secretly aided the defenders of Plzeň, could not accept this proposal, and they, as already mentioned, immediately left Prague. The Roman Catholic party attributed the failure of the negotiations to Prokop.[1]
The political complications in Bohemia now began to overshadow the religious controversies with which they were so closely connected. The anarchical condition of the Táborite and Orphan armies became an ever-increasing danger. Irritated by their continued failure to obtain possession of Plzeň and by the famine which had broken out in the camp, the soldiers, now entirely beyond control, harassed and raided the country near Plzeň, robbing and murdering the peasantry. Prokop the Great, who would, perhaps, have succeeded in maintaining a certain amount of discipline, had not returned to the camp. The depredations caused by the soldiers had so greatly irritated the population that the people on several occasions rose in arms against them. At Horaždovic the pillagers were attacked by the soldiers of Lord Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec and defeated with great loss, and at Benešov the Knight John Malovec of Pacov surprised another band of Táborites at night-time and dispersed them. When the news of these defeats spread in the camp violent riots broke out, similar to those that had occurred on the occasion of the return of Pardus. The siege of Plzeň still continued meanwhile, but all hopes of starving out the fortress, which was considered too strong to be stormed, gradually disappeared. In the absence of all discipline the investment was not carried out thoroughly, and on several occasions the Catholic allies of Plzeň found means to bring provisions into the city. The citizens also received financial aid from various quarters. The members of the Council of Basel made a collection of money for the
- ↑ Brother Ulrick, already quoted, wrote, on February 19, 1434, to the abbot of Tegernsee: “Tunc isti de prædicta obsidione [of Plzeň) miserunt Procopium inimicum pacis cum aliis suis ad civitatem Pragensem qui impediverunt hoc sanctum opus unitatis et pacis quod prius acceptatum erat” (Palacký, Urkunden, etc., Vol. II. pp. 402–405).
