Today in History: The Battle of Bosworth Field

On this day, August 22, in 1485, Richard III was killed in Battle by the future Henry VII

"Before departing France, Henry had been in communication with the Stanleys to seek their support. Upon learning of the landing at Milford Haven, the Stanleys had mustered around 6,000 men and had effectively screened Henry's advance. During this time, he continued to meet with the brothers with the goal of securing their loyalty and support. Arriving at Leicester on August 20, Richard united with John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, one of his most trusted commanders, and the next day was joined by Henry Percy, Duke of Northumberland.

Pressing west with around 10,000 men, they intended to block Henry's advance. Moving through Sutton Cheney, Richard's army assumed a position to the southwest on Ambion Hill and made camp. Henry's 5,000 men camped a short distance away at White Moors, while the fence-sitting Stanleys were to the south near Dadlington. The next morning, Richard's forces formed on the hill with the vanguard under Norfolk on the right and the rearguard under Northumberland to the left. Henry, an inexperienced military leader, turned command of his army over to John de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

Dispatching messengers to the Stanleys, Henry asked them to declare their allegiance. Dodging the request, the Stanleys stated that they would offer their support once Henry had formed his men and issued his orders. Forced to move forward alone, Oxford formed Henry's smaller army into a single, compact block rather than dividing it into the traditional "battles." Advancing towards the hill, Oxford's right flank was protected by a marshy area. Harassing Oxford's men with artillery fire, Richard ordered Norfolk to move forward and attack.

After exchanges of arrows, the two forces collided and hand-to-hand combat ensued. Forming his men into an attacking wedge, Oxford's troops began to gain the upper hand. With Norfolk under heavy pressure, Richard called for aid from Northumberland. This was not forthcoming and the rearguard did not move. While some speculate that this was due to personal animosity between the duke and king, others argue that the terrain prevented Northumberland from reaching the fight. The situation worsened when Norfolk was struck in the face with an arrow and killed.

With the battle raging, Henry decided to move forward with his lifeguard to meet the Stanleys. Spotting this move, Richard sought to end the fight by killing Henry. Leading forward a body of 800 cavalry, Richard skirted around the main battle and charged after Henry's group. Slamming into them, Richard killed Henry's standard bearer and several of his bodyguards. Seeing this, Sir William Stanley led his men into the fight in defense of Henry. Surging forward, they nearly surrounded the king's men. Pushed back towards the marsh, Richard was unhorsed and forced to fight on foot. Fighting bravely to the end, Richard was finally cut down. Learning of Richard's death, Northumberland's men began to withdraw and those battling Oxford fled." Source: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars14011600/p/bosworth.htm

Richard's body was then stripped and thrown over a horse to be taken to Leicester. There it was displayed for two days to rrove that he was dead. Henry would later predate his reign to start at August 21, thus allowing him to execute those who had fought for Richard for treason, including Sir Richard Ratcliffe and Sir William Catesby.

Loyaute Me Lie

The Tour de Nesle Affair and its Consequences

King Philip IV, also known as Philip the Fair, had three sons, and a daughter named Isabella. Their names were Louis, Philip, and Charles in that order. All of them made good marriages as befitting their station. Louis married Marguerite of Burgundy and Philip married Jeanne of Burgundy. Charles married Jeanne’s sister, Blanche of Burgundy. The two sister’s were Marguerite’s cousin, so they were all related in one way or the other. Isabella married Edward II of England. The tale of that marriage is a whole other story, but Isabella does come into play in this story.

See, Isabella had given her sisters-in-law beautifully embroidered purses while on a state visit to France with her husband. The French Queen, Isabella’s mother, had recently died, and the Burgundian princesses had helped to bring life back into the French court. Isabella wanted to repay the kindness.

Back in England, two Norman knights had recently arrived at the English court of Edward II. Their names were Philip and Gautier d’Aulnay. This was nothing unusual: French and Norman knights were often in attendance. They caught the attention off many ladies at court. They were handsome and charming, but that wasn’t what drew Isabella’s attention. What drew Isabella’s eye, though, wasn’t their looks. They were wearing the same purses that Isabella had given to her sisters-in-law. She wondered if there wasn’t anything going on behind the scenes…

The brothers weren’t that discrete, and rumors soon began to reach King Philip. Isabella shared her suspicions and the two brothers were put under surveillance as well as the three Burgundian princesses. The Trail led them back to the Tour de Nesle, an old fortress on the Seine. The three ladies had basically transformed it into a bachelorette pad. All three women and the two knights were arrested, and the the two brothers were tortured. Under the torture, the men confessed to their adulterous deeds with Marguerite and Blanche. Jeane was not active in the affairs, but was present and was aware of the others’ infidelities. This was, of course, a big deal: if any of them were pregnant, they’d be passing off some bastard as the legitimate heir. The fate of the Capetian line was at stake. Punishment was swift and brutal.

The men were publicly castrated, flayed alive, and then decapitated. The women were a tad more more fortunate. All three went on trial before the Paris Parliament. Prince Philip intervened for his wife, Jeanne, and she was found not guilty. The other two were not so lucky. Blanche and Marguerite were found guilty, had their heads shaved, and were sent to the Château Gaillard, where they were imprisoned underground.

A few months after this whole unfortunate incident, Philip IV died, probably in shame. The crown, of course, went to his oldest son, Louis, who became Louis X. Technically he had a daughter, Jeanne, from his marriage to Marguerite, but since the incident, her paternity had been called into question. Luckily for Louis, Marguerite died soon after his ascension to the throne, leaving him available to remarry. Louis remarried immediately and very quickly got his new wife pregnant. Alas, Louis died after a game of tennis and his baby son soon died after he did.

Louis still had that daughter, Jeanne, from his first marriage to Marguerite that I mentioned earlier; but, considering the questionable paternity and (more importantly) the fact that she was four years old, no one much objected when Philip, Louis’s next brother, took the crown. The moment he took the crown, Philip convened the Three Estates of France and confirmed Salic Law, which stated that women could not inherit (different from, say, primogeniture in England which stated that women could inherit; just after all the boys). This took the orphan Jeanne right out of the equation. Unfortunately, Philip and his male heir soon died as well. He left behind, four daughters, but under his father’s own edict, they could not inherit.

And so we come to the third and final brother, King Charles. He was still technically married to Blanche from before, who was still currently imprisoned in the Château Gaillard. Despite her imprisonment, she managed to eke out some some comfort with one of her jailers and gave him a child. Charles used this to gain an annulment, and married again twice, but still without male heirs.

Salic Law disallowed the throne to pass to Isabella, but she tried to win the claim for her son, Edward III of England. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the Hundred Years War.

On this day in history...

     Edward IV, King of England and  of France and Lord of Ireland, died today (April 9) in 1483. He fell fatally ill on Easter 1483, and lasted for about three weeks (give or take), just enough to adjust his will- the most notable change to name his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as his Lord Protector.  He was just shy of his forty-first birthday (April 28). He was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. He was succeeded by his son,  His motto was modus et ordo (method and order). Edward, Prince of Wales, who became Edward V, though he was never crowned.

    It is not definitively known what caused his death. Everything from pneumonia to typhoid to poison has been theorized. Perhaps he just let himself go?

    All I have to say is...Loyaulte Me Lie.

    Source: Wikipedia and my own memory.

Light in the, "Dark Ages"?

    One of the biggest modern-day criticisms of the Middle Ages is a lack of knowledge. While there is some truth to this, many Universities were founded by the Church during this time. By Columbus’s time, most people knew that the Earth was round. I don’t think that knowledge was as lacking as we think it was.

The dialect of English which was shaped by the Vikings

The dialect of English which was shaped by the Vikings: The story of a dialect of Old English that was strongly influenced by Old Norse during the early Middle Ages, namely the Northumbrian dialect.

Medieval Times given an unfair Reputation?

         Does anyone else feel that Medieval Times are unfairly vilified nowadays? Of, course, if you’re speaking about hygiene, you’re probably right-but no one is really speaking about hygiene when that ask this question, do they? Was life any better or worse than in any other age? What do you guys think?

How a deal made by a French King eventually led to 1066

---

We all (hopefully) might know about the invasion of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror. What you might not know is how that came to be in the first place.

In the 800s .A.D., one of the biggest problems facing Christian Europe was invasion by Vikings. The first Viking invasion on the West (before then, Vikings had only gone East to raid) was on the monastery at Lindsfarne (off the coast off England) in 793 .A.D., in the Anglo-Saxon city-state/Kingdom of Northumbria.
In the beginning, many Kings thought that they could just make the Vikings go away by bribing them with lots of gold. Sometimes that worked; sometimes that didn’t.
A lot of them may have taken, and did take it as a sign of weakness, which inspired them to return more. This was especially the case in England, but also in France. One such deal was between the King of France and a Viking named Ralf (Latinized Rollo). The descendants of Charlemagne had never been as good as the man himself; always weak and willing to give in. Finally, however, instead of gold; one King of France decided to give the Vikings something infinitely more valuable: land. It included a title, legitimacy, etc. Rollo accepted. Of course there were some conditions: conversion to Christianity, an expectation to fight against other Vikings, etc. Since they were, “Northmen,” or ,”Norsemen,” the area the settled became known as, “Normandy.” Rollo’s great-grandson was William the Conqueror himself! That is how the deal affected 1066 and World History.

Happy Easter, everyone!!

Happy Easter, everyone!!! I hope you have a great day...

The Tudors- a half-bastard line?

    The Tudor dynasty started after the death of Henry V of England. He and his wife, Catherine of Valois, had had Henry VI, who would eventually go crazy and ascended to the throne when he was about twelve (give or take- I could be wrong on that). After Henry V’s death, Catherine started an affair with a servant of hers, Owen Tudor. The had two sons and children overall Edmund and Jaspar Tudor, in that order. Henry VI would later legitimize his half-brothers, and give them estates and titles in Wales, which was always loyal to them as a result. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort, and they would have one child: Henry VII, who would overthrow Richard III at Bosworth in 1485. Of course, the question mark on the title is a little misleading- it’s not like we don’t know this for a fact. Plus, many of you might have already known this. If you didn’t know this before how do you feel about this new information? For people who already knew this- how did this change your outlook on the Tudors, if it did so at all?

What might be a 100,000-year-old art studio has been discovered -(Really cool!! Not mine)

 

In Blombos Cave, South Africa, archaeologists have found what they think could be the earliest artist’s studio. “Ochre” is the term archaeologists use to describe dirt or rock that contains red or yellow oxides, or hydroxides of iron; it is basically early paint. Researchers found hammers and grindstones that could have been used to make this ochre powder in the cave. Additionally, they found two sea snail shells called abalone shells that probably served as containers to store a red concoction of ochre, bone and charcoal. Pigment residue on one of the bones suggests it was used for stirring and transferring the mixture out of the shell. All this evidence comes together to indicate that our early Homo sapien ancestors had a basic knowledge of chemistry, the ability to make long-term plans, and a wish to make art that would last beyond themselves. (from CNN)

A brief history of Ancient Rome (not mine)

  According to legend, Ancient Rome was founded by the two brothers, and demi-gods, Romulus and Remus, on 21 April 753 BC. The legend claims that, in an argument over who would rule the city (or, in another version, where the city would be located) Romulus killed Remus and named the city after himself. This story of the founding of Rome is the best known but it is not the only one. Other legends claim the city was named after a woman, Roma, who traveled with Aeneas and the other survivors from Troy after that city fell. Upon landing on the banks of the Tiber River, Roma and the other women objected when the men wanted to move on. She lead the women in the burning of the Trojan ships and so effectively stranded the Trojan survivors at the site which would eventually become Rome. Aeneas of Troy is featured in this legend and also, famously, in Virgil’s Aeneid, as a founder of Rome and the ancestor of Romulus and Remus, thus linking Rome with the grandeur and might which was once Troy. 

Originally a small town on the banks of the Tiber River, Rome grew in size and strength, early on, through trade. The location of the city provided merchants with an easily navigable waterway on which to traffic their goods. Greek culture and civilization, which came to Rome via Greek colonies to the south, provided the early Romans with a model on which to build their own culture. From the Greeks they borrowed literacy and religion as well as the fundamentals of architecture. The Etruscans, to the north, provided a model for trade and urban luxury. Etruria was also well situated for trade and the early Romans either learned the skills of trade from Etruscan example or were taught directly by the Etruscans who made incursions into the area around Rome sometime between 650 and 600 BCE. Early on, the Romans showed a talent for borrowing and improving upon the skills and concepts of other cultures. The Kingdom of Rome grew rapidly from a trading town to a prosperous city between the 8th and 6th centuries BC. When the last of the seven kings of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was deposed in 509 BCE, his rival for power, Lucius Junius Brutus, reformed the system of government and established the Roman Republic. 

Though Rome owed its prosperity to trade in the early years, it was war which would make the city a powerful force in the ancient world. The wars with the North African city of Carthage (known as the Punic Wars, 264-146 BC) consolidated Rome’s power and helped the city grow in wealth and prestige. Rome and Carthage were rivals in trade in the Western Mediterranean and, with Carthage defeated, Rome held almost absolute dominance over the region (there were still incursions by pirates which prevented complete Roman control of the sea). As the Republic of Rome grew in power and prestige, the city of Rome began to suffer from the effects of corruption, greed and the over-reliance on foreign slave labor. Gangs of unemployed Romans, put out of work by the influx of slaves brought in through territorial conquests, hired themselves out as thugs to do the bidding of whatever wealthy Senator would pay them. The wealthy elite of the city, the Patricians, became ever richer at the expense of the working lower class, the Plebeians. In the 2nd century BC, the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, two Roman tribunes, lead a movement for land reform and political reform in general. Though the brothers were both killed in this cause, their efforts did spur legislative reforms and the rampant corruption of the Senate was curtailed (or, at least, the Senators became more discreet in their corrupt activities). By the time of the First Triumvirate, both the city and the Republic of Rome were in full flourish

Found this, not mine... but really cool!!

During a excavation mission carried out at the Graeco-Roman cemetery in Tel Al-Tabla archaeological site in Dakahliya governorate, a collection of statuettes of ancient Egyptian gods has been unearthed.

They are carved in mud-brick and among them the crocodile god Sobek. A collection of Graeco-Roman bronze, faience and ivory jewelleries has been also unearthed, along with clay pots and pans and Alabaster amulets.

The newly discovered objects have been stored in Dakahliya’s archaeological galleries for restoration.

Last year, the Egyptian mission at Tel Al-Tabla discovered a mud-brick mastaba tomb consisting of a number of burial shafts.http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.ahram.org.eg%2FNewsContent%2F9%2F40%2F190768%2FHeritage%2FAncient-Egypt%2FStatuettes-of-ancient-Egyptian-gods-unearthed-in-D.aspx&t=NTliODdjMDhmYTEwNmE5OTI5ZDJhYTRhNDMwZmJhODgyYTlmYzY3NyxlZG5IanJ5MA%3D%3D (Sorry in advance if the link doesn't work)

From Tumblr...did not know this...

   At Midwinter, or Solstice, the Vikings honored their Asa Gods with religious rituals and feasting. They sacrificed a wild boar to Frey, the God of fertility and farming, to assure a good growing season in the coming year. The meat was then cooked and eaten at the feast.

During the festivities they burned a giant Sunwheel, which was put on fire and rolled down a hill to entice the Sun to return.

Another Viking tradition was the Yulelog, a large oak log decorated with sprigs of fir, holly or yew. They carved runes on it, asking the Gods to protect them from misfortune. A piece of the log was saved to protect the home during the coming year and light next year’s fire.

The Vikings decorated evergreen trees with pieces of food and clothes, small statues of the Gods, carved runes, etc., to entice the tree spirits to come back in the spring.

Ancient myths surround the Mistletoe. The Vikings believed it could resurrect the dead, a belief based on a legend about the resurrection of Balder, God of Light and Goodness, who was killed by a mistletoe arrow but resurrected when tears of his mother Frigga turned the red mistletoe berries white.

From a friend of mine on how history nerds and non-history nerds look at the world

I explain it to people like this: 

Imagine waking up in a room with 20 other people. It is a somewhat strange room, with outlandish paintings and tapestries covering the walls, and foreign words engraved into the space around them. In the room itself, there is some strange looking furniture, a few chairs and a couple of tables. On these tables are games - Checkers, monopoly, and maybe some playing cards. 

Now you have no idea how you got into this room or how long you are going to be there. There are no doors or windows, and nobody seems able to get in or out. So what do you do? 

Well most of those twenty people sit down and start playing the table games. Since there is not much else to occupy their time, they end up getting really, really good at those games, and soon the room is filled with the buzz of high competition. The best players are exalted by others, the worst are spit on. People begin to form their identities and generate self-esteem based on their gameplay. 

Meanwhile you are still there in the room thinking and wondering. The games the others are playing may serve to occaisionally entertain you, but for the most part you have bigger things on your mind. Like, how did we end up in this room in the first place? What do all these paintings and tapestries on the wall represent? Why are their tables and chairs but no couches ? Why are there 20 people in the room and not 10 or 30? What language are the engravings on the walls, and what do they mean? 

Eventually you start thinking about the other people in the room. Why are they so obsessed with their gameplay? Don’t they want to know how and why we are here? Why are they getting so hierarchical? Why do they feel this need to dominate the others? Eventually the others start to think you are a bit strange, as you never seem to care about who wins at the games, and you spend most of your time in contemplation and analysis. 

And that’s my metaphor for history and historians. Most people are obsessed at excelling within the paradigm that they find themselves in, the “games”, while we (the historically minded) are obsessed with finding out why those paradigms exist in the first place and how they developed. 

It’s simply a different personality type and a different mindset - one that has never been and probably never will be the norm, but which offers every society an important alternative perspective.

Who's your favorite monarch?

   It can be any king, really. Mine is Edward IV of England. From his beautiful (though imperfect) relationship with his wife to his military expertise to his personality; I just love everything about him.

Historical Fiction: Good or Bad?

   Of course, this question can kind of answer itself-historical fiction done right can be the best thing ever. But too often nowadays accuracy is sacrificed for excitement in order to make money. Modern views are also seeped in and too often political correctness gets in there. Some might say why does it matter:if you make them love it they'll want to research more, and there they'll figure out the truth. I wish you were right; however, my friend, you underestimate the human capacity for laziness. Side note: can anyone reccomend some good historical fiction? Books or movies: I don't care. What do you guys think?

Is history in schools being diminished?

   Can you tell me the significance of 1066? What about Julius 
Caesar crossing the Rubicon? Can you name any English King besides Henry VIII? Have you heard the word Plantagenet before, much less know what it means? If you answered yes to any or all those questions, a.) You are awesome and b.) You probably know 10x more history than the average kid in my school and maybe in America. I know people who can't even name the first President of the United States much less any of my first questions. Anyone who knows anything about history and lives in New York like I do should think the History Regents an absolute joke. When it is taught, it is not in a way that engages students (a bunch of bullett points on a slide, nothing exciting) and is a bunch of p.c. revisionist rubbish. This of course can be extended to all subjects; I am mad about this as well, but history holds a special place in my heart and I feel it suffers the most because it is the one that is thought to be least helpful to the real world. What do you guys think?