Interestingly enough, sources from 15th century Bohemia describe behavior of Sigismund armies as unprecedented in the area. That does not mean that your sources covering 30 years war or Burgundian civil war are any less relevant for their period and place.
However, to use your own argument - it is like saying that nobody could really take offense of what is happening in Ukraine today, simply because it has been happening in Africa for decades. Sorry, but this reasoning doesn’t work.
And compering confiscation of livestock to large scale pilliging is outright nonsense. That is like comparing taxes to armed robbery.
I think there is a big difference between nowadays (modern codified human rights) and Middle Ages, when as I stated brutality was pretty much regularly used as political means by nobles.
About Wenceslaus: It seems he was not able to manage the kingdom in a manner he should have because several nobles denied their support and started rebellions even before Sigismund interfered in Bohemia. By that I don’t justify plunderings etc. done by soldiers of Sigismund. After all Wenceslaus was dethroned as emperor because he was “eynen unnüczen, versümelichen, unachtbaren entgleder und unwerdigen hanthaber des heiligen Romischen richs” (~ a futile, idle, unrespectable decomposer and a dishonorable operator of the Holy Roman Empire). Well, that’s what his biased opponents say, but at least it shows what some of his coevals thought of him.
There was the original argument that went along the way that Sigismund is unreasonably portrayed in the Czech history in a negative way, mostly because Wenceslaus was incompetent while Sigismund was active and able.
I counter-argued that Sigismund’s understanding is well established due to the horrors his armies inflicted in the Czech kingdom.
Then the argument was made along the way that horrors inflicted by Sigismund armies were a commonplace in Burgundy and in 16th century during the 30 years war.
I counter-argued that the Czech lands were in relative peace for over four generations, so (1) it was not a commonplace in the area at the time and (2) even if it was, it would not be any less repulsive, thus fully justifying the way Sigismund is generally viewed.
Now you come back to Wenceslaus was not able to manage the kingdom. I think we are talking apples and oranges.
Sorry for a late reply, but I was away for a while. Seems like the argumentation here went just awfully wrong. I will try to clarify my standpoint (which initiated all this) a bit more.
Close, but not exactly. I was countering the notion of Václav being a fair and innocent victim and Sigismund being a ruthless powerhungry warmongering tyrant and traitor, though I may not have used the most credible arguments.
Truth is that both of these men were highly regarded on the personal level as very social, educated and respectful. But one major difference between them was in what they were striving for along with their approach and responsibility to their goals and obligations that went with achieving these goals.
In this, Václav was seriously lacking compared to his brother, which was exactly the reason why his whole career ended up the way it did.
The actual argument was that the horrors inflicted by the Sigismund’s armies (by armies sent there on his behalf, but not by himself in person and doubtfully by his explicit orders) were commonplace in any major armed conflict pretty much during the whole recorded and known human history.
You could possibly trace cases similar (or even worse) to these all the way since the Ancient era up till today.
The particular cases like the 30 Years’ War were nothing more than just an example that a thing like that was anything but unprecedented for a war-waging army to do. Anytime, anywhere. Even the Hussites were burning down settlements and commiting mass-murder on their enemies in several occasions.
And they didn’t do it simply out of some revenge. As always, it was about extinguishing the enemies of the “true faith”. Whatever that is and whoever says that at whatever point…
It doesn’t make it any less resentful on either side, it only means that a village getting burned down during a war is not really something special, not even for its time.
And for its place?
Who ever cared about what the locals are or are not used to when any random army came to any random area to enforce its goal? That is a socio-political luxury of the 20th Century. And only for the more developed part of the world. (That’s why I mentioned Africa, with its ongoing bloody ethnic and religious wars in the mainland.)
For a regular average military brain on a march it was only about taking land and resources and preventing the enemy from taking them for themselves. The stuff we call “civilians” today and tend to care about it was viewed mostly as something that only gets in the way if it’s not on “our” side and can’t be conscripted for “our” cause. And it may even cause trouble, so who cares if some of them die?
That’s a part of what “getting medieval on someone’s ass” means.
And I was specifically trying to point out on how questionable it is to blame Sigismund that a bunch of soldiers sent somewhere on an assignment for him burned themselves a village (Henry’s village, if anything…) along the way. It is really the fault of the men that did it and their direct commanders who didn’t prevent it. And by the way…
Ok, so… imagine a unit of armed soldiers showing themselves up in your house all of a sudden, acting like they own everything around there just because they are armed better than you and taking your supplies for themselves no matter how much you yourself have or need. And they also don’t intend to take “no” for an answer. Tough luck, Grumpycat.
What would you call it? Tax collecting, or an armed robbery?
Anyway, once again (finally) returning to the initial point I was trying to make (or TLDR):
Sigismund was no Darth Sigismundus and it’s somewhat unfair and ignorant to picture him like that. The whole situation at that time was almost eyebrow-risingly complicated and would be a matter for another wall of text and maybe even a separate thread (which I’m already considering…).
Still, if it came to a question if to choose working for Václav or for Sigismund… all I’m saying is that the choice would be pretty much anything else than black and white.
We are talking so many shades of gray that E.L. James couldn’t even imagine…
The whole initial argument was based in turning the general understanding of Sigismund as someone who is historically portrayed in negative way for no good reason. I resented that, and I do resent that. He led armies that were, according to period sources, behaving in ways that were way over the top even for its period and time. There was no good reason why this would be mentioned as regards Sigismund’s armies and not when it came to other invading forces (especially later during the crusades against Hussites), unless it was based in reality.
There are enough sources supporting the fact that it happened. Whether it was common or not makes no difference to the fact that it was and is resentful and his reputation is thus well deserved.
I think it’s save to assume there was some resentment for burning villages at the time regardlass of wether it was a common custom of warfare. that should be portraiet in the game. But holding on to this resentment until today without regarding other similar insedents would be proof of a very selectiv memory.
I will try to clarify my standpoint (which initiated all this) a bit more.