A Certainly ‘Awful’ Pope

Today I am dedicating this blog update to a very despicable, dishonourable and disturbing man. This is a very curious thing to do as I just noticed, and maybe some of you have noticed as well, that I usually write about people’s history, mankind good causes and hope. However, this with perhaps the addition of my update for the month of violence is rather a dark, grim one.  Today I am talking about a man who many would probably not know and many others most likely would not like to know, just like myself. Today, I am presenting you the story of a rather young man called Octavian, that lived during the Middle Ages, in the first part of the 10^th century in one of the most important places in the world at the time: Rome, and more precisely the Papal States. I am talking indeed about the man better known as Pope John XII, who was pontiff of the Catholic Church from the 16^th of December, 955 to the 14^th of May, 964. It is a funny story this one of John.

One could say he had a nice easy-going life right from the beginning. He was son, possibly illegitimate, of Alberic II, Prince of Rome. The ruler apparently liked his child enough to pretty much proclaim him as both pontiff and ruler of Rome despite Octavian being barely 18 years old, as it seemed to be his wish right before he died[1].  I guess one could say that for being such a young pope he did not do too bad…Unless we take in account the fact that apparently the young man has very lusty, lascivious habits that managed to create and spread rumours (or most likely facts rather than rumours) about his governance over the Lateran palace and how it was becoming pretty much a brothel[2]. It is true that the situation involving the papacy had started a long marathon of degeneration since the unfortunate murder of Pope John VII in 882. Figures like Pope Stephen VI did not do much to clean the papal reputation, but only made it worst with his macabre displays of authority[3]. This has not been said to excuse young Octavian, but rather to make clear things were getting ugly…and he only made them uglier. So it happens that the young man was not so good in assuring his secular authority. In fact he was in a very bad position, constantly threatened by Berengar II of Ivrea, the man who had been ruling the majority of Italy since 950, a man of power and therefore ambitious[4].  Being Octavian an inexperienced, weak ruler he tried to seek help and thought to have found an ally in Otto I, who was looking feverously for a way to increase his renown and authority. As many may probably know already Otto I was after the imperial crown, he wanted the power his ancestors had time ago back. And if you would be the Pope, knowing the man and knowing what he wanted, would you not offer this as a sign of alliance? Would you not give the imperial crown to Otto so he could help you against Berengar? Of course, but would you do it even if it was an action against your recently deceased father’s will? Well, he did.

 

The alliance worked perfectly fine for both factions and soon Otto was crushing down some annoying Lombards and later on marching to Rome, imposing his authority and pleasing the Pope all at once! Good for him, you would think, and good for the Pope as well, right? Well, I am afraid to say that not so very much. Unfortunately for John XII (or at least it seems that he saw this as a very unfortunate thing to happen) Otto re-established a set of donations and privileges that his ancestors Pepin and Charlemagne has long ago granted the papacy, which are known to us as the Ottonianum. This was indeed a contract between the holy roman emperor and the papacy that granted back lands to the pontiff and provided him with imperial defence[5], which does not seem like a bad deal at all. Nonetheless, in addition, the pope also had new obligations towards the emperor due to this issue: he had to swear loyalty to the imperial crown, and be subjected to imperial approval when papal elections took place[6]. A little price for a huge favour it seems to me, but it seems that John XII thought that was far too much, and therefore unacceptable. Considering this facts, I guess the next stage in this story seems to a certain degree obvious. As J.N.D Kelly states in his text about our protagonist:

            “Pope and emperor had been mutually mistrustful, and when Otto left Rome to fight Berengar, John, who had looked for a protector not a master, immediately began intriguing against him with Berengar’s son Adalbert, and also with the Magyars”[7].

 

But it did not work too well for him. Otto was not a man oblivious to reality and eventually he found out. With the whole power of the imperial army and an angry, betrayed man on its command the Pope felt the necessity to flee to Tivoli…with the papal treasure, of course, just for safe keeping. It does not seem surprising then than at this point the many member of the ecclesiastical order charged against him because of his appalling misbehaviour…And of course, Otto joined in accusing the Pope of perfidy and treachery[8]. Octavian was deposed shortly after -Dec., 963- but he could not just take the fact that it was the end of his rule. Reason why, he managed to come back for a moment, by provoking a revolt in Rome against the empire and their puppet Pope, fact that backed him up and granted him the papal authority once more[9]. Otto, possibly quite desperate at this point, marched again into Rome to finish off the business he probably should have done earlier, for once. Nonetheless, the cowardly vicious Pope had already gone…Again…This time he found refuge somewhere else (you know if you repeat locations far too often the end up catching you…). For this particular occasion his holiday paradise was the area of Campagna…Funnily enough, the man died there. Apparently he found refuge with a married woman, and some sources seem to think this lusty act caused him a stroke that killed him shortly after (although other sources seem to think that the husband of the woman found him and so beat him to death).

 

What a charming, lovely and loyal man. Just for the record he was not even 30 when he died. So here we have a man who first of all betrayed his religious convictions and the ideals that he was meant to be defending. Second of all, a child that had been granted everything and betrayed his father’s last wish. Also, the same man who betrayed his one ally despite all the benefits this union was granting him. And finally he was coward, greedy man who fled his city and his people, with the treasure because he was scared of the consequences of his actions, which finally led him to his death. So just to clarify, we are talking about betrayal to the Catholic Church, to the city of Rome and its inhabitants, to the Holy Roman Emperor and to his own father…There are not enough words to describe these certainly despicable actions of treachery…

What made him a traitor or how did he become one? It seems likely to me in the case of other figures we have exposed here this month that sometimes a traitor is made by history itself, or by points of view. Sometimes the term traitor do not totally fulfil the definition of the persona described…But in this case I think that betrayal ran on his veins, it was something natural to him, perhaps due to his cowardly nature and inexperience, perhaps due to his ‘prince’ background…Perhaps just because he could, though it is true that some people are just born to be nasty and mean and exploit their natural resources for such purpose. These are the kind of traitors that history should be searching for, the professional ‘back-stabbers’ rather than perhaps the people than trying to do their job fell into treason, or that seem to have fallen in treachery because of ideals for a better world.

 

Excuse my ramble about ‘despicability’ and nastiness about this man and others. But I hope you now have a wider idea of what makes a traitor, or at least a historical one.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, B., Medieval Germany 500-1300: A Political Interpretation (London, 1997)

Fleckenstein, J., Early Medieval Germany (Amsterdam, New York and Oxford, 1978)

Heer, F., The Holy Roman Empire (London, 1968)

Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996)

Parsons, Z., ‘The 6 Most Awful Popes’, Something Awful,(Apr., 2008)

http://www.somethingawful.com

---

[1] J.N.D.Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996),p. 126

[2] Ibid., p. 126

[3] F.Heer, The Holy Roman Empire (London, 1968), p. 37

[4] B.Arnold, Medieval Germany 500-1300: A Political Interpretation (London, 1997), p. 84

[5] J.N.D.Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996),p. 127

[6] J.Fleckenstein, Early Medieval Germany (Amsterdam, New York and Oxford, 1978), p. 149

[7] J.N.D.Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996),p. 127

[8] Ibid., p. 127

[9]http://www.somethingawful.com

What Makes a Traitor

What is a traitor? Yet better, what makes a traitor? Lately we have been discussing Alcibiades, who seemed to be a natural born turncoat but, is that the usual thing? Or it is just the specific circumstances what creates the opportunity to become a betrayer? Maybe we have a story here which could help solving this. It is the story of a man who was legally a traitor but was considered a hero, and when he returned to the alleged right side of the law, was hated, despised and abused as the worst of traitors. Circumstances, then. The man’s name was Benedict Arnold, and that name is still synonym to traitor in the United States of America.

Arnold was a patriot, in the sense given to the word by the American Revolution; that made him a traitor from the British law point of view, he had betrayed his King and Country. First with the Connecticut Militia, then with the Continental Army, Arnold fought the British with great success: he captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, displayed tactical abilities even when losing battles, as in Valcour Island, and achieved immortal status, after been promoted to the rank of Major General in 1776, with his key actions during the battle of Saratoga, when he suffered leg injuries that ended with his field actions for a long while. So here is the man, now a hero of the Revolution, and, remember, a legal traitor. But certainly, at that point of his career, he had not earned the treacherous reputation that is nowadays his legacy. What happened, then?
We can take two options into consideration. First, resentment. Second, ironically, loyalty.

To begin with, Arnold was accused of corruption. Curiously enough, it was all about money. Seemingly he spent a fair amount of his own money in the war effort, but he was allegedly keeping money from the Congress. He was passed over for promotion by other officers with better political connections, and felt the humiliation of others attributing to themselves his exploits in the fields. He was acquitted in formal inquiries, but suddenly, the war hero found himself indebted, relegated and investigated. He may have felt bitter, resented and angry; he may have thought it was not worth it, he may have thought:” man, I deserve more recognition, more money. What is happening to my life?” Next step, defect and get all that I deserve, or just get revenge. Who could say?
Or, on the other hand, was it all a case of sheer loyalty, of love to the last consequences? Arnold’s wife and all her family were loyalist bigots who were pressing him to stand fast and support the loyalist cause. Did he bind to that feelings and keep loyal to his family over his political convictions? Moreover, were that political convictions in line with the Continental Congress? There was comment between the Continental Army Generals about Arnold’s feelings and ideas. He told General Greene how deplorable was the situation of the country and, particularly, how worried he was about disaffection in the Army and the usual internal fighting in Congress. Arnold wanted freedom, but in his view, what he was obtaining was anarchy.

We would never know the truth. The fact that he was largely rewarded from the economic point of view by the British may seem a confirmation of a pecuniary side to the story but, at that time , before and after, economic rewards were common in these kind of deals. He also take up arms against his old comrades after his plot to surrender West Point to the British was exposed, and he finally changed sides (it is important to note that the failing of the plot reduced the reward considerably). Anyway, he was now acting as Brigadier in the British Army where he lost the war in the end. Then he tried to gain some good political position in His Majesty’s Government, but the ascension of the anti-war Whig party deprived him of any possibility of achieving that.

Ironically again, he was despised by the British press, called a mercenary and someone who could never lead any British Army Corps, lest the men refused to follow such a dishonored man, a convicted traitor. At the other side of the Ocean, he was insulted, compared with Judas, in one word demonized…Even today, with all the time that has passed, his memorial at Saratoga battlefield has no engraving mentioning his name; in the same battlefield, the Victory monument has three niches with statues of Generals Gates, Schuyler and Morgan. There is a fourth niche, this one empty. The name of Benedict Arnold is still in the United States a byword for traitor.

This is the story of a man who betrayed his King, then the Revolution and was not loved by either side. The problem with Arnold was probably the opportunity: he was always in the losing side. I wonder what would had happen if the British had won the war, or even he had made his movements on the reverse, from loyalist to patriot; surely, History would have seen him with better and more laudatory eyes: after all, he would have been in charge of writing it as a victor, not, as it was, of suffering its judgment as a loser.

A Thousand Royal Threads

In 1334 the newly arisen Shogun, Go-Daigo, with hands and sword still dirtied called forth the restoration of Imperial rule in Japan; the Kenmu Restoration. The Shogun’s blind eye to his warriors led to the greatest among them, Takauji Ashikaga, to rebuild his armies and place himself upon the throne with his blood claim to the Minamoto clan. After Ashikaga built his bakufu government in the Muromachi district of Kyoto, the humiliated Go-Daigo fled into the Yoshino Mountains, with the aid of close families and loyal samurai building up a rival imperial throne. Several decades of war erupted over the continent, families struggling for land and influence while waving one banner or the other. The Bushi chieftains forged semi-independent domains of their own, gradually swelling to a coalition of the greatest warrior families in Japan. This tale is inherent to the history of feudal Japan, often seen as the turning point between a possible restoration into the all-consuming conflict of total war. These few years following the Go-Daigo domination saw an arch of loyalties dipping into hostility. One entirely rooted in the decision of a man named Takauji, branded a loyal friend, irreplaceable vassal, and cursed traitor even before his dying day.

Takauji Ashikaga (足利 尊氏) was born in 1305 as a descendant of the Minamoto Samurai, also known as the Seiwa Genji line, meaning his family had blood ties to Emperor Seiwa. The family name, Ashikagam derived from the original landholding of the clan ‘Ashikaga-no-sho’ in the Shimotsuke province. Unlike most branch families whose domains were centred in one location the Ashikaga had their land holdings spread across the continent, predominantly in the midlands and east, which suggests the chief could not have depending on his family branches exclusively to govern, but draw on intendants from hereditary retainers. The ‘Kuramochi’ document lists twenty one intendants bearing nineteen different surnames.
While Ashikaga sits in the centre of these events the protagonist at the dawn of the events was Go-Daigo, who begins and ends his part in the saga with a plot. Growing antagonism between the vassals of Kamakura and the Hojo family, whose control of the state monopolised the high-appointments in government and land, saw to many families in central Japan to raise their connections to imperial lines as legitimate excuses for defection from the Hojo. Here is where Go-Daigo found inspiration to begin a restoration of imperial government and remove the eternal influence of the Kamakura bakufu. Go-Daigo had chosen his moments well, and swelling support was given from dissident military houses across the country-the Kenmu restoration was becoming a movement worth recognising. Go-Daigo’s uprising awakened the noble interests within the court, as well as the major religious establishments, and awareness to the growing encroachment of military houses into administration and taxation- as even Go-Daigo’s efforts put a strain into the economy as peasants and soldiers left their homes to build up a resistance. The opposite scale showed that provinces were suffering the pressure of supporting Kyoto nobility while attempting to keep their own land from stagnation. The dooming realisation was that the second factor would inevitably win out, as the promise of fresh opportunity at least gave a chance of retaining some wealth within the provinces.

Go-Daigo’s promise was left unfulfilled as in 1331 he was exiled to the remote island of Oki, the bakufu having been told of the plot against the Hojo and with Go-Daigo feigning no ignorance to the growing unrest. His imprisonment lasted two years, after which he escaped from Oki and found himself at the centre of a continuing resistance to the Hojo, among the chief supporters was Takauji Ashikaga (alongside Nitta Yoshiada, both of whom would become the highest aid of Go-Daigo’s movement). Knowledge of supporters was vague however, and when word of Go-Daigo’s return to mainland reached the Hojo it was Ashikaga who was given the order to take a large army to defend the headquarters at Rokuhara in Kyoto. On arrival Takauji received a written commission from Go-Daigo that legitimised his defection, and bypassing Kyoto completely, he marched to Tamba where he began to recruit an invading army to stand alongside the new resistance under the Minamoto flag. The ‘Taiheiki’ estimates an initial force of 20,000 in Tamba had grown beyond 50,000 when it eventually reached the gates of Kyoto. Following a barbaric encounter within the province Takauji destroyed the Hojo establishment and guarded the seat of Kyoto ready for Go-Daigo’s return.
Go-Daigo reached the capital prepared to set up a true monarch, already having activated the record offices and established an awards commission (osho-gata) through which to commend titles and landholdings among his most favoured. Though they had fought to tear down the reign of the Hojo and ascend Go-Daigo to the throne there was must distaste amongst the warrior families under Ashikaga’s control towards the new awarded policy- essentially seeing that the re-named nobility would be lavished, while the warriors who succeeded in reviving the monarchy would be rewarded insufficiently or in some cases, not at all. Takauji was personally well treated in the new system, designated ‘first to be rewarded’, appointed a fourth court rank and the privilege of using a character from the emperors private name- as well as various landholdings.

The first real obstruction to the restoration came with Hojo Tokiyuki in 1335, a son of Takatoki who rose an army to attack Kamakura with panicked results as Go-Daigo’s administrators fled Kamakura with a few key figures becoming the target of assassination. In response to this ordeal Takauji hastily gathered up an army without the consent of the emperor, largely made up of forces remaining from broken armies fleeing the Tokaido Road such as those of Tadayoshi’s failed defence. Takauji’s forces defeated the numbers of Tokiyuki’s army in various engagements (such as Totomi and Suruga) until in 1335 they retook Kamakura and put Tokiyuki to death. While this did built hope for a restored order in Kanto this was to the concern of Emperor Go-Daigo and Nitta Yoshiada, as the efforts to recall Ashikaga to Kyoto were unanswered, and Takauji established himself a headquarters in Eifukiji temple, declaring himself more secure in newly regained Kamakura. The truth of Takauji’s new control was seen with the rewarding of warriors who had supported him, dishing out lands and securing loyalties with the strongest of factions, which put the courts lacklustre gifts to shame.
After the invitations of the Emperor were ignored Go-Daigo branded Takauji a traitor and sentenced him to death upon his capture. Takauji himself however began centering his attention on the supporting roles of the Emperors power, such as Nitta Yoshisada’s provinces, and even gained some legitimacy from the now retired emperor Kogon-In (previously elected by the Hojo in 1331).

After the invitations of the emperor went unanswered Go-Daigo branded Takauji a traitor and ordered his death upon apprehension. Takauji however had centred his attention upon the heaviest supporters of the emperor, in particular his former ally Nitta Yoshisada, and even obtained legitimacy from the former emperor Kogon-In (whom had previously been appointed by the Hojo in 1331.) It was not until July 5^th of 1336 that Takauji commanded his men against the loyalists that sat at the heart of Go-Daigo’s imperial support. The engagement involved many heads of warrior families including Tadayohi, Shoni Yorihisa, Kununoki and the warriors of the Shiba clan. Takauji’s initial assault saw his forces sailing around for an east landing at the Minatogawa’s mouth, while Tadayoshi’s forces contacted the men of Kunusoki in the mainland. At this time the Shiba warriors outflanked the Kunusoki troops, skirting around towards Nitta’s own army and creating a layered battlefield. At this time Takauji had landed and struck directly into Nitta’s front flank, pinning them with albeit inferior numbers, but Nitta’s eventual realisation came too late. He received word that Hosokawa forces had landed behind the Imperialist army close to the Ikutagawa, and that soon their armies would be forced from all sides and picked off. In panic Yoshisada called for a complete retreat that, to his ignorance, left Kusunoki’s men isolated amidst a surrounding array of Takauji’s swords. The stories tell that Kusunoki fought on against unwinnable odds for some time before eventually taking his own life. While Yoshisada and the loyalists would take up engagements elsewhere it was clear that Go-Daigo’s hold of the imperial throne was crumbling, and when the armies finally came to the heart of Kyoto it was Takauji Ashikaga who met the dawn upon the seat of Shogun.
There are few men in the tales of Japanese history as muddied as Ashikaga. His legacy treads between bringing down an oppressive Hojo ‘Shikken’ and building up a dream of imperial restoration, and tearing apart that reality with a war that would leave the courts and provinces divided for centuries to come. His personal dream of leading a new warrior government in Japan was a prosperous one, and only so fitting that a leadership centred on the blade should begin with a stab in the back.

C. Totman, ‘Japan before Perry’ 1984
A. Gordon, ‘A modern history of Japan’ 2003
E. M. Cooper ‘Japan- History and Culture’ 1970
‘The Cambridge History of Japan- Volume 3’ 1997
W. M. Tsutsui ‘A Companion to Japanese History’ 2007
A, Joyce  (1982) Lessons from History: the Tokushi Yoron. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press

-          Adie Randall

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).  

A Word, or a Name?

-'I am Quisling' -'And what is the name?'

It is not that often that a single person manage to creat a word based on his or her name, and in the modern period it have been even rarer than in earlier ages, therefore will this post be about the man and traitor whose name became synonym with collaboration and national reason during and after the second world war.

On the 18th of July 1887 was a boy born with the name Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling, who would rise to the highest powers and fall from grace and end his life on the 24th of October 1945, for the crimes he committed against his King and Country.

 

 

So what was it this man whose name according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com means; A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country, did? Well Vidkun Quisling started his career in a very respectable way in the Norwegian army, and helped in Nansen’s project during the famine in Ukraine and Russia after the Russian civil war, he lived further some years in Paris and Moscow with his wife Maria until he returned to Norway in 1929 which started his political career. Quisling published his first book in Norway about race politics; “Russia and Us”(title translated from Norwegian) in 1930, and was a part of his first appressed to the public, aided by Fredrik Prytz, who was one of the leading men in Norway at the time, they had together developed a vision for the future where the traditional politics of Scandinavia and Norway would be shifted drastically to the right. In his article of 24th of May 1930, Quisling outlined his political views which called for financial reforms, a clear race political legislation in Norway and a harder line against Marxism.

During the 1930s Quisling developed his political views and it soon became clear that he had clear fascistic opinions. In 1933 did he become the leader of Nasjonal Samling, NS, which was the Norwegian fascist party, a party which stood very close to Nazi Germany in many ways, even though the party worked hard, did it never achieve a seat in parliament, but for Quisling was this not important for he was preparing for the War he knew would have to come, a war he imagined would be between the far right in the west and the far left in the east. And the war came, as we all know, in 1939 did Nazi Germany attack Poland, which threw Europe into a new catastrophic war, but this time did not Norway manage to say outside. For on the 9th of April 1940 did German troop attack Norway from many fronts, in an attempt to take the capital and the most important cities before the country could manage to resist. However, chance would it that the German ship that were destined for Oslo was sunken in the early hours on the 9th, and this gave the king, the royal family, the government and the parliament enough time to get away. This day was the beginning of Quisling’s crimes…

While the legally elected government of Norway was running for its life, and attempting to stop the German invasion, Quisling walked into the Norwegian national broadcasting center in Oslo and declared that he had taken over the power in Norway, and that the Germans was his and the nations allies. Quisling declared also a new government and was the political leader of occupied Norway through his first government (9th- 15th of april 1940); commissar Josef Terboven’s national council, leaded by Quisling (25th of September 1940- 1st of February 1942) and finally the second Quisling government(1st of February 1942- 8th of May 1945). During this time Quisling functioned as prime minister and political leader of what developed into a police stat, and he have been seen as responsible for among other things the deportation of the Norwegian jews, prosecution of political opposition, etc. However, Quisling did in the early months of 1945 see which way the war was going and took contact with the home front in Norway, for secure a safe and peaceful surrender when the German occupants surrendered. He remained in power until he surrendered himself to the police on the 9th of May 1945 in Oslo, he was trailed for treason in October 1945, and sentenced to death as earlier mentioned.

The first reference to the name Quisling as a word can be found in The Times on the 19th of april 1940, and through british newspapers and BBC, it spread throughout the world and became the word for treason collaboration we know today.

source:

http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Vidkun_Quisling/utdypning

His Own Man

History is constantly evolving. For instance, suppose for a second that your Prime Minister is accused of cutting off the naughty bits of some statues around the town…would that make him a traitor? Or would you just think, “gosh, the man is gone mental”. (In fact your actual Prime Minister is cutting off a lot much more important things without getting more than some press’ rebukes, and surely some people care about his mental health). But if you were a political leader in Athens’ Golden Age, cutting off bits from the representation of a god, well, was surely not the way to pave your way to unconditional support, to say the least.
So, that is the story. You are a leader, obviously you have some enemies, some said you did something really wrong and, just in the middle of the military campaign that is intended to launch yourself to immortality, you are put under arrest. What are you going to do now? Defect to your nations’ most bitter enemy, of course. And then, is when you become a traitor in the best of traditions.
And your name is Alcibiades, by the way…
Well, there you are, working for the Spartans now. How you dare, Alcibiades?! Our enemies, the people who want to enslave our families…What were you thinking o? Revenge, probably. You are going to exaggerate the strength of Athens to improve your own value for them; but then again, your advice would be worthy and it would set a new step in the long Peloponnesian War turning it over to Sparta. Great. But not so.
Not so, because, my friend Alcibiades, you are seemingly having a romance with king Agis’ wife. Not a very good idea, since it makes you a traitor in the eyes of the very strict Spartan society. And, what now Alcibiades? On the run again, yes, but where to?
When you are a traitor, twice, you can be sure your options are narrowing, but there are always opportunities for a man of your wit and qualities. Maybe you could become an alien, a monster for the whole Greek world. Why not going to Persia? There is a satrap there, Tisafernes, who is subsidizing Sparta and the Peloponnesian League in its struggle against Athens. Settled then: to Persia.
Once in Persia is the same all routine again: good advice against your old friends like, for example, cut the money you are spending on them, do not involve your fleet yet, let those Greek fanatics to kill each other, then be their conqueror…but as always, that could not be enough for you. You are getting bored. You need some action so, why not contacting the Athens’ leaders with and offer to get back, once you are cleared of the old charges of blasphemy, this time bringing with you Persian money and a Persian fleet to help in the fight against the Spartans?
Ironically, this started a traitors’ game between politicians on both sides of the war…anyway, you finally get a promise from Athens and a delegation comes to negotiate. But Tisafernes knows you better now, and he decided that he is not buying in, moreover, he is very amused by the constant friction between Greeks, so, no goal for you this time, my friend Alcibiades. But, at least, you have gained some friends back home, ambitious politicians who think that maybe there is too much democracy in Athens and the rulership should be limited to a chosen few…maybe there is an opportunity there.
Ah, my friend, evil actions always bring you a fair reward. All that political revolt will finally pay for your efforts, once the Army has restored democracy, one of the generals has proposed to bring you back, in the idea that you really have influence over Tisafernes. Sweet… apparently. Reality is disappointing, tough: Army and Fleet are in fact against the city in their support of democracy, and your glorious return is somewhat restricted: first you help the Army, then we will see to your restoration they say. Well, now you can prove your reputation as a military leader, and you will do, do you not?
Victory at Abidos! The campaign is going quiet smooth for your forces, even if Tisafernes is not helping or supporting you anymore. Traitor!. But against that, you take a chain of victories at long last. Finally, you can come back home, this time as a victor and a hero. But you have made a mistake: you have arrived in the festivity of the Plinterias considered the less auspicious day to enter the town. You must be getting old, my friend.
So when your fleet is utterly defeated at the battle of Notios, your enemies give new life to the old charges of blasphemy, related now to your unfortunate election for your arrival day; therefore yours must be the guilt and responsibility for defeat. You are doomed now Alcibiades. No political trickery could save you now, no new defection can be done as everyone is very aware of your deceitfulness. Off you go, then, to bitter exile. But in a last effort to regain your reputation in the hours before what would be the last battle of the war, you try to advise Athens’ Army. But it is precisely your reputation what they are considering, your reputation as a turncoat and traitor. There is no space for you in the Greek world now.
Your last years are spent in Persia again, trying to gain the Persian’s king trust. But now everybody see you as a danger because of your previous deeds, so there is only one solution. And thus, one morning, your house is surrounded, attacked and burnt to ashes, with you inside. And curtain falls for you, Alcibiades.
This is the life of a traitor. He changed sides trying to gain political influence and power, and sometimes escaping narrowly from his enemies. We can consider that it all was just politics in the Antiquity style, or we can assume that Alcibiades was a man with no principles and strictly power ridden. What is clear is that he was a traitor, and a very successful one, coming to that. He went from Athens to Sparta to Persia then to Athens again, and in every place he was an influential leader in spite of whatever his comrades could think about him. What makes me think…I started this article stating that History is constantly evolving. It seems to me that political leaders, unfortunately, are not.

Judas

For our first entry here for Traitor’s Month, we have
Judas. Due to his role in the Bible as the betrayer of Jesus, his name has
become synonymous in a multitude of language and cultures with betrayal and
greed, and so therefore this should be an interesting place to start off from.

Traditionally, Judas is seen as the worst of the worst
for his role in the gospels for betraying Jesus – the Messiah – in the
canonical gospels of the Bible. This has naturally resulted in him being hated
in Christianised countries. The kiss of betrayal that Judas gives Jesus is an
event is popular amongst painters such as Hans Holbein the Younger, and again
has the effect of cementing the negative image of Judas as the betrayer into
the minds of the public. Interesting, is the fact that Jesus is aware that
Judas is going to betray him before the event actually happened. This is
reference in passages in the Bible such as “Judas Iscariot, one of his
disciples (he who was about to betray him)” (John 12:4), which make it clear
that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him. This raises the issue of free will
versus predestination, and the fact that if Judas was predestined to commit the
betrayal, should be really be blamed for something which he could not help?
Elsewhere in the Bible, there is reference to a demon entering Judas – “during
supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot,
Simon’s son, to betray him” (John 13:2) – which raises this issue further.

The existence of the Judas legends also gives us an
interesting side to Judas. Wolf mentions that the first one in the Latin form existed
in the twelfth century, and tells the story of how Judas’ father had a vision
that his son would kill him. Judas was then left in a forest to die, but was
found by shepherds and raised in Scariot when he eventually came to be under
the service of Herod. Following Herod’s orders, Judas went to fetch fruit from
a nearby garden and ended up slaying its owner, who turned out to be his
father. To make matters worse, he was then married off to the lady of the
house; namely his mother. When they had realised what had happened, they sought
the forgiveness of Christ who they had heard could absolve people of their
sins, which is how Judas came to know Jesus. Another variation of the legend,
dated in the late twelfth century or the early thirteenth century, has the
mother of Judas setting her son adrift at sea when she has a dream that he would
be the one who would destroy the Jewish race. Judas is taken in by the childless
queen of the Scariot Island, wherein he ended up abusing and eventually slaying
her natural born son that she had conceived not long after taking him in. The second
half of the story remains the same, with Judas being under the command of
Pontius Pilate rather than Herod and Judas going alone to seek forgiveness from
Christ. The parallels here with both Oedipus and Moses are interesting to say
the least. From the thirteenth century the Judas legend could be found in England,
France and Italy and spread on to great Western Europe, then on the
Scandinavia, Ireland and Scotland in the fourteenth century, before finally
coming to countries such as Russia, Finland and Poland at a later date.

The discovery of the so called “Gospel of Judas”, which
was first unearthed in the 1970s and rediscovered and republished in 2003, also
gives an interesting aspect to the figure of Judas. A fragmented document
discovered in Egypt and thought to be composed in the second century by Gnostic
followers of Judas; it paints the figure of Judas in a very different light
than what is found in the canonical books of the Bible. Judas instead has a
special relationship with Jesus and is the only one of the apostles and
followers of Him who properly understands the message that He is trying to
teach. This is that God exists as a luminous cloud of light, and first created
a group of angels and lower gods who were responsible for creating the Earth. The
corruption of the world is explained by the fact that these angels were
imperfect creature, and so therefore their own creation – the world – was
imperfect in return, full of pain, suffering and death. The head angel was
Adamas, who then had a human body created for himself and became Adam – the
first man. This resulted in man forgetting their divine origin, and so Jesus
was sent as the son of the true God to remind people of the divinity within
them. Most importantly, the document says that Judas handed over Jesus to the
Roman authorities on Christ’s own orders; essentially presenting the fact that
it was not a betrayal after all. Although the document is more useful as a
representation of the beliefs of the Gnostics in the second century rather than
one with theological merit, it presents an interesting image of Judas.

 

Bibliography

Baum, F.P., ‘The Medieval Legend of Judas Iscariot’, PMLA, 31, 3 (1916), 481-632.

The Gospel of Judas,
www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/gospelofjudas.pdf

Wolf, K.,
‘The Judas Legend in Scandinavia’, The
Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 88, 4 (1989), 463-476.

Et tu, Brute?

Everyone knows Julius Caesar. The most famous of emperors and, most importantly, arch-villain extraordinaire in the Asterix comics. He was also an orator and a general, an invader, a high priest and the first man in the Republic to aspire to being King of Rome. Julius Caesar is the layman’s ‘perfect Roman’. Many people think of him as being the greatest ruler Rome had (personally, I think it’s Augustus, but let’s not be picky), and he is famed for having an affair with Cleopatra, invading Britain (twice) and taking his soldiers into the Senate.

What he Is most famous for, though, is being murdered.

Julius Caesar was born to a rich family, groomed to be a senator, maybe even consul one day. His oratory and political skills won him status and promotions through the rigid political system. Also placed in charge of several legions, he conquered Gaul and is well-known for dragging the chieftain Vercingetorix through Rome behind his chariot. It was these achievements that began his rise to power.

He became consul young, helped by the fact that his legions were fiercely loyal to him and the senators were presented with little choice but to raise the hero of Rome to a position more suited to him. It was when he began to claim more and more power for himself that problems arose. The final straw came when he attended the Senate dressed in purple – the colour of kings. The last king of Rome, Tarquin, had been thrown out by the people for his cruelty and there was no way the Roman Republic intended to bow to another ruler like him.

On the 15th of March, Caesar was hailed by a soothsayer as he made his way through to the Theatre of Pompey, and was told that harm would come to him no later than the Ides of March – that very day. Though he laughed this off and continued on his way, Caesar could not avoid the fate awaiting him. A group of senators, led by his protegé Brutus, stabbed him to death in the theatre.

Caesar’s bloody death is undoubtedly one of the best known events in March – one that definitely marks this month as a month of violence. As a general, he was a violent man, leading legions against the ill-trained and ill-equipped people of first Gaul, then Britain. Perhaps we can take some solace in the memory that the British tribes defeated him not once, but twice. However, this does not change the number of lives that were lost at the behest of this man.

Whatever arguments are made about Caesar – most notably the claim that the evidence of his existence is less than that proving the life of Jesus – no one can deny the fact that he is, and will probably always be a key figure in the history of the Western world.

You don’t believe me? Well, I suppose that someone who has lived under a rock their entire life might not know who he is. But I only have one more thing to say about my argument. Something that everyone knows. Something that I feel proves my point that Julius Caesar is a fundamental figure in our history.

‘Veni, vidi, vici’

 

 

(W.U Team Note: we would like to thank you our colaborators Rubén (rubyces) and ‘Josema’ for the production of this awesome art work!!)