A Brief Tour of Norman Winchester

A traveller going to Winchester in the century after the Norman Conquest would be entering a governmental and administrative centre to rival London. Winchester had been the capital of Wessex, and later of England in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and after its surrender to the Normans in November in 1066 it did not seem to decline in prominence and importance.

Entering though the West Gate into the area within the city walls the first major building to seen would be the Castle. Began the year after the Conquest, it was in its heyday one of the greatest strongholds in the land, and housed the royal treasury and so Winchester was the home to many royal administrators.

A fact that is worth taking note of, as this was one of the major reasons for Winchester’s prominence and importance. Indeed, the castle was not the only royal building in the city. Moving further towards the East was the royal Palace, built by William the Conqueror himself, part of the site taken from monastic building belonging to the Saxon Minister.

Norman Winchester had its own Mint, located possibly in the Palace, which further contributed to Winchester’s importance in the period. After the destruction of much of the city in 1142, including the Palace until the reign of Henry II there seems to be little evidence for the minting of coins in Winchester, so the mint may have befallen the same fate as the palace itself, and other Norman buildings.

Beyond the lost Palace lay Winchester’s most famous landmark the Cathedral.  The word itself is derived from the Latin for ‘seat’ as Cathedrals were the ‘seats’ of a Bishop. The office of the Bishop of Winchester dates to the seventh century.

The first Norman Bishop was Walekelin, during whose term of office the building of the Norman Cathedral was began in 1079 and completed only 14 years later.  The Cathedral was built on the site of the Old Saxon minister, which was a ‘moved’ to site of Hyde Abbey, another of Winchester’s great medieval foundations. Hyde Abbey was the burial place of King Alfred, but seems to have been badly damaged due having been attacked and burned during the Anarchy.

The Norman Cathedral apparently was not built to last, and the Norman tower fell in during the 12^th century, though contemporary opinion seems to have held that the burial of William Rufus underneath it was the cause. One of Walekin’s successors, Henry of Blois the third Norman Bishop of Winchester was one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in England, and brother of King Stephen. Henry oversaw the fortification of Wolvesey Palace, the main residence of Winchester’s Bishops, at the time of the anarchy. Its fortifications are perhaps one of the reasons why Wolvesey is known as a ‘Castle’ to this day.

It was Henry who also established the Hospital of St Cross, far outside the City Centre in the Itchen Meadows. According to popular legend Henry established the hospital after being stopped by a peasant girl during a walk in the meadows, who had begged him to ‘help her people’ rendered starving and destitute by the civil war. On finding the ruins of a former religious house, Henry vowed to establish a new one, which was done c1132.

The Hospital and its buildings were intended to house “thirteen poor men, feeble and so reduced in strength that they can scarcely, or not at all support themselves by any other aid” who were to be “housed clothed and fed” and “100 poor men were to be given a daily meal”.

On the opposite side of the city, again approaching from the West gate was the home of the Jewish Community, still holding the name of Jewry Street today. The Jews seem to have come with the Normans, and were, perhaps surprisingly, welcomed by some in the city. Winchester’s Jews also seem to have escaped the worst of the Anti-Semitic movements in this period.

Their medieval synagogue was located on the modern street between the Royal Oak and Waterstones building on the eastern side of the street. The city was also home to many tradespeople and craftsmen including Gold and Silversmiths (perhaps giving rise to names like ‘Silver Hill’), as well as Tanners, and others.

Outside the city walls on St Giles’ Hill an annual fair was held, on the day of the Saint after which the fair and Hill took its name. The right to grant the fair was granted by William Rufus to Bishop Walkelin which attracted merchants from throughout the country and beyond.

The fair was also frequented by wool merchants, whose wares formed such an important part of the Medieval English economy. Much of the land in Winchester and the surrounding areas was owned by the church, though those living in the cities would not have been their tenants, and some of the cities’ mills seem to have been owned by ‘the mayor and corporation’.

The establishment of trade guilds and the evidence for the first mayor of Winchester comes also from the twelfth century, and is may well be evidence of the city’s economic development and prosperity during this period, but it was not to last.

As stated before, Winchester was besieged, and parts burned by Bishop Henry’s forces during the civil war, yet it was the Treaty of Winchester that settled the succession onto her son, the future King Henry II.

Though the city recovered and continued to be prominent into the later part of the 12^th century, its decline seems to have begun at this time, and into the 13^th century. The “need for a traveling treasury became apparent in King John’s reign, when the King moved from place to place” which led to the “triumph of London”.  Furthermore the city’s defences were unable to withstand a siege by King Louis of France at the end of his reign, and surrendered within a short time.

Bibliography,

Turner, Barbara Carpenter, A History of Winchester (Chichester, 1992).

History, The Hospital of St Cross Website, Accessed 18th December 2012, http://stcrosshospital.co.uk/history/

Winchester Mint, Travel Wessex, Accessed 18th December 2012, http://www.travelwessex.com/Winchester-Mint.html.

On Medieval Clocks

There is a simple, everyday device which influences much of our lives and our time. We take it for granted, and perhaps don’t even pause to consider or realise how much many of the events of out day may be based around it. It sits on many a wall, innocuous, perhaps even largely unnoticed, except when we need to look at it. It is of course a clock, that little contraption which many of us may simply take for granted, but where did they come from, and how did they come to be?

The human desire to keep some track of or measure units of time seems to have been what gave rise to the earliest timekeeping devices, originating perhaps in the ancient times. The earliest clocks may have been ‘water clocks’ sometimes referred to by the fancy technical name of the ‘clepsydra’, and may be defined as “is any timepiece in which time is measured by the regulated flow of liquid into (inflow type) or out from (outflow type) a vessel where the amount is then measured.”[1] Alongside the sundial, they stand as some of the oldest known timekeeping devices we know of, dating back perhaps as far as ancient Babylonia an Persia c1600 BC.[2] The Egyptians had them, the Greeks had them, the Chinese had them, and the Arabs seemed to have them too, as apparently did Westerners.

For many centuries, even millennia, water clocks were used for some form of time keeping though perhaps not necessarily charting hours, or other units, so much as for astronomical measurements. Some were extremely complex, and apparently very large, contained in purpose built towers, such as that built by one Su Sung in the 11^th century. This ingenious device was rather complex in its workings:

          “The water that supplied power was contained in a reservoir…. Water passed by siphon from the reservoir to a constant-level tank, and thence to the scoops of a waterwheel. An endless chain drive slowly turned a celestial globe… one revolution per day. The same waterwheel turned a series of shafts, gears and wheels working the bells and drums which announced the time”. [3]

An important component of this and other devices, which was essential to the creation of mechanical clocks, was the ‘escapement’ which James Hannam defines as a ‘spinning crossbar that allows the gear wheel to turn by only one notch for each of its rotations. Each time the gear moves on by one notch, there is one tick of the clock and the weight driven shaft can turn by a very small amount. A series of other gears translate the turning of the gear wheel into the movements of the hands on the clock face”.[4]

Su Sung’s eleventh century clock had one of the little beauties, but there seems to be some ambiguity over when and how they first came to the Western world, but they seem to have been here by the 13^th century. However, it is here that another problem arises, which is that the Latin word for a ‘clock’ used at this time ‘orologium’ could refer to any time piece, mechanical or non-mechanical, or water driven. This means that tracing the origin of the development of mechanical clocks in Western Europe rather difficult.[5]

It is suggested that the earliest mechanical clock was invented in England in 1273, this is taken from the earliest reference to one. Though this claim may be contested, they definitely seem to have existed in some form by the beginning of the 14^th century.[6]

Roger of Wallingford,

These Medieval clocks were initially intended as astronomical devices, or contraptions designed to wake up monks to ring the bells for the ‘divine office’ of monks, who had to get up in the small hours of the morning for their services. Considering their use by monks, it is perhaps unsurprising that it was The Abbot of St Albans, one Roger of Wallingford who planned and had made a famous (and non-water

… and a replica of his clock.

operated) mechanical clock for the abbey in the early 14^th century. The clock was “an automated astronomical model”, but in spite of its not being a timekeeper in the sense that we know clocks to be, Wallingford’s and other such device seems to have been at the pinnacle of Medieval European mechanical innovation at the time.[7]

The first clocks as timepieces seem to have been developed in Italy in the 1340s, and one was installed a palace at Padua, this machine “automatically indicated the intervals of four-and twenty hours by night and day”.[8]

As with any technology, clocks developed, and on into the later 14^th and 15^th century they seem to have become smaller, more widespread and began entering the home. Henry V is even reputed to have had one that was shaped like a ship. These clocks had faces more often, and incorporated hour hands, thus were beginning to take on a more familiar form. Interestingly, mechanical clocks could still retain precision even when their size was reduced, and the skilled craftsmen who made them apparently began developing the technology so that by the 15^th century, springs had begun to replace the system of weights used in clock mechanisms before.

With clocks, work could be measured by the hour more precisely, instead of just by the amount of daylight, or the amount of work done. Indeed, they have been stated to have bought about a change in public understanding of measurements in medieval culture, alongside other move towards standardization. The increased use of clocks for the measurement of time did apparently have some drawbacks, however, as clocks “subordinated” people to time, causing them to ‘work and live by the hour’, a legacy which is, to some extent still with us today. Workers were not always happy with such changes, and clocks were sometimes destroyed during riots, perhaps because they method of controlling or ‘owning’ their time.

The building of such devices also seems to have fitted into an interesting philosophical and theological framework, emerging and developing in this period. It illustrated the idea of the ordered universe and world as a ‘machine’ with its own divine inventor. Furthermore, the regularisation of measurements of time, arguably better allowed people to understand obeys that order.

Personally, I think that the invention and development of such devices also stands a good testament to the mechanical and mathematical knowledge of medieval people.  Showing that is was within their capability and ingenuity to design and build devices with fairly complex automated mechanisms and improve upon them. So much for medieval Europeans being ‘backwards’, no pun intended.

Bibliography

Gies, Joseph & Gies Frances, Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages (New York, 1994).

Hannam, James, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (London, 2010).

Simon Schaffer, ‘Origins of Mechanical Clocks’, YouTube, Accessed 7^th November 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ch1y9iPsas&feature=relmfu.

‘Water Clock’, Wikipedia.org, Accessed 8^th November 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock

Image URL for Roger of Wallingford’s clock http://www.flickr.com/photos/jusanord/4631575236/

---

[1] ‘Water Clock’, Wikipedia.org, Accessed 8^th November 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock

[2] Ibid,.

[3] Joseph and Frances Gies, Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages (New York, 1994), p90-91.

[4] James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Mediveal World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (London, 2009), p163-4.

[5] Simon Schaffer, ‘Origins of Mechanical Clocks’, YouTube, Accessed 7^th Novemeber 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ch1y9iPsas&feature=relmfu.

[6] Ibid,.  p63.

[7] Ibid,. p164.

[8] Joseph and Frances Gies, Cathedral Forge and Waterwheel, p214.

The Great Unwashed?

How many times do you hear or see it stated that medieval people hardly ever washed? Is it correct to assume that the men and women of the medieval period restricted bathing to an annual (or even more infrequent) activity, and so smelled almost all of the time?

In trying to answer these questions I will explore bathing habits of the upper classes, poorer and common people, beginning with the inhabitants of castles.

In their book ‘Life in a Medieval Castle’ Joseph & Frances Gies claimed that ‘baths were taken in a wooden tub, protected by a tent or canopy and padded with cloth…. when the Lord traveled the tub accompanied him, along with a bathman who prepared the baths”. This passage goes on to say “In some important thirteenth century castles and palaces there were permanent bathrooms, and in Henry III’s palace at Westminster there was even hot and cold running water in the bath house…”[i].

Not all though, seem to  had such conveniences available to them and “even the accounts and illustrations of bathing in palaces and noble residences seldom depict bathing as a solitary activity”[ii]. Part of the reason for this seems to have been the time and effort involved in the preparation of hot baths, and the desire to conserve the water used. As a result of this, public or communal bathing seem to have been more popular, whether in natural water sources, or (perhaps later) in the public bath houses which some major European cities had. The only problem is that some bath houses may  become associated with promiscuity and prostitution, some even being attached to, or effectively being brothels. One example of these could have been the Southwark stews in London.

Bathing also seems to have some taken on some ceremonial associations apart from simple cleanliness. In another passage from the same book a Chronicler by the name of Jean de Tours recounted how “a bath was prepared according to the custom for novice knights” in this case a young Geoffrey of Anjou, and how “after bathing Geoffrey donned a linen undergarment, a tunic of cloth of gold…” and other finery, who  was being “initiated into knighthood” along with his attendants.” So it would seem that bathing was in some way associated with Knighting ceremonies, and in England, the Order of the Bath was also established, which may have placed even more prominence on the tub.

The simple necessity of keeping clean is one thing, but did medieval people have any appreciation of hygienic and health benefits of bathing? It would seem so.

[medieval-bath-1] Another source states that “hygienic bathing was not the rare activity during the medieval period that most critics assume….some medical manuals recommended daily baths, hot or cold”. In this context in appears that “indoor and outdoor baths were common” hot springs and natural spas were even held to have health benefits and some indoor facilities allegedly “had indwelling glaze tile tall stoves or dry heaters with hot stones”[iii].

Such may have been all well and good for the wealthy or upper classes, but what of commoners or the poor? Were they truly ‘the great unwashed’? According to the above source “All social classes… could bathe somewhere on the ocean shore, riverbanks, lake fronts, stream beds, hot springs water holes, natural ponds and artificial pools”[iv].

If this was the case and the less regular  less regular bathing of Medieval people can “be attributed to more limited facilities available for washing and the … inconvenience of using them then to  any cultural bias against cleanliness”, their taking the opportunity to wash wherever or whenever they could may make perfect sense, and who can blame them?[v].

So it would appear that washing and bathing were not such an uncommon occurrence for later medieval people regardless of whether they were rich or poor, and that they, like us, were concerned about personal hygiene. What gave rise to the misconceptions about smelly medieval bathing only once a year, or not wanting to wash because they were afraid of catching cold hay have to be a subject for a future post, but taking such claims with a large helping of salt (or low sodium alternative) may be a good idea.

[i] Joseph Gies & Frances Gies, Life in a Medieval Castle p71.

[ii] Ibid., p166.

[iii] Madeline Pelner Cosman, Linda Gale Jones, Handbook To Life in the Medieval World (New York, 2008), p123-5.

[iv] Ibid,. p125.

[v] Paul B. Newman, Daily Life in The Middle Ages (North Carolina, 2001).

Jousters, Tumblers, and Shinbone Skates- A Brief History of Medieval Sport

In a bid to be ‘relevant’ and tie in with the London Olympic Games, August will see a series of sport-related posts of which this is the first.  Myself as the eccentric Medievalist naturally wanted to do something related to the medieval period, but a post specifically related to jousting would likely not have been permissible. Therefore my love of armour clad horsemen galloping towards each other with lances must be relegated to a sentence or two of this more general exploration of sport and games in the middle Ages.

Medieval people of all classes and had more to occupy them than working in fields all their lives, or brandishing broadswords at Frenchmen before they died of plague. Leisure activities ranged from the familiar sounding tennis, ice-skating and football, to the rather more unusual pastimes like water tilting. As the former suggest, the forerunners of some popular games we know today existed in the later middle Ages, with tennis and football as the most famous. These will be mentioned later.

For the aristocracy, jousting and the tourney seem to have had wide appeal, and both originally had the serious purpose of training and preparation for war also a principal occupation of the Medieval ruling class as ‘those who fought’. The problem was that early tourneys could be very dangerous and rather undisciplined affairs, effectively mock battles fought with real weapons and few rules, and combatants would not infrequently be injured or killed in them. Thus both the church and sometimes even the King sought to legislate against the tournament, though they still sometimes took place in spite of this. Yet gradually, the tournaments in particular lost their serious military function, became more organised and regulated and evolved into more of a ceremonial event or pageant in which display of one’s prowess or family connections were the object.

Skills of horsemanship and swordplay may still feature in the modern Olympics with sports such as show jumping or fencing,  even though these are a far cry from such displays of medieval martial combat.

Medieval ladies hunting, the one the pink dress using a bow.

Hunting and hawking were also popular with medieval aristocrats of both sexes, and could be a chance for women utilise their skills of riding and even archery, and it was apparently not unknown for a woman to use a longbow or crossbow during such pursuits. So the sight of women drawing back bows at the Olympics is not unique to our time and one can truthfully state that medieval ladies were doing such centuries before. Nor did archery remain the exclusive reserve of the aristocracy as archers  came to be used in warfare who were drawn from the lower classes, with some such as longbowmen required to undertake regular training from an early age.

Medieval Men hunting with hawks or falcons

Because of the expense incurred by purchasing, training, and maintaining the birds of prey, falconry largely remained out of reach of most common people, and so the reserve of the nobility.  Falconry and hunting were considered “honourable employments” for the upper classes, and the skill of the bird’s trainers or handlers could bring them much credit. Little wonder then that favourite hawks or falcons could accompany their owners even when they were not hunting. Yet despite its long and noble history (some claim it is one of the oldest sports in the world) falconry or hawking has not yet been included in the repertoire of the Olympics. Perhaps an aversion to the hunting and killing of live prey are the reason for its exclusion, but the noble sport still has many practitioners and enthusiasts across the world.

The original tennis, in which players hit balls with their hands

Then there was tennis, which seems to have originated in 12^th century France, as a game which involved hitting a ball with the palm of one’s hand rather than a racket (not introduced until the 16^th century), hence the naming of the game ‘jeu de paume’. Over time the game seems to have evolved, and a version which included a net became increasingly popular amongst the nobility who could play the game in indoor or outdoor courts, hence ‘jeu de courte paume’. Tennis or something like seems to have gained some popularity even amongst the lower classes, though there appears to have been some objection to common people playing it, and even some measures to restrict or ban them from doing so, this was apparently due to some association between the game and gambling. Nevertheless, ordinary people may still have played in such places as church yards.

Tennis was not the only game which the authorities sought to take action against however, another was football, which was banned by a number of kings and rulers. Today, such a measures may seem absurd, and banning football sometimes used as an example of the supposedly extreme moral ‘prudishness’ of the puritans. Yet considering the nature of medieval football, which had few rules and was being played in a society in which almost everyone carried knives and consumed ale as a foodstuff, the potential dangers of the game become more apparent. Cases of people being killed or injured during football games were not unknown, and, as some medieval football matches were played over large areas of say, one or more villages, it may have been understandable that some had reservations about the game being played in their proverbial ‘backyard’. This and the association of football with gambling also did not weigh in the favour of the game.

Yet towards the end of the Medieval and into the early modern or renaissance period, a less raucous version of the game seems to have developed, with about 20 or so participants in smaller areas of ground. This could be played in a castle courtyard, and seems to have gained some popularity amongst the aristocracy.

Skates of horse shin bone, similar to those used in the medieval times.

Aside from these the more well-known sports, there were a host of other recreational and sporting activities participated in by medieval people of various sexes, ages or social classes including ice-skating, stall-ball (a slightly  different version than that which we played at school) to the more athletic antics of entertainers and tumblers, and even a version of golf which has its origins in late 15^th century Scotland. Where weather conditions allowed, medieval men and women seem to have attached horse shin bones to their feet as ice skates, and the object of stall ball was for men to aim at the legs of milk stalls with balls on which women would sit to defend by kicking the ball away. If the stalls were hit, however, the ladies were supposed to reward the men with a kiss.

Other more interesting activities could include water tilting a form of jousting in which competitors equipped with wooden lances or poles would attempt to knock one another out of boats, instead of knocking them from horses.

Then there were the entertainers perhaps known as ‘dancers’ and ‘tumblers’ whose activities could involve such athletic feats as tumbling, leaping and doing somersaults, or even walking on tightropes. The association with ‘dancing’ is said to be evidenced by medieval depictions of the biblical account of princess Salome’s dance before King Herod involving back flips or other such shows of athleticism associated with these entertainers. Female tumblers may sometimes have donned tight-fitting leggings and short tunics, but the displays of such entertainers of both sexes appear to have been popular, so much so that Edward II is alleged to have paid an entertainer twenty shillings a time for an act that involved falling off his horse. Thus some comparison between the antics of medieval tumblers and the skilful routines of modern gymnasts such as those who compete in the Olympics may be partly justified.

Those reading this post may be struck by the apparent echoes and similarities between medieval recreational activities and modern competitive sports. It may even be possible to draw parallels between tumblers and entertainers performing for pay, or even between knights and men at arms seeking renown and the recognition of their peers in the lists and modern sports people and athletes, including those currently partaking in the Olympic Games. These are often regarded as the modern re-invention of an ancient Greek contest but perhaps there may also be precedents found in the medieval forbears of modern sport and recreation. As the scripture says ‘there is nothing new under the sun’.

References:

John Marshall Carter, “Sports and Recreations in Thirteenth-Century England:
The Evidence of the Eyre and Coroners’ Rolls–A Research Note*”, Journal of Sport History, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Summer, 1988)

Thomas S Henrick, “Sport and Social Hierarchy in Medieval England”, Journal of Sport History, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1982).

Medievalists.net ‘News’, ‘Football was being played in Medieval Scotland, research reveals’, accessed 29th July 2011, http://www.medievalists.net/2011/10/18.

John A Nichols, ‘Women in Sport: Images from the Late Middle Ages’, Accessed 29th July 2012, http://srufaculty.sru.edu/john.nichols/research/womensport.htm.

Steven J Overman, “Sporting and Recreational Activities of Students in the Medieval Universities”, FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Physical Education Vol. 1, No 6, 1999, pp. 25 – 33.

The Duke and the King who kept changing his mind

Richard II- ‘The King who kept changing his mind’

Many people with even a moderate interest in history will likely have heard of Richard, 3^rd Duke of York (1411-1460) and his claim to the throne which made him a rival of the Lancastrian King Henry VI (the sixth)- even if only from Shakespeare’s ‘history’ plays in which this claim is recounted at some length by Richard himself.

As Historians go, most simply take it for granted that Richard and his sons the subsequent Yorkist Kings Edward IV and Richard III had the ‘best’ and ‘strongest’ claim to the throne- or at least one that trumped that of the ‘usurping’ Lancastrians. Either way, the superiority of the Yorkist claim is generally stated as an undisputed fact by many Medievalists. This is a view that I too shared until fairly recently- and which likely a lot of other History students do- but not anymore. In this post I will be examining this subject in more detail- and try not to be too boring in the process!

The key questions that are to be addressed when looking at this claim are thus

1-      What was the nature and origin of Richard’s claim?

2-      Was is truly the strongest and best?

To address the first question it is necessary to go back to long before Richard’s birth in 1411 and to the reign of Richard II. Most know the story of how Richard was deposed by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, who later became Henry IV (the fourth). This is where Richard’s claim comes in for it is stated that whilst Henry ‘forced’ the childless Richard to name appoint as the heir before his deposition, the true and ‘rightful’ heir of the blood was the child Edmund Mortimer. To examine the ‘rightness’ of Mortimer’s claim it is necessary to go back even further to Edward III (the third) and his family line.

Richard II was of course the Grandson of Edward by his firstborn son Edward the Black Prince who predeased him by one year. Mortimer was descendant of Edward’s second son, Lionel Duke of Clarence, though his only child Phillipa. Henry Bolingbroke however was the son of Edward’s third son, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. Seems pretty straightforward and clear whose the rightful claim was, right? That because Richard of York was descended from the eldest son he must have had a better claim than the house of Lancaster, and in light of King Richard’s choice of successor it seems all the clearer.

However, things are not quite so straightforward as they seem even in this regard. Historian Michael Bennett in his book ‘Richard II and the Revolution of 1399’ (Sutton, 2006) accounts for one of the main difficulties with the succession in the reign of Richard II. Richard of course had no children of his own, so his closest legitimate relatives in the royal line were his Uncles and their sons and descendants- his cousins.

Confused by all the Royal Cousins and relations? Click the family tree to make things clearer

Richard seems to have been well aware of his Cousin Henry’s ambitions where the throne was concerned- but also knew that another one of his cousins Roger Mortimer (the father of Edmund) had a claim. It appears that Richard used the succession as something of weapon or at least as a political tool which by which he could gain the upper hand. In the 1480s Roger Mortimer was nominated as his heir, it is suggested perhaps partly to ‘foil the ambition of John of Gaunt’ but later in that same decade he ‘encouraged Bolingbroke’s expectations. Gaunt’s solid support for Richard from 1389 onwards may reflect some understanding that Richard… would nominate Gaunt or Bolingbroke as his heir’. After Roger Mortimer’s death in Ireland in 1397 there seems to have been little expectation that his young son Edmund would be appointed as heir- in this same decade Richard appears to have been showing favour to Edmund of Langley Duke of York and his sons and there is even suggestion that he might have considered them as possible heirs.

It is this issue of Richard’s apparent inconstancy and even capriciousness where the succession was concerned that raises questions over the absolute nature of the Mortimer claim. Next, there is the question of the strength of Richard’s claim. As stated before, he was descended from Phillipa, the daughter of the second son of Edward III but through his mother, Anne Mortimer, the sister of Edmund. Towards the end of his long reign Edward III excluded females from the succession, but when King Richard favoured Roger Mortimer as his heir, he included Phillipa’s heirs again, and there were of course other precedents in the past for female succession, such as the Eleventh century Queen Matilda.

The matter of female succession in important to any analysis of Richard of York’s claim considering that some who wish to discredit Henry Tudor’s claim cite his descent from Edward III in the female line. Yet these often seem to ignore the fact that Richard of York’s claim was derived through not one, but two female ancestors- Phillipa the aforementioned daughter of Lionel, and his mother Anne Mortimer, the sister of Edmund who died childless in 1425. Also, in the last case succession in the female line there had been no hiers in the male line left- which was not the case in 15th century England.

As Michael Hicks has demonstrated Richard of York’s claim stood as but one amongst server in the 1440s and 50s. The Lancastrians were certainly aware of his decent, and the potential threat his rival claim posed, but it does not seem to have become prominent until the late 1440s at least. Even at this time, Henry was favouring his Beaufort relatives, and others who were direct descendants of the House of Lancaster. The Lancastrian Kings themselves also had one major advantage- their descent was in the direct and unbroken male line from Edward III and was not dependant on female (as in the case of Richard) or illegitimate ancestors (as for the Beauforts).

Alongside York as possible heirs to the throne there stood at least four other viable claims

1. John Duke of Exeter who was Nephew of Henry IV by birth and so the Cousin of Henry VI, and his son Henry.
2. John Beaufort Duke of Somerset, and his brother Edmund – also direct descendants in the male line of Edward III, but through John of Gaunt’s illegitimate Beaufort sons- the offspring of his mistress Katherine Swynford. Although there were declared legitimate in the reign of Richard II they were barred from the succession by their half-brother Henry IV.
3. Margaret Beaufort the daughter of Duke John
4. Humphrey Stafford Duke of Buckingham, the heir to the youngest legitimate son of Edward III Thomas of Woodstock but, like York in the female line.

Richard of York and John Duke of Somerset- possibly because of John’s rival claim there was more to thier rivalry then flowers

The above show that York was far from the only viable claimant to the throne, though his claim did arguably trump some of the others, the complicated rules and customs governing succession did not necessarily mean that his claim was the ‘best’. Certainly there were no rules specifically excluding heirs in the female line from the succession, and the matter of Edward III’s exclusion of these seems to have been accepted or disregarded depending on political expediency.

However, the number of claimants in the Lancastrian line, and Henry VI’s attempts to strengthen their hold on power through political marriages may have put York at a disadvantage dynastically.

In some respects, it was circumstances which caused York’s claim to become prominent. The ineffectuality of King Henry, and inability or lack of success of the government in running the country for him, the unpopularity of King Henry’s ‘wicked counsellors’, and York’s own popularity as a viable alternative to these gave his claim prominence. These circumstances, coupled with the force used by York to further his ends, and a number of unsuccessful armed risings against the King lead to York finally claiming the throne in his own right in 1460. This has been argued to be a last resort, after all hopes of reconciliation by peaceful means had been exhausted. After Richard’s death, his son Edward secured the Yorkist claim by Conquest and defeat of his enemies in battle. During the reign of the Yorkist kings is perhaps unsurprising that the legitimacy and superiority and validity of the Yorkist claim came to be an accepted as an absolute fact, in spite of its weaknesses in reality.

Bibliography

Bennett, Michael, Richard II and the Revolution of 1399 (Stroud, 2006).

Hicks, Michael, The Wars of the Roses (London, 2010).

Family Tree taken from http://richardiiicasebook.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/lancaster-and-york-family-tree.html, Accessed 20th May 2012.

When History gets personal…

Bone of Contention: The little book that is the subject of this post, keep reading to find out why!

One of my own personal ‘pet hates’ in History, pedantic Medievalist that I am is to see how misconceptions and myths about the Middle Ages are still alive and well today, despite all of the best efforts of historians to put them to death. Just a few days ago a television personality again cited the still seemingly widespread fiction that people in the middle Ages thought that the earth was flat. Even the most superficial examination of medieval sources reveals that this is simply nonsense, especially as the source of it was a Fictional novel by American author Washington Irving written in the Victorian period.

Though this has been demonstrated to be false and inaccurate by historians in both recent and past years, many people believe it, often because they were taught it at school. Some even believe it is spite of knowledge to the contrary.

This begs the question, why? Why has such a ludicrous myth been accepted almost universally as a fact for over a century, when it should by rights have never even been taken seriously at all? How can such misconceptions lodge themselves so firmly in the popular imagination so as to be seemingly impossible to shift?

I do not have the answer to this question, and can only speculate, but personally I think it is a result of the widespread perception of the Medieval period as a whole as synonymous with ignorance and general backwardness. Some elements within our society (not historians) seem to have sought to actively promote this idea, in order to discredit certain groups.

The reception of Dr James Hannam’s recent book ‘God’s Philosopher’s: How the Medieval World laid the foundations of Modern Science’ (Icon Books, London, 2010)  is a good example of this. Hannam goes much further than just dispelling popular myths such as flat-earthism in this book, he even goes as far as to demonstrate that the medieval church at times encouraged and even fostered scientific enquiry, and to reveal that many scientific and technological innovations were made by clergymen. These went from the mundane, such as the improvements in the design of components of machinery, to the downright radical, such as highlighting the 11^th century Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury’s theological arguments in which he asserted that logic and reason were important to faith.

The author James Hannam.

A glance at the reviews on Amazon and other sites reveals that the book has received much acclaim from historians, and has also proved very popular with the general public.

There is, seemingly, only one group who do not like it, a group who describe themselves as ‘secular humanists’. Many of these are not actually professional scientists (though some are) but interested and clearly well-informed laypeople or those trained in other disciplines that pride themselves upon rational scientific or logical enquiry.  They all have one thing in common, however. They are atheists who frequently assert that religion is the enemy of science and reason.

For the record, in writing this I am not intending to ‘bash’ atheists, humanists or anyone. Some of my dearest and closest friends and relatives fall into both categories. I merely seek to examine why those who hold to a particular position are so vehement in their opposition to a mere book.

The people mentioned above do not simply dislike Hannam’s book, they despise and attack it, and even its author sometimes viciously. Not only do they say that some of the author’s conclusions and historical assertions are wrong, but also claim that he was writing to further his own personal agenda. In doing this the detractors make one issue clear, James Hannam is religious; to be specific he is a practicing Roman Catholic. This, they argue is the reason why he argues that the Medieval period was not a time of intellectual and scientific stagnation, because he wishes to vindicate the Catholic church, who they hold responsible for the stifling of scientific inquiry.

I do not know if the author’s personal religious affiliations did indeed inform his work. They may well have done, but it seems to me that the ideological position of those who attack Hannam’s work also motivates their own opposition, and in a sense they may be as ideologically driven as he. Personally, one thing that I find fascinating about the debate surrounding this book is that the critics, who do not seem to have taken much interest in history otherwise, and have no qualifications in the subject, appear to have suddenly acquired and extensive knowledge and expertise in the field of scientific history and also source criticism.

 It is amazing how people some people suddenly become self-appointed history ‘experts’ when they want to argue against somebody who does not hold the same position as them. I do not say this to seem arrogant, as there ant many people who are not academically trained in the historical discipline that are genuinely knowledgeable and very well-informed. I refer to people I have myself seen or encountered whose historical ‘expertise’ only becomes apparent when they want to attack or refute others. Such is the case with many of the critics of Hannam’s work.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not stating that people should not be able to criticise the work of any historian or academic, or say that they have got things wrong. Quite the contrary, I think that anyone who holds a differing view should be freely allowed to express it, within the constraints of politeness and courtesy of course. I write this because it appears to me absurd that an innocuous history book, intended for the mass market should be received with suspicion and even outright hostility by people outside the historical community. It seems to me that the reason for this hostility (from that I have seen on reviews and comments) is that the central argument proposed by God’s Philosopher’s threatens to undermine bring into question one of the fundamental assumptions made by members of the groups who are attacking it. Namely that science and religion are not only incompatible, but also enemies. Hannam it appears, has demonstrated the exact opposite, that in the ‘Dark’ Middle Ages men of science were also often men of religion, and that the two were not so incompatible, and could even complement one another.

Whatever your personal views on this subject, God’s Philosopher’s shows that history has lost none of its potency to incite debate, argument and discussion. There are some historical books that are designed to be deliberately ‘controversial’ and sensational, apparently with the aim of increasing sales, but Hannam’s work does not seem to fall into this category, and such intentional almost tabloid style sensationalism has never held much appeal for me.

What exited my interest in Hannam’s work, which I purchased shortly after it first came out in paperback, was the way that in challenged not only misconceptions and myths about history, which I knew to be such, but also apparently some people’s preconceptions arising from personal bias. Such challenges can make people think, and perhaps re-examine their ideas in light of the evidence. Whether they choose to change these is up to the audience themselves, the book can only serve as a catalyst for change, or a source of annoyance.

I confess that I have not read even half of it yet, but I can say that although God’s Philospher’s is not without its shortcomings (it can be tedious and even ‘rambling’ in some places)  it is well worth a read. Perhaps most importantly of all, it reminds me that history is still relevant, and is still very much alive and well today, and can still, to some extent still stand as a positive force for change.

Joan of Arc: Maiden, Warrior and myth

Virtually every movie you will see on the legendary French ‘freedom fighter’ Joan of Arc pits her against the scheming heartless brutal arch-villain and general nasty person John Duke of Bedford. Brother of Henry V and scourge of France. Bedford’s reputation seems to have been tarnished for posterity by the Hollywood myth-makers as the man who condemned the innocent virgin saint and saviour of France to burning at the stake.

It is he who is often depicted as the enemy of the French people and the embodiment of English ‘oppression’ of France in the 14^th century, which stands in stark contrast to Joan, the personification of freedom, liberty, courage and national resistance. Of course the view of Joan peddled by movies is hardly trustworthy and is often a heavily biased and partisan interpretation of history, which is not uncommonly the reflection of the nationalistic sentiments and prejudices of the (usually American) film-makers.

The myth of Joan, however, transcends the big screen as the Maid of Orleans is almost universally recognised as one of the greatest heroes in French history , who is revered and admired across the world, and especially in the US and Canada. Likely this is because of her perceived role as the representing the ‘spirit’ of active resistance to aggressive ‘British’ Imperialism with which some Americans love to identify their own forbears.

Most people know that Joan first became widely known at the siege of Orleans in 1429, or more correctly Jehanne as seems to have been the correct French version of her name, Joan is simply an anglicised version. The details of Joan’s role in the siege are also widely publicised, as she is often singularly credited with having bought the siege to a victorious end for the French. It has even been claimed that the very presence of Joan scared the English garrison into desertion or surrender, such was the magic later accorded to her name.

It seems however that the siege or Orleans was bought to and end more by circumstances than the divinely inspired succour of a saint in the making.

From the outset the decision to try to take Orleans had been controversial and not universally accepted. This was because the Duke of Orleans had been a prisoner in England since 1415 and attacking his lands was regarded as unchivalrous. John of Bedford himself had opposed the idea, and never gave it his backing even when it was approved.

Some weeks before Joan’s arrival the gifted The Earl of Salisbury who had been in charge of the siege had been fatally injured by cannon shot, this man had been described as “the most ingenious, expert and fortunate in arms of all English captain”. His death seems to have contributed to the loss of Orleans as much as Joan ever did.

What of the infamous desertion of English soldiers? It has been demonstrated that these troops had not been contracted to serve beyond the winter of 1428 so as the siege of Orleans dragged on into 1429 the soldiers were simply no longer required to stay. So it was perhaps simple logistics rather than the fear of God’s instrument Joan that caused some soldiers to abandon the siege. It also seems that the initial role of Joan on her ‘triumphal entry’ into Orleans on 29^th April 1429 had been to lead a supply convoy into the town, rather than march in at the head on any army, and that her entry went unopposed because the English were simply too overstretched.

Whilst Orleans was an important propaganda coup which boosted the French morale and Joan’s reputation its strategic importance appears to have been somewhat exaggerated. The loss of Orleans was a blow to the English, but not a serious one. Far more important was the major English defeat at the Battle of Patay on the 18^th June 1429 in which Joan played no role.

It is at another siege of the English held town of Jargeau that Joan and her colleagues were not always saintly, righteous or magnanimous in their tendencies or behaviour. The capture by siege of this town is well-known and widely publicised as French victory but often no mention is made of a controversial incident that is alleged to have taken place there, that of the slaughter of the English prisoners following the capture of the town after  the refusal of a negotiated surrender

Varying Depictions: Leelee Sobieski as pious innocent Joan fighting against evil English murdering tyrants .

Both were in defiance of chivalric convention and the rules of war, and the behaviour of Joan and her fellow commanders, such as their unconvincing claim that ‘nobody had heard’ the Earl of Suffolk’s request to parlay, show the acts that we would not regard as atrocities were committed by the French as well as the English, and that Joan’s conduct was not always above reproach.

It has been argued that Joan may have played some role in the refusal to negotiate at Jargeau, and that because she was a commoner she did not have so much of regard for chivalric customs and conventions of war. It has also been suggested that Joan may even have had something of an excessive desire to destroy her enemies utterly, and ‘finish the job’.

It has been argued that Joan herself may have had some part in the decision to kill the garrison, and may even have ordered it. As a commoner Joan perhaps did not have the same regard for chivalrous convention as her Noble comrades. Perhaps significantly it is known that two of William De La Pole, Earl of Suffolk’s brothers were killed at Jargeau and third seems to have died shortly afterwards.

One other common (mis)conception about Joan is that she personally persuaded Philip ‘The Good’ Duke of Orleans to abandon his alliance with England and fight for France instead. Many movies depict this incident, and even William Shakespeare mentioned it in Henry VI Part 1, but it is nothing more than a creative fiction.  Duke Philip did not actually switch sides until 1435 some 4 years after Joan’s execution, and not until his brother-in-law John of Bedford was dying.

What of the widely held belief that Joan’s demise and capture was caused by betrayal? This seems unlikely, especially as Joan herself never claims to have been betrayed into the hands of her enemies. It appears rather that she was simply caught between two opposing armies, and was unable to reach safety with her forces.

It is here that John of Bedford becomes a major player on the stage, at according to tradition, for it is he who if often said to have ‘ordered’ Joan’s execution. Whilst he certainly wanted her ‘out of the way’ and may well have approved this course of action, it seems unlikely that he actually played ant direct role in her conviction and ultimate fate. He simply had more important matters to deal with.

It is also noteworthy that, contrary to what some movies have claimed Joan was not tried before an ‘English’ court under ‘English’ law, buy by an Ecclesiastical court on charges of heresy, in which only 8 of the judges out of well over 100 were English, all the other were ‘Burgundian partisans’. Civil authorities had no jurisdiction over the religious crime of heresy and the proceedings of Joan’s court do not seem to have been out-of the ordinary.

Some claim that Joan was burned simply because she wore men’s clothing, and that because this could be theologically justified her conviction was a sham and a farce designed so suit the purposes of the wicked English. This again seems to be a myth, as the charges levelled against her had more to do with her claims to have been in direct contact with, and directly inspired by God and the saints, in her public “recantation” these were mentioned, alongside the wearing of male clothing and bearing of arms. It seems to have been the former, however, that were or far more import than the Latter.

Varying Depictions: Milla Jocovitch as a darker and more disturbed Joan with hints of Mental illness fighting more evil murdering English fiends, but these are extra nasty

The Late Medieval church appears to have regarded the notion of direct revelation and communion with Saints or Christ as dubious in itself, and those who claimed it often came under suspicion. There is also some suggestion that Joan may have been associated with a moderately deviant sect who had mystical tendencies. Mysticism was also often looked upon disfavourably by the church at this time. Perhaps it is a brutal irony that the very ‘voices’ which Joan claimed had inspired her to her mission in the first place, and which made her so famous may have been one of the very reasons why she was condemned as a ‘heretic’.

Though initially Joan was not condemned to death, but to life imprisonment when she agreed to recant, it was only when she denounced her recantation that the sentence of burning was passed. Her execution always had a political dimension, poor Joan had simply outlived her usefulness, and her military career had never been especially successful, and certainly not the extent that is widely believed. As a commoner (though she was granted a noble Title by the King of France) Joan was dispensable, and because she was not an astute political player or even a politician, nor an exceptionally skilled commander she lacked abilities necessary for her to survive.

Yet for centuries the blame for Joan’s execution or ‘murder’ as some would have it has been laid squarely at the feet of the English, despite the complexities of her trial and execution and the obvious complicity of French political and religious authorities. Some of these were fully or partially exonerated at Joan’s posthumous retrial, a few years after her death, by which time Joan’s reputation and fame had increased and the tide of the war had begun to change. This was not perhaps because one side was guilty and the other not but because nobody in France seemingly wanted to be seen as being responsible for the demise of the celebrity and Holy Woman that Joan was coming to be regarded as , and possibly it was simpler to shift the blame.

At a later time , after years of myth-making and finger-pointing the official version of Joan’s story seems to have become became the accepted version, especially when it seemed relevant or useful to certain groups or individuals.Thus is often a part of the enduring legacy of heroic myths.

Cambridge and the Southampton Plot

Richard Earl of Cambridge in 1989 movie 'Henry V'

In the closing days of July 1415 King Henry V was occupied making the final preparations for the departure of his forces to France on the Campaign that would culminate in his famous triumph at the Battle of Agincourt. The army was gathered at Southampton, as were most of the nobles and peers of the realm. The necessary measures had been taken to secure the safety of the Kingdom in Henry’s absence, such as the stationing of troops on the Scottish Borders to prevent the invasions which took place almost as a matter of routine when the Kings of England went to war with France.

To all intents and purposes everything was going very well indeed for Henry when His distant cousin Sir Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March requested an audience with him. The Earl revealed to Henry the details of a Plot that was being made to have Henry declared a ‘usurper’ and make Mortimer King in his place whilst he was in France.

The principal conspirators were Richard Earl of Cambridge, Henry Lord Scrope of Masham and Sir Thomas Grey of Heton. These three were promptly arrested on revelation of their clandestine plans. Cambridge and Grey made full confessions to their intentions of placing Mortimer on the throne, and of an apparent intention to stir up revolt in Wales and Scotland, as well as among the despised Lollards. The only crime that Scrope would acknowledge, however, was his failure to disclose the Plot to Henry.

The Bargate, Southampton

The three were also accused of actually planning to Murder Henry and his brothers, and, although this may have been the ultimate consequence of a deposition, it seems likely that this charge was made in order to secure a conviction. Grey was promptly executed some 3 days after Henry discovered the plot on the 3^rd of August. Mere knights such as Grey were counted as ‘commoners’ so he were not entitled to be tried before the Nobles of the Realm, a privilege which the other two conspirators insisted upon. The trial of course was a forgone conclusion, and Scrope and Grey were both executed on Southampton Green, then not far outside the Bargate, which still survives today.

This event, known for obvious reasons as ‘The Southampton Plot’ has intrigued historians and writers for centuries, and have cited any number of explanations for the actions Motivations and Purposes of the conspirators. William Shakespeare suggested that they were paid by the French in his play Henry V. Modern Historians generally reject this, and usually cite political reasons, alongside some degree of personal disenchantment on the part of Cambridge in particular, which will be explored in greater detail later on.

Most agree that the Plot was ‘hare brained’ and so far-fetched and poorly planned that it could not possibly ever have succeeded. Not least because more than one of the parties whom the Plotters were planning to involve were dead, or died soon afterwards, and others hardly seemed likely to rebel. Cambridge is almost certain to have been the Principal instigator of the plot, the other two were related to him by marriage.  Cambridge was an obscure and somewhat unfortunate figure of whom little is known outside of his involvement in the Southampton Plot and untimely demise.

He was born in either 1375 or 1385 in Conisburgh Castle In Yorkshire. T.B. Pugh (among others) argues for the Later date, and recounts an adulterous Liaison between Cambridge’s mother, Isabella of Castille and Thomas Holland, the Half-brother of Richard II, of which Cambridge may have been the product. As the younger sibling Richard did not inherit the estates of his possible father Edmund of Langley, Duke of York.

Richard was married c.1408 to Lady Anne Mortimer the Older sister of Edmund. They had a daughter named Isabella, and two years later a son also named Richard who would grow up to become Richard Duke of York, the patriarch of the Yorkist dynasty and father of Kings Richard III and Edward IV. Sadly Anne appears to have died shortly after giving birth to the younger Richard in 1411.

Cambridge seems to have been in severe financial difficulties for most of his adult life, his only resources being an annuity granted by his Godfather Richard II, and the revenue from several manors he obtained on his Second marriage to Lady Matilda Clifford in 1414. Even when he was made Earl of Cambridge Richard was not granted any lands or estates with the Title, which was extremely unusual at this time.

These factors have been cited as possible reasons behind Cambridge’s disgruntlement with his lot, and perhaps unhappiness with Henry’s treatment of Him.

Another Interesting fact is that both of Richard’s siblings had been implicated or involved in schemes and intrigues designed to undermine or compromise the Lancastrian regime. His brother, Edward Duke of York was involved in the Epiphany Rising which took place in 1400. His life was only spared in this instance because he may well have been the Person who revealed this scheme to the King, thereby condemning the other noblemen involved.

Cambridge’s sister Constance appears to have become embroiled in a plan to Kidnap the Young Edmund Mortimer some 10 years before. There is also the fact that Richard’s then infant son had a (somewhat tenuous) claim to the throne through his mother, in lieu of Edmund Mortimer the childless Earl or March. Cambridge’s connections to Mortimer have been bought up as another possible reason for his seeking to place him on the throne.

Unlike other Historians Juliet Barker argues that the Southampton conspirators’ plans may have been workable, and could have succeeded. All had raised large contingents of troops for the French campaign, and these soldiers would have been readily available for them to build an army from. Dissent already existed in Scotland and had been expressed in an invasion some Nine days before the Plot was revealed. The King of Scotland was a captive in the Tower of London, and could have proved very useful in any plot against the King. All the conspirators had their power bases in the North, and it has been suggested that a number of knight may still have had Lollard sympathies.

What could have been the consequences of the conspiracy if successful? At best it could have jeopardised the Agincourt Campaign, probably forcing the King to come home and resulted in civil unrest which would have warranted evasive military action. At worst there could well have been a civil war that would threaten the existence of the Lancastrian regime. The plotters were tapping into existing undercurrents of dissent, and many of their actual plans mirrored revolts that had taken place in the Reign of Henry IV. It does ultimately seem unlikely that the plotter’s designs could ever have got far past the planning stage. Henry however took the decisive action against them that he deemed necessary in the circumstances, even though it may appear overly harsh to Historians today.

In conclusion one of the greatest ironies behind the Southampton plot is that for all the conspirators’ plans, it was Richard Duke of York, the son of Cambridge and his sons that successfully deposed and killed the last Lancastrian monarch, and son of Henry V, and took the throne for themselves. Their relation to Edmund Mortimer, the very man whose confession ensured the condemnation of Cambridge that formed the basis of their claim. Under the Yorkist Kings the Lancastrian dynasty was exterminated, and it is their blood, not that of Henry V which has flowed in the veins of every English monarch since 1460.

Sources

Juliet Barker, Agincourt: The King, The Campaign, The Battle (London, 2005).

T.B Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton Plot of 1415 (Sutton, 1988).

Paul Strohm, England’s Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation 1399-1422 (New York, 1998).  

Science and Technology in the European Middle Ages

The European Middle Ages, particularly the Pre-Conquest Early Medieval period is generally associated with superstition, scientific and educational ignorance, the stifling of progress by religious fanaticism, and general ‘backwardness’. The term ‘Dark Ages’ is still often applied to the Period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance of the Sixteenth Century, with the Negative Connotations of the undesirable conditions above.

The Myth of the Flat Earth

One widely held belief that is closely associated with the perceived ignorance of the medieval populace is that of the flat earth. It is generally held that everybody (or almost everybody) in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, often coupled with the idea that sailing too far outside the boundaries of the known world would result in falling off the edge of the earth, into oblivion.

An examination of texts and writings from throughout the Middle Ages reveals that this belief has little basis in fact. From the fifth Century onwards Medieval writers make clear and unambiguous references to a round or spherical earth. Not only in works of science or philosophy, but also poetic, religious, historical and biographical works, written by authors of many different backgrounds.

Boethius Consolation of Philosophy- Written in the Sixth Century by a Western Roman aristocrat awaiting execution on trumped-up charges of treason, the consolation was a poetic treatise intended to address the ‘big questions’ and make sense of life using the tenets of Greek Philosophy, combined with Christian religion.

The following passage in Boethius makes passing reference to what appears to have been common knowledge “the whole of the earth’s globe, as thou hast learnt from demonstration of astronomy, comparing with the expanse of heaven is found no bigger than a point” and elsewhere refers to unknown tribes in “in a neighbouring quarter of the globe”. The term ‘globe’ clearly suggests a spherical earth, and although more recent translations use ‘circumference’ in the first passage, the implication is still the same.

Bede- On the Reckoning of Time – 200 Years after Boethius the Northumbrian Monk Bede wrote a his work On the Reckoning of Time which combined geographic, astronomical, and mathematical observations, for the purpose of better gaining a better understanding of workings of time. This work is now largely unknown, and has been eclipsed by Bede’s much more famous Ecclesiastical History of the English People.  

In this work, Bede addresses the question of differing lengths of day by stating ““The reason why some days are of unequal length in the roundness of the world…it is not merely circular like a shield, or spread out like a wheel but resembles more a ball, being equally round in all directions”.

These are but two examples of Early Medieval writers who clearly demonstrated their knowledge that the earth was round, who stand amongst dozens of others,. These include Isodore of Seville, , Ambrose of Milan, Theodulf the Visigoth, Orosius, and our very own King Alfred the Great.

Bede’s work on time apparently became something of a textbook for medieval students, and, contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that the Church ever endorsed, encouraged, or even accepted belief in a flat earth. Conversely, the knowledge of the true shape of the earth is an example of how some aspects of Classical science and knowledge were survived in the so-called ‘Dark Ages’.

Geocentrism – It is also widely known that Medieval people incorrectly believed that the earth was located in the centre of the universe, and remained static, whilst the sun and the other planets revolved around it. This belief, known as Geocentrism was indeed the established view throughout the Middle Ages, and had been since ancient times.

It can be argued however that this position made perfect logical sense to Medieval people, rather than being a result of hopeless ignorance. They were after all taught at the Geocentric Model at school, and it was drawn directly from the writings of Aristotle, which were often held in high regard. He has argued that the earth appeared to be stationary, and because people could not feel or see the effects of the movement, it would have appeared illogical to assume that the earth was moving.

Furthermore, people could see that the sun appeared to move through the sky each day, and observation of the distant planets by the naked eye showed that they too were moving. It was not until the invention of the Telescope allowed for closer and more complex astronomical observations in the Sixteenth century which revealed that the other planets did not move in perfect spherical courses that there was any real reason to reject the Geocentric Model.

Faith, Reason and Science – For Medieval people, the religious model which stated that God had created the earth and the Universe formed the basis of all scientific examination. To modern people this appears illogical and irrational, but in the Middle Ages there would almost certainly have been every reason to assume that this Model made perfect sense. As the earth was seen as God’s creation it was regarded as perfectly legitimate to explore and investigate that creation.

An Eleventh century churchman, Anselm of Canterbury promoted the idea that the existence of God could be proved by simple logic alone and was an early developer of the so-called Ontological Argument.

Theologian and scholar Thomas Aquinas followed in Anselm’s footsteps argued that the existence of God could be proved exclusively by reason, but also went some way towards reconciling this idea with some of the sceptics within the church who feared its implications. Namely that reason would become the final arbiter in all religious debates, and might do away with faith. In this way Aquinas ensured that reason was perceived largely as an asset to the Christian faith, rather than an enemy, as long as it was not used to contradict Orthodox Catholic teachings. The ideas and writings of Aquinas were held in high regard, and formed an influential part of academic theological education throughout the High Middle ages.

Technological Advances

In the early Middle Ages three items or inventions came to Western Europe, and had a major impact on many aspects of life. The first of these was the Watermill, which had been used since Roman Times but is thought to have been lost after the collapse of the Empire. The Domesday book mentions many thousands of these in use in Eleventh century England.

Secondly there were stirrups, which seem to have come to Europe from China in around the fifth century. These revolutionised warfare, and allowed for the development groups of Elite cavalry who could launch a sustained mounted assault against their enemies in battle.

The third and last of these inventions, and arguably the most important at an agricultural level was the plough, which came to England in around the Tenth century. Peasants could work a far larger area of land with this device, and the way that is simultaneously cut and turned the soil helped to uproot weeds, and improve drainage. Thus a smaller amount of land could yield more crops and support more people than before.

Whilst many inventions and technological innovations originated from outside Europe, there are some important inventions which did not. Spectacles seem to have been invented in Italy in the late Thirteenth Century These enabled scholars and scribes to continue their studies until their older years, and for longer than before, when eyesight deterioration would otherwise prevent this.

It appears that the world’s First mechanical Clock was invented in England in the thirteenth Century, as English sources are the first to mention it at this time. Initially clocks were not intended to measure time, but the movement of planets and so intended to aid astronomical observation. In time however the allowed for a more precise measurement of time. Before clocks daylight hours had varied according to the season, now they were set and standardised.

Conclusion

Far removed from the popular perception, the Middle Ages were not a time of Universal superstition and ignorance. Learning and scholarly debate was important not only in the Cultural Renaissance of the Eleventh century, with the influence of the ‘newly discovered’ works of the Ancient Greek authors, but even before in the Early Middle Ages.  Charlemagne is known to have appointed the Saxon scholar Alcuin of York to assist in promoting education in his provinces during the Ninth century ‘Carolingian Renaissance’.

It was also Dark Age Wales  that an item which was to play a prominent role in the military History of Later Medieval England is said to have invented. This was the Longbow, its use attributed to English victories in Battle in Scotland and France across the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. It can be demonstrated that the invention and use of this weapon required some knowledge of physics and mathematics, but it also I believe illustrates well the nature of the Medieval period as an important and formative era of European History in which many significant developments were made, rather than being dismissed as the Dark Ages.

References and Sources

James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World laid the Foundations of Modern Science (London,2009).

Danny Danzinger & John Gillingham, 1215:The Year of the Magna Carta (London,2003).

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy (Public Domain Books,11^th Dec 2004).

Bede, On the Reckoning of Time, Translated by Faith Wallis (Liverpool University Press, 1999).

 

The Real King Harold

King Harold II, or Harold Godwineson is one of the best known monarchs in British History, mainly because of the infamous events surrounding his succession to the throne, the near constant warfare that plagued his short reign, and his ignominious death on the field of Hastings as the last of the Saxon kings who had ruled in England for 500 years.

Since that time, our knowledge of Harold has been shaped by the works of Norman and Anglo-Norman Historians, writing in the decades and centuries after Hastings. In the last few decades however, modern Historians have begun to re-examine the life and career of Harold, and, through examination of oft ignored English sources, reveal a radically different picture of the Last English King, that goes far beyond the events of that fateful October day in 1066.

Harold the Man

William of Poitiers, a near contemporary Norman source described Harold as “the basest of men, insane, an enemy of justice and good” who “caused the whole English people to be faithless to the Duke”. Whilst Poitiers is perhaps most vociferous in his condemnation of Harold, most of the Norman sources agree on the matter of Harold’s usurpation of the throne, they, they claim rightfully belonged to Duke William of Normandy, and that Harold was guilty of perjury for breaking his oath guaranteeing William the throne. This issue will be examined more later.

English sources, however, tell a different story. Most significant of these is the Vita Eadwardi or ‘life of King Edward’ an anonymous and somewhat partisan Eleventh century account of the Life and reign of Edward the Confessor. Here Harold is described as “wise, patient, merciful, courageous, temperate, and prudent, but ruthless with opponents” Whilst this source does lean heavily in favour of the Godwins, the most powerful family in Pre-Conquest England, its examination of Harold can be backed by some events in Harold’s career.

Harold the warrior

Even in his own day, Harold seems to have been known as a renowned and successful warrior, as well as a courageous fighter. Even the otherwise antagonistic Poitiers remarks upon his courage. Harold proved his skill as a commander in campaigns in Wales, since the 1050s the Welsh princes had been raiding the borderlands between England and Wales, and in 1056 killed the man whom Harold had installed to run the territory, one of his clerks named Leofgar. By 1063, his patience exhausted, Harold launched an invasion of Wales, a combined assault in which his Brother Tostig assisted him. This proved extremely successful and effective, as the Welsh rulers soon sued for peace, and Harold’s most formidable enemy in Wales Prince Llewelyn, was apparently killed by his own men soon after.

During this assault Harold is said to have made use of small, lightly equipped and extremely mobile fighting forces who could move fast, and raid deep into Welsh territory, a tactic that he would utilise again in 1066.

Harold showed himself to be an astute diplomat, however, as well as a warrior. On more than one occasion he was able to prevent hostilities and conflict through negotiation with the enemy or injured party, the redress of their grievances, and concessions wherever possible. He also proved merciful to enemies he had defeated, most notably after the Battle of Stamford bridge, when he spared the Norwegian troops who survived the battle, and allowed them to return home.

Harold and King Edward

From 1053, when he succeeded his father as Earl of Wessex, the evidence suggests that Harold consistently proved to be a loyal and faithful in his service to Edward the Confessor, indeed, in later part of his career he emerges as one of the Kings closest and most trusted subjects, his right hand man, helping to serve his interests, and maintain the security and peace of the Kingdom.

Sometime in the 1050s King Edward appears to have sent Harold on a diplomatic errand to Hungary. The purpose of this was apparently to repatriate Edward’s nephew, Edward the Exile, the son of his Older half Brother Edmund Ironside, and closest relative on his father’s side. Edward had lived in Hungary since he was a child, having fled there in the reign of King Canute, and had even married a Hungarian princess. Historians argue that the Edward intended for his younger namesake Nephew to succeed the throne on his death, and he certainly seems to have been the strongest candidate because of his West Saxon descent. Significantly, it is also asserted that there is no evidence to show Edward ever considered William of Normandy as his heir.

Edward died shortly after his return to England, but left a young son named Edgar, known as Atheling Edgar, who was apparently adopted by King Edward and Queen Edith, and regarded as the new heir and successor the throne in his father’s stead.

The Norman Oath

Possibly the most notorious incident in Harold career took place circa 1064, when Harold went to France, and whilst there, swore fealty to William of Normandy, and allegedly promised to uphold his claim to the throne of England.

William of Poitiers claimed that Harold went to Normandy at the specific behest of King Edward, for the purpose of confirming William’s claim. Others are more ambiguous about the specific circumstances, and one even claims that the oath was Harold’s idea, not the King’s. The general consensus though, that Harold made to oath willingly. Historians today question this, asserting that the oath was made under duress, and even an eleventh century English source suggests that Harold gave way and made the oath because he was in an untenable position and therefore ‘trapped’ by him. Frank Barlow argues that “there was no way Harold could escape from William except by agreeing to his demands… he took an oath of fealty to William… and probably agreed that he would support and advance the Duke claim to the English throne” and Ian Walker asserts “Harold found himself in a position where swearing this oath was the only way to extricate himself from William’s custody”. Barlow goes onto state that Harold could easily have argued that an oath made under such circumstances could not be regarded as legally binding, and Walker suggests the may have sought absolution from it in England.

Harold as King

Harold was crowned King in January 1066, ostensibly after having been named as successor by the late King Edward on his death-bed. Significantly it appears that many in England were in supporter of Harold being made king, especially as Edgar Atheling was too young to reign, and none can be shown to have supported William of Normandy and Harold had apparently ‘acclaimed’ by the royal council.

As is well-known, Harold soon faced opposition, and invasion from the forces of Harald of Norway, alongside his brother Tostig. Contrary to popular opinion, it appears that Harald did not claim the throne on the basis of a promise made by King Edward, but a ‘deal’ made by Harthacnut, the son of Canute. Harald’s forces defeated the armies of the Northern Earls Edwin and Morcar, Harold’s brothers in law, at the Battle of Fulford on September 20th 1066.

Harold, probably informed of the invasion before Fulford assembled a large force, and advanced North with considerable speed. Walker argues that the fact so many rallied to Harold is testament to his widespread support in England. On 25th September Harold won his first battle of the year at Stamford Bridge, a crushing defeat in which both Harald of Norway and Earl Tostig were killed.

Harold at Hastings

Harold had been prepared for in invasion of William of Normandy, as opposed to that of Harald of Norway. To such an extent that he had mustered a force specifically to guard the coast of England that faced Normandy, and even a naval force which could engage the Norman fleet as it crossed the channel. Unfortunately for Harold, and for England, this army had to be disbanded, apparently because their service contracts had expired, before the Normans came.

When the Normans did eventually land, in late September, Harold made his plans of attack. He planned to

“contain the Normans in Sussex and in the peninsula on which Hastings stood, in order to prevent them taking full advantage of their mobility… thus the forces he had gathered rapidly in order to block a Norman break out and … summoned a fleet to destroy their ships and cut off their retreat. Harold intended to deal with William as thoroughly as he had Harald of Norway”

William apparently attacked before Harold had ‘drawn up’ all his troops on Senlac ridge. This was the best defensive position in the area, and being a native of Sussex who knew the area well, it is possible the Harold intended to occupy this position originally.

William used his knights to attack the English line, and there was much close quarter fighting, in which the English defended their position so viciously that “the Breton troops on the Norman left-wing broke…confusion and fear spread through who whole Norman army, fanned by a rumour that Duke William had fallen”

When part of the English force abandoned their position to give chase William was apparently able to regather his forces and slaughter them. There has been much debate over whether this incident was a caused by a lack of discipline, or a direct command, whatever the circumstances it is likely that at least one of Harold’s brother Gyrth, may have perished at this point. Walker states that the battle raged for the several hours after this incident, and so it was not do decisive as has been thought, after which ‘the English appear to have regrouped successfully, perhaps drawing in their flanks to fill the gaps’

In late afternoon William  seems to have launched one final assault “combining archers, infantry and cavalry” it has been suggested that this was because William knew he  would be defeated if Harold could hold out until nightfall. It may well have been at this point that Harold was killed. Whether by an arrow, or Norman knights is debatable. However, it does seem have been at this point that the English ranks finally ‘wavered and broke’. Harold and his brothers now lay dead. William had won the day.

Far removed from the villain of Norman sources the Real King Harold thus emerges as a loyal subject of his King, a skilled and experienced military commander, and, above all a leader who was popular and respected by his people.

Bibliography

Barlow, Frank, The Godwins: Rise and fall of a noble dynasty (Harlow,2002).

Fleming, Robin, Harold II, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 10th July 2011, http://www.odnb.com.

Hindley, Geoffrey, A brief history of the Anglo Saxons (London,2006).

Walker, Ian, Harold: The Last Anglo Saxon King (Stroud,1997).