Vlad The Impaler: History's Greatest Monster?

WARNING: CONTENT CONTAINS DETAIL SOME READERS MAY FIND UPSETTING OR DISTURBING. THE FOCUS OF THIS BLOG POST IS LESS ON HISTORICAL FACT AND MORE ON TALES THAT CIRCULATED ABOUT VLAD THE IMPALER. SOME OF THE TALES WILL BE, UNFORTUNATELY, FACT, OTHERS THE FALSEHOOD OF VLAD'S ENEMIES THAT SERVED AS PROPAGANDA. AND THERE WILL BE SOME STORIES THAT MAY HAVE TRUTH IN THEM BUT WERE GROSSLY EXAGGERATED.

Vlad The Impaler is one of the most memorable figures in all history but for all the wrong reasons. His penchant for having people impaled is truly ghastly but to make matters worse, this wasn't the only form of execution Vlad used. Stories circulated about different methods of execution that Vlad concocted which were all cruel in the most inhumane way. He slaughtered over 20,000 Ottoman Turks and even nearly killed their Sultan, Mehmed II. And it wasn't just prisoners of war Vlad targeted. Men, women, young and old were victims of his brutality. Here, we'll look at some of the stories told that detailed Vlad's cruelty. In many of them, his viciousness seemed to be born on a whim as perfectly innocent people fell victim to his rage. However, it must be said that some of these stories were written by Vlad's enemies a few years after his death so we have to take it all with a pinch of salt. Whilst some of the tales are clearly false or at least heavily embellished, other cases are historically proven.

Gaining control of Wallachia in 1456, Vlad had villages across Transylvania burned to the ground with men, women and children all perishing. Some of the survivors were brought back to Wallachia and allegedly impaled. It was said that Vlad then had 400 young boys, from noble families sent to his land to learn the language, burned alive. Vlad was also not averse to using psychological torture. Some ambassadors sent to him from Hungary and surrounding regions were kept in lodgings filled with large wooden stakes, evidently for their impalement in case of some treachery on their part. The envoys were kept in this fearful state for some weeks.

Vlad's depravity seemed to know no bounds and one particularly malicious act was when he held a funeral service for one of his victims whilst he was still alive. Vlad made the man dig his own grave before having him beheaded. On one occasion, Vlad had a gypsy arrested for stealing and he ordered that he should be hanged by his companions. When they refused, the thief was boiled alive in a pot with the rest ordered to eat his flesh. When some Italian ambassadors arrived in Vlad's lands, they greeted him by removing their hats although leaving their caps on underneath. When Vlad asked why this was, they said it was simply their custom. In response, Vlad nailed the caps to their head. One of Vlad's mistresses told him she was pregnant. When this was found not to be the case, he had her disembowelled. 

But, of course, impalement is the execution that Vlad will be forever remembered for. On one occasion, after attacking Transylvania, Vlad took the ordinary citizens of one town and had them impaled. The ghoul then sat down to enjoy his lunch in the midst of such terrible suffering. Vlad's brutality left even experienced men of war flabbergasted. Mehmed II and his Ottomans were on the march against Vlad when they stumbled on a truly horrifying sight. Thousands upon thousands of Ottoman men, women and children impaled on wooden stakes. Mehmed was said to have been stunned at what he saw.

Nonetheless, Vlad is and was regarded by some as being a strong ruler, a capable military leader and a man who took a particularly hard line with his enemies. It may be this last factor why some many stories of Vlad's incredible violence circulated after his death.

Who Was Attila The Hun?

 

Attila The Hun is remembered now as the scourge of the Roman Empire, in both the east and west but very few people know much about the man himself. An insight into Attila is given by a man named Priscus who was a part of a group of envoys sent by the Eastern Roman Emperor to meet with Attila, hoping to make peace with him and put an end to the Huns devastating and destructive raids. In the late 4th century, the Roman historian Marcellinus wrote a very unflattering description of the Huns. According to Marcellinus, the preparation of food that the Huns eat was primitive with the meat part of their diet consumed half raw. Unsurprisingly, they were fierce warriors. As the Huns joined battle with their enemy, they would ring the air with various battle cries and would rely on sudden movements rather than particularly organised battle plans to overwhelm their enemy. As a result, warfare with the Huns was especially chaotic. Attila of course is the most famous of the Huns’ leaders. He came to power alongside his brother on the death of their uncle in 434. They ruled jointly for over a decade. During that time, the Huns attacked the Persian empire before firmly turning their attentions towards the Romans. Attila’s brother died in 445, leaving Attila as sole king. In the late 440s, Attila raided deep into the heart of Byzantine territory where his activities were described by one chronicler…”The barbarian nation of the Huns, which was in Thrace, became so great that more than a hundred cities were captured and Constantinople almost came into danger and most men fled from it. ... And there were so many murders and blood-lettings that the dead could not be numbered. Ay, for they took captive the churches and monasteries and slew the monks and maidens in great numbers.” It wasn’t all plain sailing for Attila on his path of destruction. In 451, he was defeated in battle by the Western Romans. However, Attila was not one to be deterred by one mere setback and the following year he caused huge destruction across Italy. It must have been a huge relief for many when Attila died in 453. So when Priscus and his fellow envoys made their journey to meet Attila, there must have been some trepidation. At 3 o'clock one afternoon, the envoys were invited to dine with Attila. The envoys made their gestures of respect to Attila who was sitting on a couch in the middle of his encampment before taking their own seats. Sitting on the couch with Attila was his eldest son who kept his eyes fixed firmly downwards, apparently in fear of upsetting his father. Attila’s youngest son would enter the camp later on and evidently he appeared to be the favourite as Attila treated him with affection. The reason for this favouritism was that, according to one of the Huns sitting near Priscus who happened to overhear Priscus speaking and who understood Italian, Attila had heard a prediction that his family would one day be exiled and would only be restored thanks to this youngest son. Sitting on Attila’s right hand side were the most important in his ranks whilst those of less renown sat on his left, alongside the Roman envoys. Shortly before the food was brought out, Attila was offered some wine and it was here that he made a toast in honour of those present who had served him most nobly. The men, on hearing their name, would rise and wait for Attila to take a deep sip before returning the favour. The food that was brought out was lavish, more so than usual Hunnic custom,and wide ranging although Attila had a more simple meal of some meat presented to him on a wooden platter which was, in the words of Priscus, another example of his self discipline. His goblet was also wooden although the goblets of everybody else were either golden or silver. His clothing was basic with everything kept free of expensive and unnecessary adornments. As the feast wore on, those inside the camp gradually became more and more raucous, laughing at the buffoonery of two individuals who had been brought in for the occasion. The one person inside the camp who did not join in the laughter was Attila himself who remained impassive. For Priscus and his fellow envoys, this must have been a remarkable meeting. Despite Attila’s seeming humility, he was still the man who had wrought such carnage across Europe and the effects of this embassy would have been limited to say the least. You would not blame Priscus if he was happy to get out of there as quickly as possible

The Origins of The Peasants Revolt

A 14th century writer John Trevisa gave his views on the character of English people during the Middle Ages. Trevisa described people in the south as being mild mannered but his views on those in the north was altogether less flattering. According to John, Northerners were less stable and more cruel. However, John's views should be taken with a pinch of salt. John himself was a Southerner, originally from Cornwall, so perhaps a little biased. Secondly, and more importantly, the Peasants Revolt of 1381 was a rebellion that began in Kent and Essex and exploded into a fireball of rage that was largely restricted to the South, although there were outbreaks of violence as far north as Yorkshire. This rather puts paid to John's opinion that Southerners were more easy going than their Northern counterparts. England in the medieval period could be a volatile place, wherever you happened to live.

England, in the previous centuries, had seen long periods of instability, notably during the reigns of kings Stephen, John, Henry III and Edward II. So, it is possible one may assume that civil unrest was a part of England's national identity during the middle ages. However, the outbreak of the Peasants Revolt cannot simply just be attributed to the nature of the English population at the time. There were different causes for it and, when studied in closer detail, the frustrations of the men and women of Kent, Essex and other areas becomes more understandable.

The king at the time of the Peasants Revolt was the young Richard II, just 14 years old in 1381. However, trouble had been brewing long before Richard had come to the throne in 1377. In the late 1340s, during the reign of Richard's grandfather Edward III, the Black Death struck England where, as it had done throughout Europe and beyond, it wreaked havoc It's estimated that a third of England's population was killed by the disease. Villages, towns and cities were decimated as, in some areas, barely enough people were left alive to bury the dead. The rich had a better chance of surviving the outbreak as they could escape to one of their country estates where the worst of the Plague could be avoided. It was the more common folk in towns and cities who were particularly affected.

However, with the disaster came unexpected opportunities for those who had been used to toiling for very little reward. Labourers were now in high demand due to their lack of numbers. This meant they could reasonably expect to ask for higher wages for their services. Edward III, though, became increasingly concerned by this sudden inflation of wages as he found his nobles were being forced to pay more to those they were employing, meaning they had less finances available for Edward's military campaigns in France. Labourers who were seen as overreaching and perhaps even greedy began to be persecuted and many were thrown into prison. In 1349, with the plague still rampant, the king passed a statute attempting to lower labourers wages back to the levels they were before the outbreak of the Black Death. In 1351, Edward went one step further and passed the Statute of Labourers which more clearly defined the wages that could be expected by people in different lines of work, ranging from those working in the fields to carpenters, tailors and shoemakers. 

The efficiency of Edward's government meant that the king's coffers continued to fill. However, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that this would have caused tremendous resentment across the population. Whilst Edward was still in his pomp in the 1350s, he could still keep a firm grip on his kingdom. But as he began to near old age, his grip would slacken and, by the 1370s, the country began to fall apart as the king's health declined. England began to lose control of the wars in France as the French king Charles V began to reverse the earlier English victories. Defeats and losses of territories in France would have not only affected the economy but also the nation's morale. With the old king nearing his end, England found itself in an increasingly precarious position. Edward had started what would become known as The Hundred Years War with France and his military aggression paid off with some great victories at Crecy and Poitiers among others. But now the tables had turned. England was now very much at risk of a French invasion. The mood among the common population at this time must have been fairly grim. Prospects of a brighter future for them financially, that the Plague had unexpectedly presented them with,had been firmly dashed by Edward III and now their homes and lives were threatened by a potential foreign invasion. In the years following Edward III's death, 3 poll taxes were imposed on the country just to cheer them even further. This would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

In part 2, we'll look at the early years of Richard II and the outbreak of the revolt.

5 Famous Battles In Medieval History

5. Battle of Hastings 1066

The following is a description of how the English and Norman armies prepared for the Battle of Hastings, as told by the chronicler William of Malmesbury. "The English passed the night drinking and singing, without sleep, before, in the morning, proceeding against the enemy without delay. All on foot, they were armed with battle axes and covered themselves in front by the juncture of their shields. This formed an impenetrable wall which would have secured their safety had not the Normans induced them to open their ranks by a feigned retreat. On the Norman side, they passed the night before the battle confessing their sins and receiving communion. The infantry formed the Norman vanguard while their cavalry was divided and placed in the rear. The Duke declared aloud that God would favour his side." As William implied, the battle may well have gone the way of the English had part of their army not broken their ranks in order to pursue the Normans who they perceived to be fleeing the battlefield. It seems likely that the Norman retreat was a plan formed by Duke William, perhaps with a bit of desperation, in order to break the stubborn and united English army. Feigned retreat or not, the Normans who were "fleeing" the battle doubled back and massacred those who were pursuing them and it was at this phase of the Battle of Hastings that the course of English history changed forever.

4.Battle of Edington 878

In 878, Alfred The Great triumphed over the Vikings at the Battle of Edington. The Vikings were led by a man named Guthrum who was king of East Anglia. After his defeat, Guthrum converted to Christianity. During the battle, the Anglo Saxons marched forwards in a tight knit group with their shields forming a solid protective barrier which proved effective in holding off the Viking attacks. Alfred's men, after repelling wave after wave of Viking onslaughts, then began to take control of the battle as they began to cut down many of the Viking warriors. Seeing the battle was going against them, the Vikings began to retreat. Alfred pursued them and this led to a fortnight long siege which ended with the Vikings desperately seeking for mercy and handing over hostages to Alfred as part of the agreement and, to seal the deal, Guthrum converted to Christianity.

3.Battle of Tinchebray 1106

 The Battle of Tinchebray, fought in 1106, was a decisive victory for king Henry I of England over his brother Robert Curthose as Henry seized control of Robert's Duchy of Normandy. Henry, Robert and their brother William were sons of William The Conqueror who passed on the crown of England to William, the third born son who became king William II. Robert, the first born son (a fourth son of The Conqueror  died young in 1070) only received Normandy as his inheritance due to the deeply troubled relationship he had with his father and Henry only received money, albeit a substantial sum. However, circumstances would change and William II died in 1100 in a mysterious hunting "accident". With Robert still to return to the west after the first crusade, this presented Henry with a golden opportunity and he became king of England. However, Henry would not be satisfied with that. He wanted Normandy. Having persuaded the pope of Robert's misrule over Normandy, Henry had legitimised his cause and at Tinchebray, he took his chance. The numbers killed in the battle were relatively low but the key moment came when Robert was captured in the midst of the fighting which gave Henry the victory. Robert would remain Henry's prisoner for the rest of his long life. He died only a year before his youngest brother in 1134, aged in his early eighties. For Henry, this was a complete triumph for a man whose inheritance from his father had looked relatively unpromising.

2.Battle of Bannockburn 1314

In 1314, at the Battle of Bannockburn, England and ,in particular, king Edward II suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Robert The Bruce and his Scottish army. The following is an extract taken from the Life of Edward II describing the English retreat; "Thus, while our people fled following in our king's footsteps, lo! A certain ditch entrapped many of them and a great many of our army perished in it. The king came to the castle thinking to find refuge there, was repulsed by those inside as if he were the enemy. The drawbridge was raised and the gate closed." The retreat had proved to be as farcical as the battle itself for the English. The English army had heavily outnumbered the Scots but this had made very little difference as the English suffered catastrophic losses with the Scots comparatively unscathed. Ultimately, Edward II would lose his throne in 1327, mainly due to his excessive favouritism of people like Piers Gaveston and then, in his final years, the Despensers who only had their interests in mind when it came to their relationship with the king. However, even though it was some years prior to the deposition, the military disaster at Bannockburn did nothing for Edward's reputation and can be viewed as a contributing factor towards his final fate.

1.Battle of Crecy 1346

Edward The Black Prince was born in 1330, the eldest son of King Edward III. His nickname is either derived from a suit of armour he wore or from the reputation he gained later in life for being a ruthless warrior who was capable of being particularly brutal, most notably evidenced by his sack of the town of Limoges which had surrendered to the French. Much earlier in his career, when he was just 16, The Black Prince established himself as a brilliant warrior at the Battle of Crecy. At one point in the battle it looked like the young Prince was in danger of being overwhelmed and potentially killed or captured. Concerns grew among the English army and a message was brought to Edward III regarding the plight of his son. Even though the king was urged to send reinforcements to help The Black Prince, he told the messenger that he instead trusted the Prince to "earn his spurs" and this he did. The young Edward fought outstandingly well, far beyond the capability of many men much older then he, and Crecy proved a remarkable triumph for both him, Edward III and England.

Forgotten Rulers From History: Edmund I

Not to be confused with Edmund II Ironside who ruled in the following century, or even the famous Edmund The Martyr, the king of East of Anglia who was tied to a tree and shot full of arrows by the Vikings in the 9th century, Edmund I, who reigned from 939 to 946, is another example in a long line of under appreciated Anglo Saxon kings. His reign undoubtedly would have had its fair share of challenges. Edmund's predecessors Alfred The Great, Edward The Elder and Aethelstan had all ruled magnificently and were beginning to bring unity to the Anglo Saxon kingdoms as one nation that would become known as England began to emerge.

But by the time Edmund came to the throne, this fledgling nation was in danger of being torn apart. Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby and Stamford had all fallen back into the hands of the Vikings. However, in 942, Edmund recaptured these territories, aided by the death of the Viking leader, King Olaf of Dublin. The following year, Edmund attempted to follow up these successes by capturing Tamworth but was repelled by the Vikings with a bloody battle being fought which saw both sides sustaining heavy losses. Times were tough for Edmund and he was forced to march on Leicester which was still being targeted by the Vikings. This campaign was successful and one of the Viking leaders, another Olaf, converted to Christianity.

In 944, Edmund was in highly problematic Northumbria where he managed to drive out two Scandinavian kings. Further north still, Edmund managed to maintain decent relations with the Scottish king Malcolm I which would have been important to him. During the reign of Edmund's half-brother Aethelstan, the Scots had caused major problems and it wasn't until the spectacular victory at Brunanburh that Aethelstan managed to subdue them. So it was wise for Edmund to try and keep the Scots on good terms. 

Edmund was the son of Edward The Elder and he had numerous siblings (although some had different mothers). Edmund involved them in his political life, with them overseeing some of the king's charters. This included Edmund's brother and successor, Eadred. It may be that Edmund was preparing Eadred for the eventuality that one day he might become king. Edmund did have two sons, Eadwig and Edgar, who were both extremely young during Edmund's reign. In Edgar's case, he was probably little more than a toddler when his father died in 946. In these days of Viking raids, a king may die suddenly and child rulers would have been far from ideal. By the 940s, Eadred was a young man and would be far better suited to become king. If this was Edmund's line of thinking, then it was clearly a wise course of action to take. As it turned out, Eadred did indeed succeed as king in 946 although both Eadwig and Edgar would have their turns at being king also (Edgar far more successfully than Eadwig).

Edmund seems to have died in violent fashion. It is said that Edmund was coming to the aid of one of his followers who was falling foul of a thief. In the ensuing melee, Edward was stabbed. It is also possible that this may have been a targeted attack. It was a sad way to end what had been a promising reign of a king still only in his mid 20s. Edmund had ruled to the best of his ability. Politically sensible and a capable commander, if Edmund had not died so suddenly, it's a reasonable bet he would be spoken about in the same breath as the likes of his father Edward The Elder and half brother Aethelstan

 

5 Forgotten Queens of Medieval England

5. MATILDA OF FLANDERS

Matilda of Flanders was the wife and then queen of William The Conqueror. The two married in the early 1050s when William was merely Duke of Normandy. The marriage proved to be successful with Matilda producing 4 sons and potential heirs for William, 3 of whom were born before William became king of England. The youngest of the boys was named Henry who was the only one to be born in England. He would later on, against the odds, become king of England himself, ruling as Henry I. Matilda was well thought of by William and she played a key role in reconciling William with his eldest surviving son (the eldest named Richard had died in a hunting accident) Robert who had gone into open revolt against his father. So serious had the matter become that Robert had even come close to killing William before he lost his nerve or, perhaps putting it more favourably for Robert, his conscience kicked in. William never fully trusted Robert again, despite Matilda's peacemaking efforts, and it would be the third born son William who succeeded the Conqueror as king in 1087. Matilda was married to a difficult man who had a fierce temper. On one occasion, Matilda had evidently upset her husband who forcibly dragged her outside naked. Despite these difficult moments, Matilda performed her duties with dignity and the king greatly mourned her death in 1083.

4. Adeliza of Louvain

Adeliza of Louvain was the second wife of Henry I. She was about 18 years old when she married the English king in 1121 with Henry in his 50s. Henry had needed to marry again and he specifically married a young woman. His first wife, Matilda of Scotland, had died in 1118 and ,just 2 years later, Henry's one legitimate male heir William had died in the White Ship sinking. Henry now only had one legitimate daughter and a whole host of bastard children. He needed a son from his second marriage to succeeded him as king. However, no children from his marriage to Adeliza were forthcoming and Henry, against convention, made his daughter ,Empress Matilda, his heir. Adeliza would marry again after Henry died in 1135. This was to a man named William D'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel and with him, she had seven children. During her marriage to the king, Adeliza had been at Henry's side almost constantly as he desperately sought his heir and she played very little role politically.

3. Matilda of Boulogne

Matilda of Boulogne was married to king Stephen. She was his most important supporter during his troubled reign, a period which became known as The Anarchy. Stephen was fighting desperately to keep hold of the crown out of the clutches of his rival claimant, Empress Matilda, the daughter of Henry I. To help her husband, Matilda of Boulogne brought soldiers over from the continent to bolster Stephen's forces and the queen even played a part militarily as well, laying siege to Dover castle, an effort that proved to be successful. And she even helped to broker peace between Stephen and the bothersome Scottish king David I who had been a problem for some years. Matilda's death in 1152 was a serious blow to Stephen and indeed may even have been the straw that broke the camels' back in the civil war. Stephen's willpower to hold out and eventually pass the throne on to his son was weakening and, eventually, he signed a treaty that would see the son of Empress Matilda, a young man named Henry, become king on Stephen's death instead of Stephen's own son Eustace.

2. Berengaria of Navarre

Known to history as the Queen of England who never set foot in her realm, Berengaria of Navarre was the Queen of Richard The Lionheart. The two were married in Cyprus, an island that had been captured by Richard on his way to the Third Crusade. Berengaria had been collected and then escorted to the wedding by Richard's ageing but still brilliant mother Eleanor of Aquitaine. The marriage however could not exactly be described as romantic with the couple hardly seeing each other and it's questionable whether the marriage was even consummated. Richard's lack of interest in his wife and failure to produce a successor would prove to be a costly decision for England as a country as his dimwitted brother John took the throne on Richard's death in 1199.

1. Eleanor of Castile

Edward I was extremely fond of his wife Eleanor of Castile. However, Eleanor was not as well thought of by the general English population. Eleanor was accused of buying lands that people believed had been extorted from Christian owners by the unpopular and vilified Jewish moneylenders. And so Eleanor's reputation suffered. Her husband was a man capable of real brutality and some accused Eleanor of encouraging this which is wholly unfair on her.  Edward was very much his own man and he must take the responsibility for the good and bad of his reign, of which there was plenty of both. When Eleanor died in 1290, Edward was deeply upset and erected the Eleanor crosses in her memory.

The Life And Reign Of The Mighty King Aethelstan

 

King Aethelstan ruled between 924 and 939 and he would become arguably the most important ruler in the entire history of the English monarchy. Family pedigree certainly favoured Aethelstan. His father Edward The Elder was a fine king in his own right, his grandfather was Alfred The Great and his aunt was Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, who all made significant contributions towards the unification of the country that we now call England. It could be said that Aethelstan surpassed the accomplishments of all three of these magnificent rulers. And it is Aethelstan who is widely regarded as the first true king of England.

On the death of his father Edward in 924, Aethelstan was declared king. Aethelstan was a mature man when he succeeded, aged around 30. Growing up, Aethelstan had spent time with his grandfather, Alfred, who was fond of his grandson. On one occasion, Alfred gave the boy a spectacular cloak, belt and sword as a gift. It was clear that Alfred recognised in his grandson a boy who would one day perhaps become king and, if he did (which there was no guarantee of in these hard and dangerous times where mortality was high) then he would rule mightily. Alfred then encouraged the boy to be educated at the court of Aethelflaed who, alongside her husband Aethelred, kept a watchful eye over Aethelstan's progress. Alfred was perhaps keen to encourage his grandson's learning as he knew Aethelstan's father, Edward, was not as keen on education as Alfred had been and perhaps might neglect this aspect of Aethelstan's childhood.

When Aethelstan had come to the throne in 924, there were some question marks over his right to rule as he had a half brother who technically ranked above him in the line of succession. However, this half brother died a little over a fortnight after Edward The Elder had done. There remained objections to Aethelstan's potential kingship but he was eventually crowned in 925. He quickly set to work. He made a marriage treaty with the Viking ruler of York who agreed to marry Aethelstan's sister. Very conveniently, Aethelstan's new brother in law died the following year and he took York under his control. He marched further Northwards and seized Northumbria. However, the Northumbrians resented Southern control and would resist for several more decades. Aethelstan then threatened the King of Scots, Constantine II, with war if he did not accept Aethelstan's overlordship. Constantine, for the time being at least, agreed but he would be problematic in the years to come

With his campaigns in the North proving to be successful, Aethelstan then wanted to ensure the continuing loyalty of his subjects. In York, he razed to the ground a castle that had been built there by the Vikings so that it would not become a potential rallying point for any potential rebellions. The king was also careful to ensure that he rewarded his followers who joined him on his campaigns by generously handing over to them money, treasures and other spoils of war that had been captured on his campaigns. Aethelstan was also a deeply pious man and, having adequately rewarded his supporters, he then made generous donations to monasteries and other religious buildings. Whilst Aethelstan's motives for his generosity can be attributed to his piety, he also knew that this would help his public image. He rewarded loyalty and was generous to the church. People who continued to doubt or even resent his rule would not be able to accuse Aethelstan of a greedy or tyrannical rule in the manner of later kings. Aethelstan was winning the propaganda war against his enemies and showing himself to be not only an excellent military leader but also a canny and pragmatic king as well.

Aethelstan also showed himself to be a man of the people as well. He was kind and approachable to his subjects, whatever walk of life they came from, whether this be the nobility, the clergy or the poor. Physically, he was thin with flaxen hair. Accompanied with his mild mannered personality, people might have been forgiven for thinking, on first meeting with the king, that he was almost a bit of pushover. However, this was certainly not the case as his enemies would find out.

Aethelstan then subdued the rebellious Northern Welsh who, after a meeting at Hereford, paid homage to the king. Aethelstan remained in the South West where he spend much time building towers and castles in the event of further trouble in the region. His reputation as a formidable and proactive king was not just growing in the British Isles but further afield as well. The Norwegian king Harald Fairhair sent Aethelstan a ship along with some ambassadors to establish diplomatic relations. Henry The Fowler, king of Germany and a great ruler in his own right, then asked for a marriage treaty with Aethelstan which would see Aethelstan's sister marry Henry's son Otto. The prestigious marriage did indeed take place in 930. As for Aethelstan himself, he would remain unmarried, perhaps due to his piety, and so bore no children or heirs.

The most famous event of Aethelstan's reign is unquestionably the Battle of Brunanburh, fought in 937.  The battle would prove to be a spectacular success for Aethelstan. In the years leading up to Brunanburh, the Scottish king Constantine had been causing trouble with Aethelstan being forced to lead several campaigns against him. Constantine knew that he needed an ally if he was to overcome the mighty Aethelstan in battle. Fortunately for him, he did have a potential ally. This came in the shape of the Vikings who had still not given up hope of reclaiming York. And so, the Vikings, led by the king of Dublin, and the Scots, led by Constantine, invaded England, seeking to undo much of Aethelstan's hard work in unifying England and seizing territories for themselves.

However, it would prove to be a grave mistake as Aethelstan's army routed the invaders. So bloody was the battle that it was said that no great a slaughter had ever taken place. Any question marks over Aethelstan's authority were completely destroyed. Just two years later, Aethelstan died in 939, probably in his mid 40s. Whether it can be said he was the first king of England is up for debate. As mentioned earlier, there would still be work to do regarding the subjection of Northumbria.  What is not up for debate is the spectacular success Aethelstan had been as king.

Edward The Elder: Son of Alfred The Great But Warrior King In His Own Right

 

Son of Alfred The Great and father of Aethelstan, Edward The Elder's place in history should be more prominent then it actually is. He is one of our most important kings but is, often, sadly overlooked. Born in the 870s, Edward differed in character somewhat from his father, Alfred. Whereas Alfred The Great loved learning and made a distinct effort to ensure as many people as possible could get an education of some description, Edward's interests in this regard was relatively limited. All the same, Alfred ensured Edward received excellent tutoring as he grew up. Edward's learning was done in an almost school like environment. He was joined in his lessons by his sister Aethelflaed as well as children of members of the nobility.

It wasn't long before it became clear that Alfred was, in the shape of young Edward, rearing a son who was demonstrating kingly qualities. As a teenager, Edward led campaigns against the Vikings, not without some success, including at the Battle of Farnham. Here, Edward had led the Anglo Saxon army, albeit under the strict instructions of his father, and won the battle. Edward though tried to make the victory even more emphatic and inflict further damage on the Vikings as they fled the battlefield. Edward went in hot pursuit of them and appeared to have them cornered. However, Edward's army was beginning to run into problems. It was running out of food and other basic essentials and, on top of this, the agreed military service time for many of Edward's men was coming to an end and, before Edward could join up with Alfred, much of his army left and returned to their homes. No doubt Edward had learned much from this experience and by the time of Alfred's death in 899, Edward would be fully prepared for kingship.

However, Edward's succession as king of Wessex did not go unchallenged. Edward had a cousin named Aethelwold who had been overlooked for the throne in 871 as he was only a young boy when his father Aethelred I had died. It had made logical sense to overlook Aethelwold at that time. The 870s were a dark and troubled time for the Anglo Saxon kingdoms and Wessex needed a man (which Alfred was as he was in his early twenties when Aethelred I had died)  as king to try and repel the Viking invasions. 871 was no time for a minority government. With Alfred dead, Aethelwold reignited his claims. Aethelwold gained support in Essex before marching on Mercia. This could prove to be a very tricky situation for Edward. Aethelwold, however, may well have lost sympathy for his cause by switching his allegiances to the Vikings. But his claims came to an end at the Battle of Holme. Although his Viking allies were technically triumphant at Holme over a force loyal to Edward, this did very little good for Aethelwold who was killed in the fighting, along with many others.

After this unwelcome challenge to his rule had finally drawn to a close several years after he had become king, Edward could finally concentrate on other matters. In 909, Edward launched a brutal campaign against the Vikings in the North where many of Edward's enemies were killed and great destruction was brought on the invaders' crops and cattle. The next year Edward continued his front foot momentum and triumphed at the Battle of Tettenhall and In 912, he built fortifications across Hertfordshire. Edward's sister, Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, was also making significant gains for the Saxons. Aethelfaed's forces retook Derby, Leicester and other areas, cementing her as one of the most important people (not just women) in early English history.

As king, Edward provided clear and robust laws. When it came to buying property, Edward declared that such transactions should be presided over by trustworthy men in order to avoid fraudulent agreements. Anyone that did try and purchase property in an unlawful manner could expect heavy fines which only increased with every offence. If theft was committed, then forfeiture of property could be expected or, if the culprit had little or no property, then other punishments could be handed down. Edward was thorough in his law giving and he ensured other crimes such as perjury and assisting an offender were also taken seriously. During more lax reigns, issues such as these could very often be commonplace and overlooked. 

In 914, one of Edward's bishops was taken hostage. In a time where Edward needed all the finances he could muster, he might have been forgiven for turning a blind eye to this situation but, much to his credit, he did not and readily paid the ransom. He then continued to reinforce strongholds in Buckinghamshire before, in 916-917, Edward had to deal with a rebellion in Huntingdon. Edward eventually overcame the rebels who, in turn, paid homage to him. Edward had, by the late 910s, brought under his control much of what we now call Southern England. and along with the gains made by Aethelflaed, Edward's reign was a period of undoubted success for the Anglo Saxons. Edward's successor, Aethelstan, would, in grand fashion, continue the good work.

 

Henry VII: The First Tudor King

Henry Tudor, a man of relatively obscure origin, defeated the usurping king Richard III at the battle of Bosworth in 1485. He was now Henry VII, thereby becoming the first Tudor king of England which would be one of the most remarkable dynasties in all history. Henry was crowned king at Westminster Abbey, 2 short months after his victory at Bosworth. However, like the vanquished Richard III had been, Henry himself was now a usurper and usurpers would sit uneasily on the throne. And challenges to his fragile authority were quick in coming.

One of those challenges famously came from Lambert Simnel who, being only a young boy, became the figurehead of a rebellion against Henry. Lambert was crowned king of England in Dublin by the Earl of Lincoln before the rebels mustered as many men for their army as they could before launching their daring invasion of England to overthrow Henry. But the odds were stacked heavily against them due to the nature of the soldiers at their disposal. Only a small number of men were professional soldiers, these coming from Germany who had been paid to fight, but the rest of the army was little better than shambolic. Soon after their landing in England, Lambert and his men were joined in battle at Stoke in 1487 by the royalist army where Simnel's men were horribly routed. Henry, as he would do on other occasions as well, would show mercy to the young Lambert. He first set him to work in the royal kitchens before Lambert worked his way up to the position of the king's chief falconer. For Lambert, things turned out better than he could possibly have dared to hope in the aftermath of Stoke.

After the country had been divided for decades by the destructive civil war known as the Wars of the Roses, Henry knew that one of his main priorities as king was to try and bring peace to England and unite the country after a conflict that had not only torn the nation apart but even families as fathers fought against sons. Henry's claim to the crown, albeit an obscure one, came through the Lancastrian line so it made logical sense for him to look for a Yorkist bride and it would be Elizabeth of York he would marry. Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward IV and the sister of the tragic Prince In The Tower who had been murdered by their uncle Richard III. The marriage would prove to be a success. When Elizabeth died in 1503, aged only 37, Henry was deeply upset and his character over the final few years of his reign would change as a result.

Another famous rebel during Henry's reign was Perkin Warbeck. Unlike Lambert Simnel however, Perkin would prove to be a persistent problem for the king. Perkin claimed that he was the younger Prince In The Tower, Richard, Duke of York, and alleged that he had not been murdered at all but had in fact survived and escaped. As Simnel had done, Perkin had gained support in Ireland but he posed a far greater threat than Lambert had ever done as Perkin was even welcomed at the court of the French king Charles VIII. Henry had no choice but to take this matter seriously.

As the 1490s wore on, Warbeck's story continued to gain momentum as it became clear that many people believed he was indeed the young son of Edward IV. Warbeck's fame grew remarkably as he shared correspondence with Isabella of Castile and he was even introduced to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I. Henry survived Warbeck's repeated bids for power and showed him leniency on more than one occasion. Warbeck however pushed even Henry's patience too far and he was eventually executed in 1499.

Henry is sometimes viewed as being a fairly dour and even miserable king. But this is not a fair or accurate portrayal of him. Henry had a serious countenance but he also showed real emotions when suffering bereavements. I have mentioned his reaction to the passing of his queen Elizabeth already but the year before Elizabeth had died, Henry had suffered an even weightier blow. This was the death of his son and heir Prince Arthur at Ludlow castle in April 1502. It's not certain what killed Arthur, there have been various suggestions, but what is certain is that Henry took the news badly. It was only thanks to the comforting words of Queen Elizabeth that Henry took some solace. Soon after, Elizabeth herself broke down in grief and it was Henry's turn to comfort his queen.

These touching moments shared between not only a king and queen, or a husband and wife but also a mother and father demonstrate Henry was very much a caring man. After Elizabeth's death, his gradual withdrawal from the public gaze is not a demonstration of him being a cold man but quite the opposite. He was a man who had been left shattered by grief. On his own death in 1509, Henry left England in a much healthier state then he had found it. The country was financially healthy and the Wars of the Roses was now long in the past. With Arthur dead, the crowned passed to the second of Henry's three sons who was now king Henry VIII. It's safe to say he made a bit of an impression.

 

The Life Of The Extraordinary Harald Hardrada

 Harald Hardrada is one of the most recognisable names in medieval European history. He was a giant of a man both figuratively and literally. He is best remembered now for his invasion of England in 1066 where he would be defeated and killed at the battle of Stamford Bridge. In this blog post, most of our attention is focused on Harald's early life. He was the son of a minor king named Sigurd who ruled some territories surrounding Oslo. His mother was named Asta who was also the mother of Olaf II who was born during her first marriage. After her first husband was murdered, she went on to marry Sigurd. Harald seems to have been loyal to his half brother Olaf II and fought alongside him at the battle of Stiklestad in 1030. Olaf sought to fully Christianise Norway which was still partly pagan. However, his actions were not universally popular and he met with stiff resistance. This resistance led to a rebellion which saw Olaf being driven out of Norway. He returned but was defeated and killed at Stiklestad.

Harald would have been around 15 at the time of Stiklestad, with his birth date believed to have been around 1015. Given his young age, it can be no surprise that Harald was left deeply upset at the outcome of the battle and the death of his half-brother, so much so that he had to be ushered away from the field by some of Olaf's followers. Olaf was later made a saint, in recognition of his efforts at Christianising the Pagans that remained in Norway. For Harald, the aftermath of the battle saw he and others from Olaf's defeated army take refuge in Sweden. From there, Harald's incredibly extensive journeys across Europe would begin. He and some followers sailed for Kievan Rus where they arrived at the court of Yaroslav The Wise who greeted his guests with hospitality and, perhaps as a result of this, Harald and the others would spend a couple of years in Kievan Rus where, apparently, they enjoyed themselves.

After taking their leave, Harald and his men then sailed for Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Arriving in Constantinople, it wasn't long before Harald made contact with the Byzantine Empress Zoe who ruled jointly with her husband Michael IV and soon he joined the Varangians, the Imperial bodyguards. Harald made quite the impression and there were suggestions he should replace Georgios as commander of the Byzantine army and, unsurprisingly, a rivalry between Harald and Georgios began to emerge. Harald then led a successful Byzantine expedition against Muslim forces in Africa where he made significant captures. Onwards, this remarkable man travelled, to Sicily, Palestine, Jerusalem and even perhaps Bulgaria. The success of Harald's campaigns obviously created jealously in certain quarters and when he returned to Constantinople, he was thrown in prison.

By the time of his return to the Capital, Harald had been away from Scandinavia for over a decade and it was natural for him to be thinking about returning home. However, his resignation from the Varangian guard did not go down well with Empress Zoe who, no doubt urged on by one or two voices of men jealous of Harald's success, made him her prisoner.  Zoe was perhaps reluctant to allow this brilliant leader of men to leave her empire as he had brought so much success in capturing territories for the Byzantines but it's also been suggested that Zoe was interested in marrying Harald as Michael IV had died in 1041. Harald, however, was more interested in Zoe's niece, Maria. When she heard this, Zoe was irate and hence Harald became her prisoner.

However, there was trouble in store for Zoe who was usurped in 1042. This caused uproar across Constantinople and, in the chaos, Harald was released. He had the usurper, Michael V, blinded and sent to a monastery. Zoe reassumed power, this time ruling alongside her sister. Harald still wanted to return home but Zoe remained reluctant to let him leave and so Harald hatched a plan to escape. He kidnapped Maria before stealing two ships and sailed out of the city. Maria was unharmed and sent back to her aunt with an armed retinue. This part of Harald's plan was probably for little more reason than to demonstrate to Zoe that he was not a man she could control.

Harald returned to the court of Yaroslav the Wise in the Kievan Rus, where he would marry Yaroslav's daughter, Elizabeth. The marriage took place in late 1043/early 1044 and, after this, Harald would return to Scandinavia in preparation for the next phase of his extraordinary career which would not only see him become king of Norway but also make a bid to become king of England as well.

The Early Years of Alfred The Great

In 849, Alfred the Great was born in Wantage, berkshire. His mother was named Osburh. She was described as being a deeply religious woman who was the daughter of a man named Oslac who was, according to Alfred's biographer Asser, the cupbearer of king Aethelwulf of Wessex, the man Osburh would marry. Aethelwulf and Osburh would have 6 children, including 5 sons who would all become a king (one brother would become king of Kent, the others Wessex) with Alfred being the youngest.

Times were hard for the Anglo Saxon kingdoms during Alfred's childhood in the 850s. The menace of the Vikings was growing ever stronger. However, this didn’t mean the Anglo Saxons just rolled over, quite the opposite. In 851, when Alfred would have been just a toddler, the Vikings were defeated in battle in Somerset. but the Saxon kingdoms continued to be hard pressed. That same year, the Vikings sacked Canterbury and then London before forcing the king of Mercia into retreat after he had led an army against them and the Vikings continued on their rampage.

It was now the turn of Alfred's father, Aethelwulf, to lead an army against the invaders. Accompanying the king was his second son Aethelbald. They too joined the vikings in battle, at a site in Surrey, where, eventually, they were triumphant and inflicted substantial losses on the Vikings. Aethelwulf was a busy man and in 853, after a request from the king of Mercia, Aethelwulf helped lead a successful expedition into Wales. On the completion of this, he returned home.

By now, Alfred would have been about 5 years old and it was at this point, his father would send the young boy on a remarkable trip to Rome where he would meet Pope Leo IV. Alfred would not make the trip alongside his parents, although he would return to Rome later on alongside his father, but was taken this time by a combined escort of nobles and common people. Whilst at Rome, Alfred was anointed king by the pope which was a largely meaningless gesture. Alfred still had three older brothers (one, Aethelstan, who had been king of Kent had probably died a couple of years earlier, and there was no guarantee Alfred would ever live long enough to become king in his own right anyway. Indeed, even the long journey home would be riddled with danger for the young boy and his guardians.

During Alfred's early years, his mother Osburh died. This would have been a sad blow for the young boy. Evidently, he would have had some memories of her as a story was told how she would read to Alfred and his siblings and, on one occasion, she showed them a book of songs. She challenged her children to memorise it and whoever did so, could keep the book. This would have been done verbally as Alfred was illiterate until later on in his childhood. Despite this, it appears Alfred, the youngest and no older than 5 or 6, won and kept the book. Perhaps Alfred's continued love of learning throughout his life demonstrated both the effectiveness of Osburh taking a keen interest in her sons’ education but is perhaps also an indicator of the fondness of which he remembered his mother, long after she had died.

In 855, Alfred returned to Rome. This time, he was accompanied by his father Aethelwulf. This was because, according to Asser, Alfred was loved more by his father than any of his brothers. In Rome, they remained a year before, on the journey home, there was more excitement for the young Alfred as he and his father stayed at the court of the king of the Franks and future Holy Roman Emperor Charles The Bald. On their eventual return to Wessex, Aethelwulf brought with him Charles’ daughter Judith who would become Alfred’s stepmother for a short period of time before, scandalously, she married Aethelbald, Alfred's brother, on Aethelwulf's death in 858. This second marriage caused widespread controversy.

Aethelbald had proved he was not afraid to cause controversy. Before his father and Alfred had returned from the continent, he went into open rebellion and Aethelwulf agreed to divide Wessex between him and his son. Aethelwulf reigned in the east and Aethelwulf in the west. As mentioned, on Aethelwulf's death, Aethelbald quickly married Judith, his former stepmother, much to the pair’s disgrace. Aethelbald's sole reign however was not a long one and he died in 860 after a period of rule which was full of lawlessness, according to Asser. 

By the time of Aethelbald's death, Alfred would have been about 11 years old. As we’ve already seen examples of, he appears to have had a very good relationship with both his mother and father. Despite Alfred being illiterate until he was 12, he loved poetry and could, as we’ve seen with the story of Alfred and his mother, recite and memorise extremely well. He was also a well mannered child and he conducted himself in a way that was pleasing to both his parents. He was a keen hunter and was highly skilled in the chase where he enjoyed considerable success.

By 860, the 11 year old Alfred's life had changed significantly. Both his parents were dead and two of his brothers had also gone the same way. Although by no means a guarantee, royal power had moved significantly closer to Alfred. When he did eventually succeed as king of Wessex in 871, he would grow to become the most important king in all English history. and his formative years would have been incredibly important in shaping him into the man and king he would become. He would have seen first hand the dangers posed by the Vikings. The lack of loyalty Aethelbald had shown to their father would have also been a good lesson for Alfred to learn and he would have also learned all about the fragility of life in the 9th century. He had only one sister remaining of his immediate family by the time of his succession. Alfred, as king, would have to be brave in this age where death was always close at hand.

The Trials and Tribulations Of Life On A Medieval Crusade

 .

The life of a medieval crusader could be tough to say the least with the prospect of severe hardship never far away. Crusades took different forms, in different places for different reasons. The type of crusade most people will think of will be the ones fought in the Holy Land with the aim of retaking lands, even Jerusalem itself, from Muslim forces. But, of course, there were other types of crusades as well. The battle between Islam and Christianity didn’t just take place in the east. In the 700s, Islam took control of Iberia and for nearly 800 years retained a presence in the peninsula until the surrender of Granada in 1492. In northern Europe, efforts were made to conquer and Christianise areas that remained stubbornly pagan.and crusades were called against supposedly heretical groups in southern France. So, crusades, as you can see, took different forms and for those participating, challenges of all kinds that would have to be overcome.

Even the Man who called what would be known as The First Crusade, Pope Urban II, was well aware of the magnitude of what he was asking from his Christian flock across Europe. Urban had been asked by the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Komnenos for help against the Seljuk Turks. Urban would heed the call. In a letter written in late 1095, Urban relayed a tale of woe from the east with Jerusalem having been captured by the Turks and churches being destroyed. Urban’s preaching for the crusade would be overwhelmingly successful as Europe’s Christians responded in huge numbers. But Urban was under no illusions as to what he was asking from his Holy army.

In his sermons, Urban bluntly told his crusaders what they could expect. Sickness, hunger, thirst and many other trials and tribulations awaited them. But such was the strength of feeling against the apparent injustices facing their fellow Christians in the east, that such hardship would prove to be no deterrent.

One of the first obstacles to overcome for crusading armies was, of course, making the long journey to their destination, both by land and by sea. The crusading armies would have to travel through various kingdoms and territories and, understandably, this caused tension among the local people. A potentially aggressive army marching through your land was not exactly a welcome sight. The crusaders would need to stock up on food and provisions and during the early stages of The Second Crusade, tensions boiled over as the crusaders were accused of plundering in an overly aggressive manner. The Byzantine emperor Manuel Ii had sent an army to keep an eye on the crusaders and a battle broke out between the Byzantines and crusaders with the Byzantines winning the day. Fighting enemies was one thing, fighting people supposedly on your side quite another.

 

When they did arrive on crusade, in particular for those in the Holy Land and Egypt, the Christians faced the distinct disadvantage of being in terrain that was completely alien to them with summer heat being absolutely oppressive. One tactic that was used by the enemy was to poison the water in wells. Thirst could become truly diabolical and unbearable.

And famine for a crusading army was never far away either. After taking Antioch during The First Crusade, the Christians were then besieged by a Muslim army which then led to a terrible famine inside Antioch. Men resorted to eating the innards of goats and even the head of a horse. Some would resort to taking blood from horses that were still alive.

To us today, such suffering seems almost senseless, considering the effort that was undertaken to go on crusade. Travelling thousands, only to be surrounded by fearsome and hostile enemies, to be gripped by Hunger, thirst and disease, commonplace In medieval armies, not just crusaders, may seem Baffling. But context must be added. Crusaders are sometimes seen as being opportunistic, self serving individuals looking to enrich themselves. That’s too simple. The sheer effort it took to go on crusade, whether to the heat of the east or the cold of Northern Europe, and stay there even if the crusade was evidently not going to be successful, could not have been fueled merely by material gain. The promises made by Urban Ii and then later Popes of remission of sins would have had a tremendous impact on men and women in a deeply religious age.

The harsh reality of a crusade should not be underestimated. During The Second Crusade, the Holy Roman Emperor Conrad III wrote how, during a journey that was to last 20 days, food ran out half way through. And during The First Crusade, Stephen, Count of Blois, father of the man of the same name who would become king of England in 1135, initially wrote enthusiastically about the crusade. But his enthusiasm gradually ran out. Before the capture of Antioch, Stephen left the siege and feigned illness before his eventual departure for home. Unfortunately, he got an ear bashing from his wife on his return to the west. He gave in and returned eastwards where he was eventually killed. Crusading was hard not just on the common soldier but also on the more powerful figures leading the crusade. It’s perhaps not surprising that the success of the crusades was mixed at best.

Cnut: The Viking Who Conquered England

 Although the people of early 11th century England may not have particularly relished the thought of having a foreign ruler, there was one distinct advantage of having Cnut succeed as king. Being a Dane himself, Cnut could now provide the English populace with some respite from the frequent Viking raids that had blown up again during the reign of Aethelred The Unready after an extended period of calm during the rule of Edgar The Peaceful. One of his first moves was to eliminate the men who had killed Edmund Ironside, Cnut’s rival to the throne whom he had defeated in the Battle of Ashingdon, including a man named Eadric who had no sense of loyalty and had switched allegiances between Edmund and Cnut all too frequently during their struggle for power. Eadric was apparently a rather arrogant man as well and gave an impertinent response to Cnut when he was facing charges of Edmund’s murder. 

Cnut knew two things at this stage. One, he couldn’t trust Eadric and needed to be rid of him. Secondly, by getting rid of Eadric, it would be a good propaganda move to try and earn some trust with the Saxon nobility by executing the man who had had their king murdered (allegedly while Edmund was going to the toilet). Make no mistake, Cnut was not sorry to hear the news of the death of Edmund; Edmund was, after all, still a potentially big thorn in Cnut’s side despite Cnut’s major triumph at Ashingdon. But with Edmund out of the way, Cnut needed to score points with the people he now ruled over and Eadric’s death helped in that regard.

Cnut initially favoured Danes in positions of power but he was careful not to alienate the Saxon nobility as well and over time, he treated them on a more equal footing. Eventually, the Saxons would have an equal say when councils and assemblies were held as well as playing a prominent role in Cnut’s armies. Again, showing considerable self awareness when it came to his public image, Cnut made extensive repair work to churches and monasteries which had suffered at the hands of the Viking attacks. He also built new churches, including at the site of his victory at Ashingdon. The extent of Cnut’s efforts to repair some of the damage he and his father’s forces had caused won him praise and his reputation benefitted as a direct result.  To further bolster his position, he married Emma of Normandy, the second wife and widow of Aethelred The Unready, which tied him a little closer to the Saxon nobility. Cnut ,though, was still a man of his time and he wanted to eliminate potential threats to his rule. Cnut had the son of Aethelred, named Eadwig who was born from Aethelred’s first marriage, murdered and also wanted the young sons of Edmund killed but the deed never took place and they ended up at the court of the Hungarian king.

After establishing considerable power in Scandinavia, Cnut, in 1031, travelled to Rome. He made it plain to the English people, in letters sent home, that he had prayed for forgiveness for past sins. But these communications weren’t all pleasant reading for the English nobles. Cnut, in no uncertain terms, demanded a rather extensive tax to be paid and if it hadn’t been collected in full by the time Cnut returned from Denmark, where he was to journey to after leaving Rome, then there’d be hell to pay. It says something for Cnut’s standing by this point that his demands were met and that the tax continued to be observed over 200 years after his death.

Cnut died in 1035. Shortly before he died, he visited Glastonbury and the, now lost, tomb of Edmund Ironside. Cnut had made frequent reference to Edmund as being his “brother” and given the length of time that passed since Edmund’s death, it would appear Cnut felt some genuine affection or respect for the man he had only overcome because of Eadric’s duplicity. However, a bigger factor in Cnut’s visit, is undoubtedly his desire to maintain his reputation in the country that the Danes had finally conquered after over 200 years of raids. One chronicle describes him as “magnificent”. Cnut had ruled shrewdly and with a firm hand. Of the four Danish kings of England, he would be the only genuine success.

Henry II And His Rule In The Years 1158-1163

 

In a previous blog, we looked at the early years of the reign of Henry II, beginning with his accession in 1154 up until the year of 1157. The first few years of his reign were successful but the following period would bring different challenges for Henry.

Trouble arose between Henry and Malcolm IV of Scotland early in 1158 after the king of Scots had given Henry reason to mistrust him which led to the English king refusing to knight the young Malcolm. Henry eventually knighted Malcolm 18 months later after the Scots’ king joined him on an expedition to France. The Welsh then went into rebellion which would not have been any great shock to Henry as they had been troublesome before and, after subduing them once again, he went one step further to ensure their good behaviour by taking hostages. Satisfied, Henry, that same month of August 1158, travelled to France to meet King Louis VII.

A marriage agreement was reached between the English and French crowns for Henry’s infant son, also called Henry, to marry Louis’ daughter, who was, at the time, literally a new born. Thankfully, they waited until the little girl has reached the grand old age of two before the ceremony actually takes place. Chancellor Thomas Becket played a key role in negotiations, travelling to Paris where he was greeted honourably. In September of 1158, Queen Eleanor gave birth to another son for Henry, this boy is named Geoffrey.

If things seemed fairly amicable between Henry and Louis at this stage, then things could have gone wrong in 1159. Henry laid claim to Toulouse which he proceeded to lay siege too. However, Louis intervened, acting on behalf of his brother in law who is also laying claim to Toulouse. Louis enters the town but this doesn’t stop Becket from urging his king to escalate the situation which could potentially threaten war. Henry keeps a cooler head, though, and in October of that year, he pulls back from Toulouse. However, Henry appears to bear a grudge against the French king and he attacks some of Louis’ lands near Beauvais in retaliation. The situation threatened to escalate again as Henry began to capture key fortresses. Louis, maybe considering he made a mistake interfering in Toulouse, has little option but to sue for peace. In 1160, hostilities began to simmer down and the two kings meet on numerous occasions, including at a council to discuss a disputed papacy. Henry’s son, Prince Henry, then paid homage to Louis for the Duchy of Normandy. Again, although on the surface it looked as though relations had been satisfactorily stabilised, it’s clear Henry didn’t trust his counterpart. Across the winter of 1160/1161, he built new fortifications in his French territories and completed extensive building work on already existing strongholds.

In April of 1161, Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald of Bec died.  Henry’s choice as his replacement is Chancellor Becket who is extremely reluctant to accept and it would take over a year before he is finally consecrated as Archbishop. This would prove to be one of the most fateful decisions in medieval history.

Whilst Henry attempted to persuade Becket, his rocky relationship with Louis continued and throughout 1161, they continued to bicker although they would patch things up in October of that year. Finally, in the Spring of 1162, Becket finally agreed to become Archbishop of Canterbury and he is consecrated in June of that year. At the time of Becket’s confirmed election, it would have been a boost to Henry. He had filled the most important position in the church in England with a close ally which, he hoped, would prove crucial in him rooting out the corruption in the church that had set in during the reign of King Stephen. He could not possibly have envisaged what was to follow.

In September of 1162, Henry and Louis meet with the pope to try and settle their differences. Relatively content, Henry returns to England a few months later and early in the New Year, he meets with his new Archbishop of Canterbury. In March of 1163, Henry oversaw a trial of a nobleman who is accused of spreading false rumours of the king’s death and the matter is resolved around a month later. Also, in March of that year, Henry held a council regarding the vacant bishopric of London. Pope Alexander approves of the election of Gilbert, Bishop of Hereford. However, Gilbert is reluctant and it takes some prompting from the king to finally accept a few weeks later.

Meanwhile, Becket and the Archbishop of York travel to the council of Tours where they meet Pope Alexander. In the summer of 1163, Henry has homage paid to him by Malcolm of Scotland. Tensions start to grow between the king and Becket in July 1163. A member of Becket’s clergy was stood accused by one of Henry’s justiciars of murder. The clergyman was, perhaps unsurpisingly, cleared by the church but the justiciar pressed the issue further, only to be met with hostility. Becket has the man tried for murder but he is again acquitted although found guilty of contempt. Henry is unamused by the sham trial and makes it known, during a speech, that Becket is not in his good books.

After a period of plotting his next move against Becket, Henry, in October 1163, holds a synod in which he makes abundantly clear that he is not happy with the state of the English church and the corruption of its clergymen. Henry then demands the right to try church clerks accused of committing crimes only for Becket and his bishops to point blank refuse. To say Henry is growing irritated is to put it mildly. The king withdraws his son, Prince Henry, from Becket’s supervision and also seizes two of Becket’s castles at Ely and Berkhamstead. The following day, Henry departs the synod in a furious mood. A meeting is held soon after the disastrous synod to try and patch things up between Becket and Henry but, again, tensions rise between and, again, a compromise fails to materialise.