohemia entirely, ending the First Crusade against the Hussites. After the fall of the First Crusade in June 1421, the Four Articles of Prague were published at a parliament in Caslav. The Four Articles ritually denounced Sigismund as the king and religious freedom was given. After this, Bohemia found itself without a king and, according to god; power had to reside within one individual. Grand Duke Alexander Vytautus of Lithuania was dually elected as the king of Bohemia without his participation or presence. The Hussite movement however was almost stalled immediately following the Diet of Caslav due to Jan Zizka being wounded in his remaining good eye during the siege of the castle of Rabi. Miraculously he survived and continued to lead his armies in battle for four more years. Zizkas injury led to one of the Hussites few military losses at the sieges of Most and Zatec. The attack was orchestrated by a German army, under the command of Fredrick of Wettin and was a prelude to the second Crusade. For three weeks the fortress of Zatec held out against the assaults until they received news that the now blind Zizka was on his way at the front of a relief army. With this news the Germans fled and Sigismunds plan to have a joint operation against the Hussites was spoiled. King Sigismunds hired a large army of mercenaries in order to take, the formerly loyal, city of Kunta Hora that converted to supporting the Hussites. Zizka anticipated the kings actions and went to support Hutna Hora with his combined Hussite forces. On December 21st, 1421, the Kings men attacked the Hussite position to the west and left them preoccupied and unable to respond to the remaining Royalists in the city letting a surprise force lead by Sigismunds general form the north gate. A massacre of the Hussites ensued but, fortunately, Zizka, who was cut off on the hills above the battle, led the Hussites in their escape from the city. After retreating, Zizka planned their next move on the 6th of January, 1422. Zizka and his followers struck a group of crusaders at Nebovidy and drove them back towards Kunta Hora. The Hussites followed confidently, and Sigismund
5

was so alarmed that he decided to evacuate Hutna Hora immediately. Sigismund continued to retreat, but tried to make a stand at Habry two days later. Unfortunately for him, his forces were pushed to Nemecky Brod where they were retreated across the ice. Zizka captured Nemecky Brod and destroyed it to the point that wolves and dogs ate the corpses in the town square. After the carnage, Sigismund retreated to Brno in Moravia; this marked the end of the second crusade. The Third crusade only came about because Grand Duke Vytautus of Lithuania wrote to the pope that he was accepting the Czechs under his protection and taking the throne as the King of the Hussites. This assertion was not a very popular idea because many of King Sigismunds supporters felt that a third crusade would be the only way to settle matters with the Hussites and to neutralize Vytautus claim to the throne, although the king was disinclined to take a personal role once again. The crusading armies entered Bohemia form the North and West in October 1422 and were tasked with relieving the last Royalist stronghold, Karlstein. This war was halfhearted because, throughout the majority of it, Prince Korybut of Lithuania spent as much time fighting as he did trying to negotiate peace. On November 8th of the same month an armistice was signed putting an end to the third crusade. This crusade was unique however because it was the only one that did not end with the destruction of the crusaders. After the third crusade, the Hussites enjoyed an extended period of peace and safety but also a period that jeopardized the Hussite movement in its entirety. With a common enemy, the Hussites stood united, but without common enemy disagreements began to spill forth within the group itself. One of the main disagreements had its roots in Jan Zizka leaving Tabor and establishing himself as the leader of the Orebites. After defeating a rival army and reasserting his position as leader of the Hussites, both Taborites and Orebites stood united under Zizka. However, this did not end well because when assaulting the castle of Pribyslav, Zizka contracted a plague and died during his siege. The death of their figurehead led the Hussites into the War of the Orphans, which eventually led to the fourth and fifth crusades. As a result of the Hussite endeavor, a compromise was reached by the Hussites, The Emperor, and the Church that solidified most of the Hussite values that they strived for in 1436. Individuals such as Matthew Spinka, Howard Kaminsky, Jarold Zeman, John Martin Klassen, and Frederick G. Heymann, among few
6

others, are the main researchers who studied the Hussite revolution and brought it back to their respective shores. Spinka, Kaminsky, Hayman, Klassen, Zemin and David were American researchers, while Betts, Leff, Hudson, Turnbull, and McBride were English. Their research finally let the Anglo-American world know about the history of the Hussites and their revolution. Before they published their works, the Hussite revolution was unknown to the rest of the world for a variety of reasons. Thanks to their contributions, the Hussite revolution is slowly receiving the recognition it deserves and rightly being given the place it is worthy of in both history and the educational system in many parts of the world. However, in places like Britain and the United States in particular, the Hussite revolution is having trouble gaining traction in the educational system. There are not many specialists on the subject in the US and in Britain among the common population. The majority of Hussite publications came into light only after the end of the World War II. Most importantly the American and English researchers derived all of their information directly from the original sources. Taking a Humanist approach to the situation means that the English and Americans want to discover for themselves about the Hussites without relying solely on the knowledge passed on by the Czechs. Studying the revolution from within this framework allows for different interpretations and understandings of the same event; furthermore, adds to the posterity of the work on the Hussite movement in general. Despite the lack of a welldeveloped scientific school of thought on the topic, researchers continue to study the subject from various angles and perspectives. The reasons for this vary but there are certainly definitive underlying factors involved. More specifically, the innate attraction of the American culture to the idea of revolution, the British resistance to the idea of revolution and its' relation to colonialist attitudes and, ultimately, the linguistic and cultural barriers are all factors that brought so much focus onto the subject. Both the English and American researchers have an opinion on revolutions which greatly influences their viewpoints and makes many of the publications on the matter extremely subjective. After all, absolute objectivity is a myth. Czech, American, and English researchers all perceive revolutions in different ways and, therefore, interpret it differently. From the American perspective, revolutions are excellent things that bring about changes that will lead to prosperity and be universally beneficial. According to Louis Gottschalk
7

So far it has been argued that revolutions occur because of (1) a demand for change, which is itself the result of (a) widespread provocation and (b) solidified public opinion; and (2) a hopefulness of change, which is itself the result of (a) a popular program and (b) trusted leadership. All these four factors, however, even when they act together, cannot by themselves create revolution. They are only the remote causes of revolution. There are several examples of popular movement in which all four have been operative and yet successful revolutions have not occurred; or in which, if the initial revolutionary steps were taken, they failed to effect significant change, as in the case of the Hussite movement, the Republic of Virtue, and the Confederacy(Gottschalk 6-7). In his article, Gottschalk points out that without a competent leader support of the public, and a demand for change, revolution has no hope to be successful. This idea hits right at home for American researchers who have the pleasure of having all of the above requirements during their revolution manifested by George Washington. From a pro revolution standpoint, Washington and Hus are similar leaders and could spark emotions in the hearts of their followers. Looking at Jan Hus, he was a very competent and trusted leader. Hus humanistic approach made him a trusted leader by his followers because he sought to take the unfair control the church away and to promote his own interpretation of the bible instead of the churches. Without popular support, Hus thoughts would have failed to make an impact and the Hussite revolution may have never taken place. During Hus time there was also a high demand for change because the church began to abuse its authority and economic power. The church's selling of indulgences played to the populations fear of going to hell because of what the church called sins. Jan Hus was not the only one going against this practice, even his predecessors such as John Wycliffe believed that the church should not profit from offering people false hope. People at that time were also transitioning form scholasticism to humanism and were attempting to interpret the bible in their own way without the church interfering. Looking more closely at the bible made people realize that they shouldnt have to pay the church for indulgences when they could simply absolve themselves for any sins they committed through confession and prayer. A paradigm shift to humanistic thought and the availability of
8

the bible allowed people to interpret for themselves what for so long had been taught to them by the clergy. Jan Hus gained the support of the public easily because his ideology put the people first, unlike the church. With his dogma in place, the church would not have the overbearing economic power that it had before and the constancy would be the focal point of the church. Indulgences came to an end and the middle man between humans and god would be cut away so he could no longer fill his pockets by selling false hopes. Without being based on giving people complete control over their faith, Hus would have had a much harder time trying to rally popular support for his cause. With these combined factors, Hus was the ideal type of leader to support a very plausible revolution in the eyes of Gottschalk. Unfortunately, just having the will and the leader was not enough to make the Hussite revolution successful. The Hussite revolution led to a great deal of change in the 1400s but overall it was not a significant success. It made changes to the Czech life but has had little effect on the rest Europe. Unfortunately, for Jan Hus, the Protestant Reformation looming over the horizon was not a good sign of his revolution being recognized. A change in such a notable place as England completely overshadowed the initial cause of change, the Hussite Revolution, in Europe and drew everyones attention to more centralized happenings. The Hussite Revolution did not get all the recognition it deserved due to the Protestant Reformation eclipsing it. If the reformation in England had not happened, or happened later then there would be a lot more research done on the Hussite revolution as it was what started many social trends that were later followed in Europe. Unfortunately, the recognition that the Hussite Revolution received was, at least in some part, simply due to the events that mark the boundaries of its' relative date. The initiator of the Protestant Reformation was none other then Martin Luther, a German priest and theologian. Just like Jan Hus one of his main gripes with the church was the selling of indulgences. In his 95 theses the selling of indulgences was one of the major issues he had with the church and thought that it should be changed. Like Hus, he was

excommunicated from the church for spouting such heretical ideas. Both of these leaders had great ambitions and tried to change the church in much of the same way, the only difference was that there was much more success for Martin Luther because he had more widespread popularity and had support from many different countries. The revolutions were very similar because they both were against a common enemy, the all-powerful church. They both also had very similar leaders who initiated the revolutions with similar goals. The church losing its economic power and letting the people interpret religion themselves was the result of both of these men. After that the similarities keep growing and the influence of the Hussite revolution on Martin Luther becomes very apparent. The ideologies themselves are very similar but the only main difference is the time period, which leads to newer advances in technology. Having the same technology in his time Jan Hus would have mad a much easier time getting allies because of the availability of bibles for self interpretation due to the printing press, more advanced and perfected battle techniques, and even more diverse cultures and understandings. Revolutions would still remain negative to most people but at the same time many more people then before would be willing to revolt against the church regardless. The ideas behind Hussite Revolution are not widely disseminated throughout Europe because of the social stigma associated with revolutions and peoples resistance to change. Associated with the word revolution are usually words like change, violence, war, selfishness, and rebellion, so it is usually viewed by the general public negatively. With revolution being portrayed in such a manor, it is hard to convince someone that it would be a good idea to be part of the revolution. Also, revolutions are associated with people changing their livelihoods for good and losing your livelihood with no guarantee of it being better after the revolution, If you think of a revolution as a product it would be close to impossible to sell solely because it is a product that has no guarantee of working better then your old one, has a high cost, and if it doesnt work you would be in a far worse situation then before. With such a product, it would be a hard sell to anyone who wasnt a complete believer in its possibilities and the likelihood of it being better then the previous one. Basically, there is quite and opportunity cost that individuals must take into account before being able to commit to the
10

revolution entirely. Having a revolution is trying on both a political level as well as on an economic one. From a political standpoint, the revolutionaries have to create their own form of government that would rule and it would have to battle head to head against the current political government be it a king or a elected leader. It was also not successful enough on an economic level because it cost so many lives and resources that it would have taken many years for the economy to return to normal after the military production boom and the inevitable recession following it. The Hussite revolution, overall, was a success, but simply not significant enough to warrant the attention of the rest of the world or to influence its' progression. Researchers from America and England both have different perspectives about revolutions in general. Americans are more pro revolution because it is the way their nation was conceived. The English on the other hand think of it in a more negative light because of their origins in colonialism and their constant encounter with resistance. From the American point of view, revolution is a very good thing because it signifies going against a tyrannical power that is ruining the potential of a nation. In American History, revolution has always been thought of more positively due to its fundamental importance in the creation of the country. Due to this association, Americans are much more attracted to the idea of a revolution then English. Without a good history with revolutions, Americans would not look to them so kindly or think of them in good regard. The American Revolution was a specific historical event when the American people who were trying to create new lives for themselves had to fight the English for freedom in their new land. Right after the land was colonized the people of America sought independence and freedom from English rule. It seemed ridiculous to them that they should take orders from a monarchy a world away. The common belief was that since they were so far away, the English should not have the ability to rule them as they wish and should let them become a free nation. The American population soon decided that it was time for them to attain the freedom that they desired. With the decision to become their own independent nation, the USA had begun a revolution against the English in order to change their lives for the better.
11

With the American Revolution spurring them forward, the mindset of the average American changed so that revolution was seen in a positive light. If you ask an American if they believe that the American Revolution was a good thing you would hear yes every time. This thought process has deeply influenced how we think of the Hussite revolution because they can sympathize more with the intentions of Jan Hus and the Hussites. It allows Americans to look at the Hussite revolution from a favorable perspective where they are doing the right thing by revolting. If your nation developed into a world superpower because of its revolting against its parent nation then you would also look upon revolutions with favor because of the possible reward that comes with it. Fredrick G. Hayman, the author of John Zizka and the Hussite Revolution wrote a scientific biography about who he considered to be the greatest Hussite military leader and politician of all time, Jan Zizka. He also focused on the Hussite King Jiri of Podebrady in the later stages of the Hussite wars. Hayman is one of the few Anglo-American researchers that focused on the latter half of the 15th century and Hussite war knows as the Podebradskaya era. Despite showcasing a broad view of the entire Hussite revolution, he downplays the importance of the economic factors of the revolution while bringing light to the socio-political panorama of the entire Hussite revolution. Among all researchers the American Howard Kaminsky is one of the most well known for his work A History of the Hussite Revolution. His book has been called by foreign researchers as the most authoritative and well-known book on the history of the Hussite revolution in the AngloSaxon world. In his research, Kaminsky focused mostly on the first 20 years of the 15th century, despite the revolution still going on after that time. He chose to write mostly about the Taborites, who were the Hussite extremists who originated from Jan Hus open-air meetings. Choosing to write about only the most radical and extremist group of Hussites shows off where Kaminskis interests lay. His choice to focus on the radicals shows that they are the ones that usually take the first step in starting a revolution and doing what I necessary to make it work. This theory clearly relates to the American concept of revolution. His support is not lost when focusing on this time period either. He talks about the start of the revolution and the importance that it held as well as goes (watch your tenses) into detail about the effect the Taborites had on history.
12

The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution was written by John Martin Klassen, who was a student of Howard Kaminsky. Unlike Kaminsky however, Klassen focuses on studying the role of the Czech nobility in the moderate Hussite camp. He analyzed the role of Czech nobility from the perspective of both helping and holding back the Hussite revolution. He shows in marvelously clear and concise fashion the ways in which Bohemian society resembled and differed from Western society (Hennenman 595). His book is much respected among Czech scholars and is considered by them to be the original independent study of the Hussite revolution. Revolution is represented in his book by the comparison of the Bohemian and Western societys. Another American researcher who shares a fondness for revolution is Anthony T. Padovano. He is currently a professor at Ramapo Collage in New Jersey. Out of the 28 books he has written, in The Estranged God: Modern Man's Search for Belief, he says With rebellion, awareness is born. This text reaffirms the idea that Americans share an emotional bond with revolutions that leads to them being biased toward revolutions in a positive way. While not directly studying the Hussite revolution he is an American Roman Catholic Theologian that has been influenced by American perspective on revolutions. With such a thought process it is no wonder that fellow American researchers would look upon revolutions very positively. Seeing how there is no definitive school of thought on this subject, the Hussite revolution has been studied in a slightly varied fashion and came away with diverse results. Even teacher and student, Kaminsky and Klassen, ended up studying different parts of the Hussite revolution and concluded their research with different perspectives on the revolution. Regardless, the American research on the topic certainly has a common thread in regards to revolution and its' constructive possibilities. . England, on the other hand, does not take kindly to revolutions of any kind because, unlike the revolutionaries, they stand to lose some thing in the conflict if it arises. The English have their roots in colonialism and imperialism, conquering and not being conquered. This has led the English people to think of Revolutions of any kind in a negative fashion and look down upon those who would purport resistance. Due to this the predisposition about revolutions by the English, they would clearly be more
13

negative or disapproving then both the Czech and American perspectives. The English have always been on the receiving end of revolutions such as the American Revolution and The Revolution of 1688. At some point, people were always displeased with the way that things were being done in England and decided to revolt against it. With such a history it is no surprise that the English view revolutions negatively. The British have been revolted against many times and their authors on The Hussite Revolution for the most part, dont excessively focus on the actual aspect of the revolution but on the technology, ideology, and military strategy of the Hussite revolution Regenald Rovert Betts was responsible for writing Jerome of Prague, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 1 and is one of the only researchers to have begun his study before the end of the Second World War. His books covers the beginning of the Czech Revolution and the leading Czech Wyclifftes such as Jerome Prague. Wycliffe and Hus: A Doctrinal Comparison is a text that goes in depth about the similarities and differences between the two revolutionaries. The book was written by Gordon Leff in 1968 and is focused on the ideologies of the Hussites in the field of comparative history. His text compares and contrasts the teachings of both Jan Hus and John Wycliffe. The leading specialist on the Hussite Revolution among British researchers is Anne Hudson. She wrote the book The Premature Reformation in 1988. Her text studies the texts of Wycliffe and how he influenced Jan Hus, Czech origins, and the influence of the Lollards in the Czech reformation. She does not directly study the effects of the Hussite revolution on the Czech Republic but rather studies what has influenced the Czech Reformation form various perspectives. Stephen Turnbull and Angus McBride worked together to create the historical text The Hussite Wars, 1419-1436. Their book was published recently in 2004 and is a historical overview of the Hussite revolution and what happened there but mainly focuses on its military History. This book gives insight into the military side of the Hussite revolution rather then the ideological perspective. It contains both a short historical overview followed by an in depth analysis of the weapons and battle tactics used by the Hussites during the revolution.
14

British researchers are not too fond of the idea of revolutions but for the sake of trying to obtain objectivity they choose to stray form the actual revolution and focus more on things like ideology, tactics and strategies that affected how the war would play out. Only Regenald R. Battes and Anne Hudson actually went into detail about the actual revolution instead of writing about some side effect or other side bits about the war. Despite the lack of English enthusiasm in researching the revolution, the information they discovered about military strategy and tactics, as well as new understandings about the ideology brought about many new benefits in other areas of Hussite research. Overall, the English go about studying the revolution differently than America or mainland Europe because of its' outlook upon the nature of revolution in general as well as its' own historiography. The most important reason for the research of the Hussite revolution starting so late was due to the linguistic and cultural barrier that existed between the Czech and the rest of Europe. The Czech may have had a better opportunity to interpret and disseminate the Hussites teachings, but the language barrier prevented them from sharing their knowledge and information with the masses until the end of World War II. Much later then it should have been. Because of this impasse, religious revolutions didnt reach the rest of Europe until Martin Luthers time even though the same thing had already happened in the Czech Republic. The lack of communication to the rest of Europe made this a failure because it prevented the protestant reformation from happening sooner and it prevented the Protestant reformers from learning valuable lessons from the Hussites that could have made their reformation happen quicker or less violently. It is interesting to investigate from the literature how authors from different countries do indeed have varying predispositions or tendencies when writing about a historical event. The innate attraction of the American culture to the idea of revolution, the British resistance to the idea of revolution and its' relation to colonialist attitudes and, ultimately, the linguistic and cultural barriers that arose between the Czech Republic and the rest of Europe are all factors that determine the bias that is naturally injected into native authors works. In precise, the Hussite Revolution has a variety of interpretations floating around. Though much progress has been made, a solidified
15

understanding of the events of the 15th century has yet to find a true home in academia. This disunity is certainly a tragedy because of how influential and poignant the events truly were. Though determinism may plays a role in how events unfold, it is important to note the evolution behind punctuated happenings and not forget all of the combined factors that create what we see as history. Even though the Hussite Revolution would most likely have happened without Jan Hus and its' influential leaders, to not recognize them would be unsound. What is interesting is the fact that Martin Luther got so much credit for conspiring in a very similar way to Jan Hus, yet Jan Hus' accomplishments are certainly not as widely regarded. Perhaps historians should take a more holistic approach and avoid recognizing individuals while attempting to encapsulate larger social trends and the true causes behind events that we see as historical markers. Perhaps this would curb any type of dissent from the objective truth that we have seen in cases such as the viewpoint of Americans, English and mainland Europe. It would definitely promote a more unified understanding of history in general.

16

Works Cited Gottschalk, Louis, Causes of Revolution, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jul., 1944), pp. 1-8, The University of Chicago Press. Hay, Denis. Europe in the Fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries, Pearson Education Limited, 2000 Hayman, Frederick G. John Zizka and the Hussite Revolution - Princeton University Press, 1955 George of Bohemia-King of Heretic. By Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965. Henneman, John Bell. The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution by John Martin Klassen, Speculum, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Jul., 1979), pp. 595-597 Hudson, Anne. The Premature Reformation. Wycliffites Texts and Lollard History, Oxford 1988. Kaminsky, Howard. A History of the Hussite Revolution, Berkeley / Los Angeles 1967. Klassen, John Martin. The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution, Boulder - New York 1978 Leff, Gordon. Wyclif and Hus: A Doctrinal Comparison. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 50, 1968, s. 387-410. Malia, Martin. Historys Locomotives. Revolutions and the making of the Modern World. Yale University, 2007. Reginald, Robert Betts, Jerome of Prague, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, 1. (1947): 51-91. English and Czech Influences on the Hussite Movement, in: TRHS 4th Ser., 1921, 1939, S. 71-102. Turnbull, Stephen and Angus McBride. The Hussite Wars, 1419-1436. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004. Zeman, Jarold K. the Hussite Movement and the Reformation in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia, 1350-1650, a Bibliographical Study Guide, Ann Arbor 1967.

17