Insurrection 155it was the mood of the mob, rather than manipulation by an inner
cabal, which precipitated not only the defenestration of Fabricius, but
of Martinitz and Slavata before him.
None of this proves that there was not a plot, and indeed such neg-
atives are logically incapable of proof. However given the paucity of
supporting evidence the plot is at most a hypothesis rather than the
proven fact which has been presented in most accounts since Gindely’s.
It is also possible that there was indeed a plan, more or less formalised,
to make a ‘demonstration’, as Thurn put it, but by arresting rather than
by assassinating Martinitz and Slavata. This would have been consistent
with Ruppa’s final call to action during the confrontation, and with the
expectation of the regents themselves.
Why does it matter? Almost everyone agrees that the defenestration
ultimately triggered off the Thirty Years War, and this book goes further,
arguing that it and the Bohemian revolt which followed from it were not
merely the spark to the flame but one of the main substantive causes of
the whole conflagration. If the plot theory were correct its origin would
have been the deliberate action of perhaps as few as three men. If not,
one of the major events in European history developed out of a random
incident, an angry meeting at which a mob got out of hand and turned
to violence.