I recently finished Frederick Heymann's George of Bohemia: King of Heretics (1965, Princeton University Press). It's a weighty and laborious read but necessary for anyone seeking to understand the history of Hussitism.
By way of reminder or review, Charles IV of Luxembourg became King of Bohemia in 1346 when his father John was killed at Crecy. Charles (who a decade later was crowned Holy Roman Emperor) transformed Prague, making it his imperial capital and lending his name to not just the famous bridge but the university and much more. His son Wenceslaus (or Vaclav) reigned from 1378 until his death in 1419 - reputedly from rage or shock concerning the Hussite Defenestration of Prague. This was the opening salvo in the Hussite Wars which would rage until the 1434 Battle of Lipany in which the Utraquist factions allied with the Catholics utterly defeated the (up to then) undefeated Taborites.
Sigismund who as Holy Roman Emperor (and King of Hungary) burned Hus at Constance in 1415, also took over from his brother Wenceslaus in 1419 as King of Bohemia - though he was not able to secure rule until after 1434 and the Hussite pacification. The Basel Compacts (or Compactata) signed in 1436 granted legitimacy to Utraquism and the right to commune in both kinds.
Sigismund died in 1437, barely outliving his triumph. He had no son and his death marked the end of the Luxembourg Dynasty. His daughter Elizabeth married Albert Habsburg, Duke of Austria and thus the crown of Bohemia (and Hungary) is first associated with that infamous family. Albert was king just over a year and died (1439) while his son was still in utero - hence his moniker Ladislaus the Posthumous. The infant king would be subject to regents and this is where George comes into the picture.
As a teenager George fought on the Utraquist side in the 1434 Battle of Lipany and while Taboritism survived the battle, it was politically and militarily marginalised. The Utraquists wielded considerable power in the kingdom and the power struggles of Bohemia were perpetually entangled with larger questions of German and Czech politics, leading some Czech Catholic aristocrats to support (at times) fellow Czech Utraquists, thus putting national and political interests over ecclesiastical. A minor nobleman by birth, George grew in power and became Regent to the teenage Ladislaus in 1453. By then the kingdom was already engaged in a low-grade civil war - in almost every case the politics overlap with that of neighbouring Hungary (which until 1918 included today's Slovakia or Upper Hungary). There were also Utraquist factions scheming to formally reunite with Rome. George crushed these elements militarily and in 1448 occupied Prague. This warlord-like ascendancy set him up for the Regent position a few years later which given that Ladislaus was merely a teenager - it meant he was the real power behind the throne.
In Hungary, John (or Janos) Hunyadi (the hero of Belgrade) served as regent to Ladislaus - who also held the title King of Hungary. Though Hungary and Bohemia had the same king, their polities, law, and government were different. Hungary was also outside the Holy Roman Empire and yet it's monarch often held lands and titles within the Empire - or was emperor himself.
These disputes over sovereignty led to tensions with Frederick III - the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor based in Vienna. Ladislaus was his cousin and the emperor pursued Habsburg and German interests which generated tensions with Magyar and Bohemian concerns. But to everyone's surprise, in 1457 Ladislaus died childless at age 17 - many believed that he was poisoned, and not a few pointed the finger at George. Nevertheless, the Bohemian estates elected George as King in 1458.
This created something of a crisis as the Utraquist George could not be formally crowned by a Catholic Archbishop. Additionally as King of Bohemia he was one of the seven Electors for the Holy Roman Empire. The situation was unacceptable. He was in the eyes of the Roman Establishment - a heretic. And remember this was over fifty years before Luther nailed the 95 Theses.
George tried to play the double game - ruling in the name of the Compactata and its securing of Utraquist toleration, but at the same time he took secret oaths to Rome promising to eventually bring the kingdom into alignment. I'm afraid throughout the course of his kingship he comes across as an unprincipled opportunist - certainly not a figure to be celebrated as he is in some Protestant historical narratives.
He faced constant intrigue and controversy - the Habsburgs scheming against him and stirring up trouble in German cities, especially in Moravia. Bohemia held territory to the north in Silesia as well (in today's Poland) and the Catholic prelates worked to undermine his rule. For his part, George tried to look past all this and unify the rulers of Central Europe in order to create an alliance against the advancing Turks, but this was to no avail. It should be noted that at this time Vlad Țepeș (or Dracula) had seized the Wallachian throne and in 1462 a new chapter of the Ottoman War had exploded. This is in addition to Ottoman advances in Greece and Serbia. Though stopped by Janos Hunyadi at Belgrade in 1456, the Ottomans would continue to conquer territory - Bosnia, Albania, and much of the Balkans. Eventually they would turn north again, and in 1521 Belgrade fell - opening the doors to Central Europe.
Despite George's backroom deals with Rome - which all came to nothing, he stood by his fellow Utraquist Jan Rokycana and consistently pushed for him to be made Archbishop of Prague. But as a Hussite heretic, he was rejected by Rome out of hand. For his part (as unrecognized archbishop) Rokycana tried to work for George's interests and played an important role in trying to foster a new group or sect that would bridge the gap between the Utraquists and the still extant groups of Taborites. Led by his nephew Gregory (Řehoř), these Brethren would also rely heavily on the writings and influence of Petr Chelčický. Rokycana recommended him which has long puzzled historians as Rokycana's moderate Utraquism seems incompatible with the radicalism of Chelčický - who had turned his back on Utraquism, the Taborites, and Prague.
This new group of Brethren (who would become the Unity of the Brethren or Unitas Fratrum) held to a more 'radical' theology than the Utraquists and yet at key points rejected the doctrines of the Taborites - especially their approval of political violence and this may be key to the reason why Rokycana encouraged them in the direction of Chelčický. From his doctrine of nonviolence to his high view of the sacraments, Chelčický seemed also a kind of 'bridge' figure, one that could bring the Taborites in the doctrinal direction of the Utraquists and potentially (in time) a place could be made for them.
Through the efforts of Rokycana, these Brethren were granted asylum at Litice (or Lititz) near Kunvald - on the very estates of King George. Other branches existed at Klatovy in West Bohemia and there were other groups in South Bohemia associated with Chelčický and others. This is in addition to the Waldensian population - both German and Czech. And some have argued (with reason) that Chelčický may have in fact been a Waldensian - in addition to various hints and clues in his writings, it's the only group that matches his teachings. And it's also clear based on the testimony of Friedrich Reiser and others that the groups were beginning to overlap.
And yet by 1461, the pressure on George from Rome was considerable and in order to pacify and silence his Catholic enemies he turned against these Bohemian Brethren leading to arrests, torture, and flight. It was a rough but fairly brief outbreak of persecution - almost a token move made by George to silence critics. Of course it must be remembered that most people did not know of his secret oaths made to Rome. The record indicates that Rokycana intervened and attempted to ameliorate the situation.
Rome for its part was still caught in throes of struggle over the Conciliar Movement and the aftermath of the Great Schism (1378-1415). Poland was battling the Teutonic Knights and there was ever the threat of the Turks. The Habsburgs had their rivals such as the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria (who would ally with George and then later turn against him), and there were also the concerns of Saxony and Brandenburg, under the Wettins and Hohenzollerns respectively. Plague also tore across Central Europe in 1461-62.
In the midst of this unsettled political landscape George seemed to reach for the stars, at one point scheming to become King of the Romans, the next in line for the title of Holy Roman Emperor - as a means of solving all of his problems in one fell swoop. But this was unattainable. In fact, Rome for its part continued to scheme, pre-selecting his successor and ever encouraging barons and bordering states to make trouble for him.
Civil war broke out in the mid-1460's but George remained in power. The turning point came when Matthias Hunyadi (Corvinus) entered the fray. Once George's son-in-law, Matthias as King of Hungary (and son of John Hunyadi) had his own political concerns and aspirations and yet was able to promote the crusade narrative of returning Bohemia to the fold of Rome. He began by supporting Moravian rebels and in 1469 was elected by Roman interests as King of Bohemia - obviously a functional declaration of war on George.
In the meantime the Brethren or Unitas Fratrum had completed their break with both Utraquism and Rome and in 1467 sought ordination from the Waldenses out of Austria. This infuriated George and opened a new chapter of persecution - this time supported by their one-time friend and sponsor, the now frustrated Rokycana. His purpose in supporting them was shattered as they pursued a wholly sectarian policy. Though not militants like the Taborites, their very existence marked a failure on the part of George's Compactata policy. Now not only was he the Heretic King, his domain and previously his own lands were a refuge to these Brethren and other heretical groups that completely denounced Rome and would not even pretend to be interested in a reconciliation.
Thus began a second wave of persecution under George - the Hussite king once again turned persecutor.
Again for George the paramount concern is always his standing. At one point in the Bohemian War (as it is sometimes called) he had Matthias trapped and could have annihilated his army and killed him but he let him go and his forces retreated. George's son Victor was captured by Matthias later that year and held prisoner. He would eventually be released but was forced to convert to Catholicism. In addition to the farcical and destructive war there were many twists and turns, changing sides, and betrayals.
George and Rokycana died only weeks apart in 1471. Vladislav II (Jagiellon) of Poland was elected King of Bohemia and the war with Matthias continued another seven years. Matthias captured and retained significant portions of Moravia but upon his death twelve years later in 1490, Vladislav also inherited the Hungarian throne effectively negating the results of the long war. He was the grandson of Albert Habsburg, previous King of both Bohemia and Hungary - his mother being sister to Ladislaus Posthumous, Albert's son and short-lived successor. Had George in Bohemia and the Hunyadis not intervened in Hungary - Vladislav (1456-1516) would have been considered a strong contender for the thrones of both lands and ultimately both kingships fell to him. Too young at the time of his uncle Ladislaus' death in 1457 to have been a serious contender, by 1490 he was master of both realms.
Under Vladislav (or Vladislaus), the 1485 Statutes of Kutna Hora granted toleration to both Utraquists and Catholics - an order that would continue until the Habsburg's final destruction of Utraquism in 1620 at White Mountain. Nevertheless the Brethren were excluded and continued to suffer persecution.
George, the Hussite-Heretic King lived an eventful and fascinating life and he looms large in the period - an era of other 'great' or notable historical personages such as Matthias Corvinus, Mehmed II, the emperor Maximilian, Skanderbeg, and France's Louis XI. The Wars of the Roses tore England apart during this period and the Fall of Constantinople still sent shock-waves across Christendom. Gutenberg's printing press and Medici rule in Florence marked the beginning of a new era, and in just a few years Columbus would open up the New World and launch the Age of Exploration. The Middle Ages (as they would come to be known) were coming to an end and George and his contemporaries lived in their sunset.
But George's story is not one of moral fortitude or idealism. It's a tale of self-promotion and survival accompanied by complicated schemes, episodes of duplicity, and visions of grandeur. Religious conviction was reduced to cold political calculation and as such he is precursor to the kind of Christian politicking that would become commonplace in the 16th and 17th centuries with the rise of Magisterial Protestantism. And though the polities have changed, it's very much with us today. George put his own interests first and would make use of anyone who would help him to that end - and turn his wrath toward any who dared resist him or work contrary to his interests. Truly, his spirit lives on in the kind of Christian politicking we know so well.
His is a fascinating and yet seemingly improbable chapter of history - in terms of Roman Catholic Christendom, George was indeed a heretic king and yet set in the unique context of the medieval sunset and the burgeoning renaissance he foreshadowed the new and coming era - one in which Rome would no longer hold sway. The Papacy would remain powerful but the age of medieval dominance had come to an end. The fact that George survived as king for well over decade testifies to this. By sheer force of will and with no small degree of cunning George maintained his throne. That said, he was no friend to the faithful and like his enemies - the defenders of Christendom, New Testament Christianity was unknown to him. Those that reckon him a hero of the faith have misread his tale and leave a misleading legacy.