fascinatinghistory - Tumblr blog

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

On this day in history: May 1, 831 - Louis the Pious changes the succession... again

On May 1, 831, at the Assembly of Ingelheim, Emperor Louis the Pious changed the terms of his succession, ensuring that, upon his death, his sons would embroil the empire in a ruinous civil war, paving the way for the collapse of the Carolingian Empire that his father - Charles "Charlemagne" - had so painstakingly created.

To realize the significance of this event, you'll need a bit of history... First and foremost, it's important to note that, according to their ancient traditions, the Franks divided their patrimonial property equally among their children; in the case of Frankish monarchs like the Carolingians, the imperial lands were divided among all surviving sons...

LOUIS "the PIOUS" FEARS DIVINE WRATH

On "Maundy Thursday" (also known as "Holy Thursday"; "Covenant Thursday"; "Great and Holy Thursday"; and "Thursday of Mysteries"; the Christian feast or holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter that commemorates the Last Supper of Jesus Christ with the Apostles as described in the Canonical gospels) in 817, Emperor Louis "the Pious" was leaving the church after the holy office was over. As he and his court were crossing the porticus (a covered passageway - wooden gallery - that connected the basilica - cathedral - and the Aachen Palace that Charlemagne had built), the rotten and worn-out cross-beams could no longer support the weight of the framework and wainscoting above them and it collapsed. Many courtiers were killed and although it was said that he had not sustained a serious injury, the Emperor was confined to bed for many weeks: the handle of the sword he carried bruised the lower part of his chest on the left side, the back of his right ear was injured, and his right thigh near the groin was hit by a heavy piece of wood.

The shock of the incident combined with his narrow escape from death left Louis uncertain as to the future; during this time, people believed that God "spoke" through signs and portents and such a vivid showing of his displeasure must have left a serious impression on the "Pious" monarch. During his recovery, Louis must have thought a lot about the transience of mortal life (he was 43 years old during a time when a lifespan was less than 50 years) and the necessity to prepare himself and his kingdom for his demise. It was said that following the incident, he became morbid and lugubrious until his death: Louis abandoned the study of "profane" literature and would for the rest of his life read nothing but theology; chroniclers report that he even destroyed the collection of Old-Frankish heroic poems that his father, Charlemagne, had ordered made because of the many traces of heathenism which he found in them.

PARTITION OF AACHEN

Following his accident, Louis began planning for his succession and, three months later, in July 817, Emperor Louis issued the Ordinatio Imperii ("Ordering of the Empire"): an imperial decree that laid out plans for an orderly succession; also known as the "Partition of Aachen" (Aix-la-Chapelle). Borrowing from the unimplemented Divisio that his father, Charlemagne, had drawn up in 806 but in a break from Frankish traditions, Louis intended to pass the whole of the Frankish heartlands - undivided - to his eldest son Lothaire (like the earlier document, this was a project to be fully implemented only on the father's death).

In the prologue of the Ordinatio Imperii, Louis expressed the belief that God had selected him to preserve a united Christian empire - because of the early deaths of his two older brothers, Charlemagne's kingdom had passed undivided to Louis upon his father's death. The circle of ecclesiastical advisors - who argued that the empire was an institution created by God for the defense of the Church and propagation of faith - further convinced him of this during the time Louis had spent recovering from his accident. As a result of this belief, Louis put a lot more stock into the imperial title than his father Charlemagne and, at first, believed that he should not divide the empire like a patrimonial estate - which had hitherto been the custom of the Franks - but rather preserve it for future generations according to God’s will.

It has been argued by historians that the Ordinatio of 817 was the high point of Carolingian kingship, through which Louis endeavored to transform Frankish patrimonial kingship into a Christian emperorship that united all peoples of Western Europe into a holy Christian empire and ensured the "unity of the empire."

The political reality between the church's insistence on a single ruler was the realization that a single emperor was more profitable for the church in a society where the church and state were so united.

The nobles, on the other hand, urged Louis to proclaim a succession decree that honored all three of his three sons, following the Frankish traditions of partiable inheritance, because they wanted honores from the younger sons - Peppin and Louis "the German" - when they received their "share" of the Frankish empire. They, therefore, accused Louis' ecclesiastical advisors (which included men like Agobard, Paschasius Radbertus, and Florus of Lyons) of following the church's own interests instead of those of the kingdom. As a compromise - and as a result of pressure from the party surrounding Lothair, his eldest son (then 17), who had convinced Louis to grant Lothair the imperial title and the bulk of the empire - Louis had drawn up the "Partition of Aachen."

THE TERMS OF THE PARTITION OF AACHEN

After three days of fasting and almsgiving to ensure God's blessing upon the assembly to be opened, the Partition of Aachen was announced:

Lothair (the eldest of Louis’ three sons; 17 at the time), who had been King of Bavaria since 814, was named heir, emperor, and co-regent, as well as future overlord of his brothers Pippin I of Aquitaine and Louis "the German." During the assembly of nobles in Aix-la-Chapelle, Louis "the Pious," had him crowned as co-emperor Lothair I "to their loud applause" so as to assure his succession. Lothair was also allotted as his special province - during his father's life - the kingdom of Italy, which was in the hands of his illegitimate cousin Bernard of Italy. Thus, Lothair was promised the succession to most of the Frankish dominions (excluding the exceptions below), including both of the capitals of the empire: Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) and Rome, as well as all the oldest Frankish lands, Neustria and Austrasia, which made up the Frankish heartlands.

In addition, upon their father's death, Lothair I would also become the overlord of his younger brothers:

Pippin I of Aquitaine (the second son), received Aquitaine (which had been his father's original portion and which he was nominally in charge of as king since 814), as well as Gascony, the march of Toulouse, and several adjacent counties in Septimania and Burgundy: counties of Carcassonne, Autun, Avallon and Nevers).

The youngest son, Louis "the German," was granted Bavaria (which Lothair had ruled prior to the "Partition,"), the adjacent county of Nordgau and the frontiers with and suzerainty over the Avars, Carantanians (Carinthians), Bohemians, and other Slavs of the wild marches to his east along the Danube (although Louis will only be put in charge of these lands in 825).

Thus, according to the terms of the "Partition of Aachen," his brothers - the kings of Aquitaine and Bavaria - would be far too weak, even if united, to trouble the eldest son with rebellion. Nevertheless, Louis ended his deed with a solemn exhortation to his younger sons to obey the partition of their brother, visit his court once a year at Aachen, and be his helpers in peace and war. Above all, the Emperor Lothair would rule supreme over the subordinate kings (his brothers), whose obedience to him was mandatory.

SUPREMACY OVER SUBORDINATE KINGS (YOUNGER BROTHERS):

To clarify: the terms of the Divisio permitted each brother to be sovereign ruler within his own dominion, with rights to the proceeds of revenues and taxes as well as full rights to the disposition of dignities of bishoprics and abbeys within his lands. At the same time, however, Lothair's - the Emperor’s - supremacy was ensured by a series of provisions:

- his younger brothers were bound to consult him in all occasions of importance;

- they were forbidden from making war or concluding treaties without his consent;

- and his sanction was required for their marriage (marriage to foreigners was explicitly forbidden).

- The younger brothers were also to attend the emperor’s court every year and offer their gift; to confer with him on public affairs; and to receive his instructions.

- Disputes between them were to be determined by the general assembly of the Empire but Lothair - their elder brother and Emperor - had the duty (power) to address any cases of acts of violence or oppression for which his younger brothers had "failed to make satisfaction in accordance with remonstrances."

- If either of his younger brothers died without leaving lawful (legitimate) sons, his apanage shall devolve to the Emperor Lothair. However, if Lothair died without lawful sons to succeed him, the assembly of nobles would elect a ruler from among his younger brothers. But in no case was there to be any further division of territory.

The following two provisions were to have the most lasting consequences for the kingdom:

- Magnates were forbidden to possess benefices in several kingdoms at once but any free man was permitted to settle in any kingdom he chose and to marry there.

- In the case of Italy: after Louis' death, Italy was to become subject to Lothair in the same way it had been previously subject to Emperors Louis and to Charlemagne.

OUTRAGE OVER THE TERMS OF THE PARTITION

According to chronicler Thegan, Pippin I of Aquitaine and Louis "the German" were “indignant” as a result of this division: they saw the planned, uneven division as an affront to their aristocratic sense of dignitas (dignity) because it ignored their rightful claims as royal heirs. Although Louis "the Pious" was confident that he was carrying out God’s will, his younger sons viewed the uneven terms of theDivisio as a violation the time-honored Frankish tradition of partiable inheritance.

To explain this, you need to understand the context and meaning of "dignity" in the sense the word was understood in the tenth century: dignitas (dignity) was a nobleman’s social measurement of his nobility, courage, wisdom, and - ultimately - his power. Dignity dictated who sat at the head of the banquet hall, who wore the most splendid clothes, had the largest retinue of vassals, gave the most magnificent gifts, and had the greatest political influence. For a nobleman to suffer an insult without avenging it was to lose face, respect, and status. Therefore, (as it would be in later centuries over a gentleman's "honor,") the competition over dignitas was a constant source of political discord and turmoil in the kingdom. Louis’s sense of dignitas was the root cause of his and his brother Pippin's outrage over the Ordinatio Imperii.

CONTENTION OVER ITALY: OUTRAGE and REBELLION

Bernard, King of Italy - the illegitimate son of Charlemagne's son Pippin of Italy, who had predeceased his father, dying in 810 - had been confirmed as King of Italy by Charlemagne, and, therefore, saw the Italian kingdom as his own appanage, which he expected to retain through all changes in the imperial succession.

However, the events of 816 and 817 made him fear for his future: the terms of the treaty Emperor Louis signed with Pope Stephen IV (June 22, 816- Jan 24/25, 817) -- after he, his wife, and Lothair were crowned on Oct. 5, 816 at Rheims in the Notre Dame Cathedral -- contained a declaration of intent to privilege Louis' own descent line as against that of his deceased brother Pepin. In addition, Lothair's imperial title granted to Lothair during the Papal coronation in 816 and during the assembly at Aachen in 817 suggested that Lothar I was destined to rule in Italy as Emperor. Even more importantly, the the terms of the Partition of Aachen named Italy as the special portion of the young Lothair - which made Bernard fear total disinheritance when Louis died and Lothair acceded to the title of Emperor.

As it turned out, Bernard was justified in his fears: after Louis "the Pious" received word that Bernard was planning a rebellion in response to the "Partition of Aachen," the Emperor sent an expedition against him and - although his illegitimate nephew had surrendered without a fight and thrown himself on his uncle's mercy - had ordered that his eyes be put out. The mutilation was so brutally performed that Bernard died in agony several days later (on April 17, 818) and, following his death, the Kingdom of Italy officially devolved to Lothair.

==================================================

REBELLION and EXCESSIVE CLEMENCY

A lot happened after the Ordinatio of 817: Emperor Louis had remarried (many blamed the death of his first wife on the wrath of God following the murder of his nephew Bernard of Italy; an event that led to his great "piety" later in life) and his new wife, Empress Judith, had given birth to a son: Charles (later, "the Bald"). In his attempts to carve out a piece of the kingdom to leave Charles, Louis began to redivide the empire, which not only alienated his three eldest sons from his first marriage, but also their magnates (since they could not own lands in two kingdoms, the redivision necessitated them to give up those portions of their patrimony that - under the redivision - were now located in a different kingdom) and led to successive revolts and civil wars. By October 831, following the revolt of his eldest son Lothair, who had almost succeeded in overthrowing his father, Emperor Louis had been restored to kingship and was busy punishing those whom he viewed as abettors of the revolt. Yet instead of blaming his son, Lothair, Louis chose to forgive him and instead punish the men of his inner circle, who were sentences to death for treason during the October 830 assembly.

Possibly as a result of the "divine wrath" he had experienced in the wake of the agonizing death of his illegitimate nephew Bernard of Italy in 818, Louis was always more ready to forgive than to punish and by February 831, the sentences of the men that the previous assembly had sentenced to death were commuted to imprisonment and exile, along with the confiscation of properties.

(According to chroniclers, excessive clementia (clemency) was Louis "the Pious’s" greatest fault; although considered a royal virtue at the time, Louis the Pious used clemency dangerously: by pardoning rebels, Louis not only undermined the nobles’ confidence in his ability to make a lasting succession plan but also showed future rebels that rebellion against his rule didn't necessarily come with lasting consequences).

Although Louis and his advisors viewed Wala - former Count Wala, advisor to Bernard of Italy from 812-814, whom Louis had effectively executed when he ordered that his eyes be put out - as the "soul of the rebellion," his sentence of death was commuted and he was imprisoned. His brother, Adalhard, Abbot of Corbie (himself a former advisor to King Pepin of Italy since 796, as well as guardian and advisor appointed by Charlemagne to Bernard of Italy from 810-814 and to Ingeltrude - concubine of Pepin of Italy and mother of illegitimate Bernard) - was forced to surrender the abbey of Corbie and was also banished. Archchaplain Hilduin, the Abbot of St. Denis, was banished to Paderborn after losing his lands, while Elisachar and Matfrid were deprived of their honours north of the Alps and exiled but did not lose their freedom.

His wife, Empress Judith - who had been accused of infidelity by the rebels - declared her innocence before the Feb. 831 assembly and was reinstated to her position, as were her brothers - Conrad and Rudolf - who had been stripped of their honores and imprisoned in monasteries by Lothair and his cohorts.

Emperor Louis also ordered a new Division of the Kingdom, under the terms of which Louis, Pepin, and Charles would keep the kingdoms they already had (Bavaria, Aquitaine, and Alemannia, respectively), as well as each receive a part of the coveted "heartland" of Francia, which had previously been granted to Lothair under the terms of the 817 Ordinatio:

To Pepin’s Kingdom of Aquitaine, Louis added most of Neustria: the districts between Loire and Seine, and north of Seine, the Meaux country, with Amienois and Ponthieu as far as the sea.

To Louis’ Kingdom of Bavaria, Louis added Saxony and Thuringia, as well as the greater part of the pagi that makes up modern Belgium and the Netherlands. (All the lands from Bavaria to the English Channel, encompassing Bavaria, Thuringia, Saxony, Austrasia, Frisia, and the northern portion of Neustria.)

To his youngest son, Charles, Louis granted Gothia, and slices of Francia between Trier and Reims: Alemannia, Burgundy, Provence, and the province of Rheims.

Stripped of his imperial title and all other lands except for the Kingdom of Italy, Lothair was banished to Pavia in disgrace.

In addition to the redivision, Louis "the Pious" also added a “filial loyalty clause” that permitted the possibility of revising the inheritances according to the behavior of his sons: under the clause, Louis had the power to give additional land to

any one of our three above-mentioned sons who, desirous of pleasing in the first place God and secondly ourselves should distinguish himself by his obedience and zeal... (by) withdrawing somewhat from the portion of that one of his brothers who shall have neglected to please us

REDIVISION and RE-REDIVISION OF THE EMPIRE

However, the February 831 redivision had little impact on the future: not only were they not to come into effect until Louis' death, but on May 1, 831, Louis would again change the division of the Empire and pardon those whom he had condemned in February of that year. The repeated divisions and redivisions of the empire were to have lasting and negative consequences for the future of the Franks; if we succumb to the ancients' way of reasoning, it may even be argued that the partial eclipse of April 30, 831 - which happened the day before the "Division" of February 831 was officially annulled and lasted 3 hours, 27 minutes - was an omen of the dire events that were to come...!

In any case, not long after he had banished his eldest son to Italy, Louis the Pious summoned Lothair and the other adjudged rebels to appear at the Assembly at Ingelheim in May 831. There, on May 1, 831, Louis received his rebellious eldest son Lothair "honorably," and pardoned him and the other rebels. By doing so, Louis the Pious made clear that he had no intention of upholding the new Division of the Kingdom and its "filial loyalty" clause and that the Frankish lands were "up for grabs" to whomever was brave enough to grab them.

1 note · View note

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

The King, the Pope, and the time they excommunicated each other

I'm four days behind for this to be an "on this today in history" post but it would be a shame to miss out on the events of April 22, 1073 and - especially - their consequences....

Following the death of Pope Alexander II, his principal advisor - Archdeacon Hildebrand - was elected and ascended to the papacy as Pope Gregory VII on April 22, 1073. His ascension was to influence history in ways no one could have imagined.

His succession came at a delicate and tumultuous time in the relationship between the “reform” papacy and the German empire: during the synod of Lent in 1073, Pope Alexander II had excommunicated five counselors in the service of King Henry IV (son of Emperor Henry III, who had been instrumental in establishing the reform papacy during his reign) as men “who wished to separate him (King Henry IV) from the unity of the Church.”

Because Alexander II was dying, it’s not unlikely that it was the Pope’s principal advisor - Archdeacon Hildebrand – who made (or at least influenced) the decision to directly engage in a confrontation with the Salian king. In fact, even prior to his accession to the papacy, Hildebrand had been a frequent and outspoken critic of the king, admitting in a later letter that he had “frequently admonished [Henry IV] by letters and envoys to desist from his wickedness and, remembering his most illustrious family and his office, to order his life as befitted a king and, if God grants it, a future emperor.”

Therefore, it should not have been a surprise that the imperial party in Italy initially opposed Hildebrand’s election: Gregory, Bishop of Vercelli - and imperial chancellor for Italy - led an attempted rebellion against the new pope, although it’s not known whether King Henry IV was involved in the undertaking. (This was not the first time that Gregory was opposing a papal election: over a decade earlier, he had also been leader of the opposition party during what came to be known as the “Papal Schism” of October 1061. Then, German and Lombard episcopates – with the support of Wilbert, Bishop of Parma, the imperial chancellor for Italy at the time – had elected an “antipope,” Cadulus of Parma, in opposition to Pope Alexander II: the candidate elected by the Roman reforming party.)

Following the election of Pope Gregory VII, his German bishops – who feared Hildebrand’s “ardent temperament and passionate faith in God” would prove an embarrassment to them - urged Henry IV to declare the papal election invalid (possibly as early as at the Whitsun assembly in Augsburg, on May 19, 1073). The claim of the invalidity of Hildebrand’s election stemmed from the language of the so-called “royal clause” in the Papal Election Decree of 1059 - which decreed that a pope could be elected only “with the consent and authority of the king.” It’s important to note for the accuracy of the historical record that Hildebrand had participated in the synod that drew up the Papal Election Decree of 1059 but did not receive King Henry’s consent when he was elected in April 1073.

Yet Henry IV was not free to act on his bishops' advice: the conflict with the papacy could not have come at a worse time for the German king, embroiled as he was in a war against rebellious East Saxons. What Henry needed in 1073 was the military support of south German princes, the foremost of whom - Rudolf, Duke of Swabia; King Henry IV’s brother-in-law by marriage to his wife’s sister, Adelaide of Turin – was a zealous supporter of the reformist Pope Gregory VII. Therefore, to secure the alliance of the secular rulers of his kingdom and to forestall the Saxon rebels from exploiting his conflict with Pope Gregory VII for their own means (they were already using the same language as the Pope to justify their rebellion, demanding that the king remove his “evil counselors”), Henry IV instead made peace with Pope Gregory VII: in autumn 1073, Henry sent him a deeply penitent letter – one laden with language from the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15.21). In return, not only did King Henry receive the support of the secular leaders of his kingdom, but also that of the papacy: Pope Gregory VII sent a letter to the Saxon rebels, exhorting them to stop the hostilities against “King Henry (their) lord.”

Although historians have questioned Henry IV’s resolve and honesty in penning the letter to Pope Gregory VII, it’s not unlikely that he was initially dedicated to making the changes required of him. Living in a society that believed in signs and portents from heaven, it’s possible that Henry IV viewed the events of 1073 - the outbreak of rebellion in Saxony and the threats of excommunication - as divine punishment for his neglect of papal warnings. His conduct in the succeeding months shows him to have been supplicant and “humble,” having temporarily changed his conduct. However, as papal intervention in German ecclesiastic affairs grew ever more bold while Henry’s military victories strengthened his position, Henry IV began to reassert his power in ecclesiastical affairs. When before he interpreted the events of 1073 as divine judgment against his actions, Henry IV now viewed his decisive victory against the rebels in 1075 as divine approval for his kingship and an invitation to reassert his rights over the imperial Church.

In 1075, in response to papal requests that he settle the “Milanese” question (the Archbishopric of Milan had remained vacant while the imperial and papal factions fought each other for control but without approval from the populace), Henry IV chose Tedald – the subdeacon of Milan of noble birth, who had served in the royal chapel – to be Archbishop of Milan; Henry assumed that the best solution was to choose a man with no ties to the conflict of the preceding two decades, whose candidacy wouldn’t be questioned, and who – most importantly – would guarantee future cooperation with Henry’s government. However, Henry had miscalculated: not only did the supporters of the previous imperial candidate – Godfrey – view the new Milanese appointment as a betrayal, but so did Pope Gregory VII. The pope saw Henry’s one-sided intervention in Italian ecclesiastical affairs as a breach of peace between the papacy and the empire and, in response, issued the Papal Ultimatum on Dec. 8, 1075.

On December 8, 1075, Pope Gregory VII sent King Henry IV a letter containing the so-called Papal Ultimatum: he would refuse to answer any questions on a matter that so concerned the king (Henry was preparing for an imperial coronation, so it's assumed that this was the issue at hand) until Henry IV embraced papal reform measures. Using the biblical analogy of King Saul (1 Samuel 15.1-35) Saul – who, like Henry IV at Homburg against the Saxon rebels - had won a great military victory, but because he subsequently failed to obey God’s commands, Saul was rejected by God and by His prophet, Samuel. Gregory VII – likening himself to Samuel – was warning King Henry that if he failed to obey the pope, he would suffer a similar rejection: namely, excommunication and deposition. Privately, Pope Gregory VII had his messengers relay to Henry that if he failed “to do penance for his offences” – particularly, if he continued to associate with the five excommunicated advisers – “not only must he be excommunicated until he had made due satisfaction, but he must also be deprived of all the honors of kingship without hope of recovery.”

Henry IV’s response to the threat of being excommunicated and deposed was swift: on January 24, 1076, he called the Synod of Worms and publicly challenged the legality of the papal election of Pope Gregory VII (formerly Archdeacon Hildebrand). There were several reasons for this strategy (illegal election v. deposition):

First, a 6th century canonical principle stated that the pope could be judged by no one, and violating that principle would put the movement against Pope Gregory VII on shaky legal ground. Secondly, if the election was invalid – and, under the terms of the “royal clause” of the Papal Election Decree of 1059, whereby a pope could only be elected “with the consent and authority of the King,” it was, because Henry IV had never consented to Hildebrand’s election -- it meant that there was no need for the bishops to make a judgment against the pseudo-pope or to attempt to depose him.

Third, Henry IV and his counselors had - mistakenly - believed that the pope was in a vulnerable position and would be overthrown even without German military involvement in Italy. According to evidence provided by Hugh Candidus – the recently deposed cardinal priest of S. Clemente – “brother Hildebrand” had robbed the bishops of their spiritual power and “granted the control of ecclesiastical affairs to the ravening frenzy of the mob.” The allegations of the pope’s attacks on authority of the episcopate made the German government believe that, once they made the evidence against Pope Gregory VII public, it would unite the imperial episcopate that would then bring down the pope. (In concluding this, they were relying on a parallel lesson from history when, in 1046, Emperor Henry III – Henry IV’s father – had initially acknowledged Pope Gregory VI as pope but when it became known that Gregory was a simoniac [one who traffics in holy things and, in particular, receives money from candidates for ecclesiastical office; an offence that was most detested by the eleventh-century reform movement], Emperor Henry III pressed for the pope’s deposition at the Synod of Sutri – motivated, at least partly, by the political consideration that the pope who crowned him emperor must be beyond reproach, lest his imperial title be suspect…. Which must have been a concern for Henry IV, as well, since he was planning his own imperial coronation at the time.)

Another reason for their belief in Pope Gregory VII’s vulnerability was the fact that his enemy in Rome – Cencius Stephani – had managed to kidnap the pope on December 25, 1075 and imprison him for a short time. Later, when Cencius was expelled from Rome and fled to the imperial court – understanding that his only chance at returning to power in Rome was if Pope Gregory VII was removed from power – Cenius was instrumental in convincing King Henry IV to persist with this course of action. Henry IV and his counselors could have obtained more reliable information about the true situation in Rome from royal envoys who had spent the summer in Rome -- Rabbodi, Adelpreth and Udalschalk -- but because the king felt they could no longer be trusted (presumably because they had won the pope’s approval), he and his court based their strategy on misleading reports from Hugh Candidus and Cencius.

Although Henry IV presented himself as a champion of an episcopate victimized by the Pope at the Synod of Worms (ostensibly believing that, due to this alleged victimization, the episcopate would unanimously support Gregory’s removal), the political reality was quite different: between 1073 and 1075 - while he needed papal support for his military ventures against the Saxons, Henry IV had allowed Pope Gregory VII to freely meddle in the ecclesiastic affairs of the imperial kingdom. In fact, Henry IV failed to protect even his confidant - Herman of Bamberg - from being removed from office for fear of jeopardizing his good relations with the papacy. Now, however, he denounced Gregory for daring “to lay hands on the most reverend bishops, who are joined to us as our dearest limbs.” But neither was Henry IV naïve enough to trust his “dearest limbs” to adhere to the declarations of the Synod of Worms – to ensure a unanimous outcome, the king demanded a letter from each bishop present, stating, “I, (NAME), bishop of the city of (NAME), from this hour and henceforward renounce subjection and obedience to Hildebrand and I shall neither regard him as, nor call him pope hereafter.”

The fact that such a letter was necessary at all from the “victims” of the Pope’s alleged predations, as well as the rapidity with which a large number of the bishops deserted Henry IV after the Synod of Worms should have suggested that the judgment against the Pope was less than unanimous, and it was the king and his advisers - rather than the bishops - who were responsible for the policy decided in Worms.

In the end, in January 1076, the Synod of Worms decreed that not only was Hildebrand’s election invalid but, in addition, that his conduct following his election - according to the reports from Hugh Candidus - demonstrated “brother Hildebrand’s” unfitness for the papal office; according to their letter, “Brother Hildebrand’s” (Pope Gregory VII) “crimes” were his attacks on the authority of the episcopate and on the rights of the crown. Given the evidence of his illegal usurpation of the papal throne and his conduct, the Synod of Worms called on “Brother Hildebrand” to abdicate.

Although the German government firmly believed that, once they publicized his crimes and appealed to the Romans to “rise up against [Hildebrand],” the “pseudo-pope” would be overthrown by an united episcopate, they did attempt to secure secular support for the imperial cause: King Henry IV sent Count Eberhard “the Bearded” - one of the five counselors excommunicated by Pope Alexander II – to Italy to meet with secular princes, seeking to buy their allegiance “with large gifts and larger promises.” Nevertheless, the King’s strategy remained the same: rather than mounting an Italian expedition, King Henry IV was relying on the Roman people, a united imperial episcopate, and the recently purchased secular support to bring down Pope Gregory VII. He was soon to be very disappointed…

In response to the allegations of an illegal election, the Papal party argued that, as long as Henry IV was in violation of Church law by failing to dismiss the five advisers whom Pope Alexander II had excommunicated, he could not lawfully exercise his traditional authority over the imperial Church. Therefore, in the absence of Henry IV’s ability to exercise the power contained in the “royal clause,” Pope Gregory VII was properly and lawfully elected.

The letter urging him to abdicate reached Pope Gregory VII in February 1076. Empress Agnes – mother of King Henry IV and ardent supporter of Pope Gregory, had the following to say about what happened next:

“The envoys of my son the king came into the synod and, in the presence of all, they told the pope, on my son’s behalf, that he should rise and renounce the apostolic see, which he had acquired not canonically but by robbery. They were at once seized by the Romans… I see the greatest danger threaten the Church because my son placestoo much faith in the words of fools.”

According to the Empress, Pope Gregory’s to the letter was to

“deprive of office and communion all those who consented willingly [to the bishops’ declaration at the council of Worms] and [give] a respite until the feast of St Peter [in chains, 1 August] to those who gave their consent under compulsion. He (then) deprived my son the king of the royal dignity (Henry IV was thus deposed) and struck him down with the sword of anathema (and then excommunicated), because of [the proceedings in Worms] and because he communicates with excommunicates and because he refuses to do penance for his crimes, and he absolved all men from the oaths that they had sworn to him.”

Pope Gregory VII pronounced the sentence against King Henry IV in the form of a prayer to St Peter and included the reasons for his deposition and excommunication in a letter to the German faithful:

“firstly, because he refused to withdraw from the society of those who were excommunicated for the sacrilege and crime of simoniacal heresy; then because he would not so much as promise, let alone perform penance for the guilty actions of his own life . . . and because he was not afraid to rend . . . the unity of holy Church.”

Word of his deposition and excommunication reached Henry IV on the eve of Easter, March 26, 1076. Outraged, the king decided “that on the next day during (Easter) mass, the pope was to be publicly excommunicated because he had dared to excommunicate the king, his lord.” Pibo, Bishop of Toul, the bishop assigned the unenviable task of pronouncing the sentence of excommunication on the Pope – which they feared violated canon law - fled the city at night, along with a number of other prelates. Therefore, it was William, Bishop of Utrecht who agreed to preach the Easter mass – an event during which Henry IV had staged a “crown-wearing,” (one of the rituals of power that, like the coronation, were designed to dramatize the idea of the monarch being the “the vicar of God”). According to an account of the day, Henry IV appeared “crowned and enthroned in one of the cathedrals of his empire, to the accompaniment of the royal laudes, (and) hymns celebrating the majesty of Christ and of the king, who exercised His authority on earth.” William, Bishop of Utrecht, began his sermon by first announcing that the pope had excommunicated the king (which was the first public announcement of this event in the kingdom), then denouncing the pope as a criminal, and, finally, pronouncing him excommunicated.

According to chroniclers, “divine judgment” manifested itself on the same day as William, Bishop of Utrecht read the sentence of excommunication against Pope Gregory IV at the cathedral of St Peter in Utrecht: on Easter, March 27, 1076, lightning struck the Cathedral of St. Peter in Utrecht and reduced it to ashes. Then, a month to the day that he excommunicated the pope, William, Bishop of Utrecht suffered a sudden and painful death. Naturally, both events were interpreted as divine wrath that greatly disturbed King Henry IV and his people. On April 21, Henry attempted to mollify the Holy Spirit by giving a royal gift to the church of St Mary in Aachen – which had been founded by Charlemagne – in an attempt to secure the patronage of the Virgin and the great emperor for Henry’s regime. On May 23, Henry IV made another donation, this one to the cathedral of St Peter in Utrecht (the one destroyed by lightning on March 27), so as to regain the saint’s protection after St. Peter had manifested his anger against the cathedral and its bishop. Interestingly, the diploma grant issued by King Henry IV contains an admission of guilt: “we grieve that [the church of Utrecht] was consumed by fire, ascribing this to our sins” yet he was not prepared to give up his plan to dethrone Hildebrand, whom he still regarded as a usurper. And so the battle between them raged on.....

3 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Video

vimeo

In 2009, construction workers in Dorset England uncovered two mass graves - one with 54 headless skeletons and another with 51 severed skulls. Using the latest archeological techniques, National Geographic goes back in time to discover the identity of these people and why they were so brutally murdered. More information on National Geographic TV Also available (and free!) on Netflix

#anglo saxons #Anglo-Saxon England #vikings #Viking Raid #viking army #viking pirates #viking age #Early Middle Ages #early history #Early People #history #archeology #archeological discovery

7 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

The earliest recorded appearance of Viking raiders on British shores may surprise you...!

The year 792 is considered by many as the first time that Vikings raided the territory of modern Britain (the sack of the monastery of Lindisfarne, discussed in detail in an earlier post) but according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the first time men from the north landed on Britain's shores was actually three years earlier, in 789.

In 789, three ships (possibly from "Hordaland / Horthaland" in Norway [Hardangefjord]) landed on the Isle of Portland. There, the king's reeve, Beaduheart, and his men met them and, having mistaken the "dark-skinned" warriors for tradesmen, attempted to entice them to go to the king's manor so as to pay a trading tax. Instead, Beaduheart and his men were slaughtered and the warrior party raided several surrounding towns before disappearing.

... The uncertainty as to the event, however, is twofold: first, some historians allege that the three ships landed in 787, not 789. More importantly, not all surviving copies of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle identify the raiding party as a Viking band: because some surviving copies of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle do not identify where the ships sailed from at all, some historians believe that their origin in "Hordaland" was a later addition (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written a century later), and an "educated guess" based on warriors from later raids.

Whether the so-called Viking Age began in 789 with the raids on the Isle of Portland or in 792 with the sack of Lindisfarne, one thing is certain: the age of viking raids had begun and would go on to change the course of European history forever.

#Early Middle Ages #early history #vikings #Viking Raid #viking army #viking pirates #viking age #earliest viking raid #history #european history

4 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

Russia: the Early History of the Russian people

Russia first enters written history in the 7th century B.C.E., when Cimmerians and Scythians—nomadic peoples of what would later become known as the Russian steppes—began ravaging parts of Asia.

Scythians: The first bloodthirsty hordes

Herodotus, who visited southern Russia in the fifth century B.C.E., and learned stories from traders in Greek cities around the Black Sea, wrote in the fourth book of his Histories that:

“The Scythian soldier drinks the blood of the first man he overthrows in battle. Whatever number he slays, he cuts off all their heads, and carries them to the king; since he is thus entitled to a share of the booty, whereto he forfeits all claim if he does not produce a head. In order to strip the skull of its covering, he makes a cut round the head above the ears, and, laying hold of the scalp, shakes the skull out; then with the rib of an ox he scrapes the scalp clean of flesh, and softening it by rubbing between the hands, uses it thenceforth as a napkin. The Scythian is proud of these scalps, and hangs them from his bridle-rein; the greater the number of such napkins that a man can show, the more highly is he esteemed among them. Many make themselves cloaks, like the capotes of our peasants, by sewing a quantity of these scalps together. Others flay the right arms of their dead enemies, and make of the skin, which is stripped off with the nails hanging to it, a covering for their quivers. Now the skin of a man is thick and glossy, and would in whiteness surpass almost all other hides. Some even flay the entire body of their enemy, and, stretching it upon a frame, carry it about with them wherever they ride.

“The skulls of their enemies, not indeed of all, but of those whom they most detest, they treat as follows. Having sawn off the portion below the eyebrows, and cleaned out the inside, they cover the outside with leather. When a man is poor, this is all that he does; but if he is rich, he also lines the inside with gold: in either case the skull is used as a drinking-cup. They do the same with the skulls of their own kith and kin if they have been at feud with them, and have vanquished them in the presence of the king. When strangers whom they deem of any account come to visit them, these skulls are handed round, and the host tells how that these were his relations who made war upon him, and how that he got the better of them; all this being looked upon as proof of bravery.”

4 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

History short: Ch'a ching - earliest treatise on tea - published in 804

In 804, Lu Yü publishes the Ch'a ching - the earliest treatise on tea. In it, Yü details the process, beginning with the cultivation of tea and on to the elaborate way in which it is properly prepared, served, and consumed. ...I promise to abstain from puns.

#Lu Yu #chinese #tea #tea ceremony #treatise on tea #Tang dynasty #early history #history

1 note · View note

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Conversation

The little things that change the course of history...

Due to a fire, large swaths of downtown have lost power and since I can't imagine writing out one of my lengthy missives on my phone, I'm sorry to say that there likely won't be a post today. At least not a long one :)

0 notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Link

I was looking through #Carolingian posts when I came across this... and I'd like to make a correction/clarification: although Charles Martel did incorporate mailed cavalry into his army following the Battle of Tours in Oct. 732, there is no evidence that Franks began using stirrups until almost a century after the battle: stirrups do not appear on inventory lists (and these are very meticulous) nor have any been uncovered as grave goods (also very good indicators of what a buried soldier/officer owned and valued) until the 800s

Read part 1 of the Death, Birth, and Rebirth of Dynasties: Dynasties of Francia for a more in-depth analysis of the events around Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours

In honor of the anniversary of the Battle of Tours, and as a companion to this post, here some facts about Charles Martel.

Charles Martel is credited with adopting the stirrup. Prior to Charles, the stirrup was not used in Europe, with saddles instead having horned protrusions to keep the...

16 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Photo

Charles Martel, "the Hammer" For an in-depth look into his rise to power - and for how he paved the way for a transition between the Merovingian, to the Pippinid Mayoral, to the Carolingian dynasty, read the first article in the series -

Death, Birth, and Rebirth of Dynasties: Dynasties of Francia

40 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

The Dynasties of Francia: from Merovingian, to the Pippinid, to the Carolingian dynasty - Part 1

From the Merovingian, to the Pippinid (Arnulfing), to the Carolingian Dynasty - Part 1

Among the most pivotal events in the history of Western Europe occurred in 711, when Pippin II, Frankish Mayor of the Palace, in arranging for his succession, nominated his illegitimate, infant grandson Theudoald as Mayor of the Palace in Neustria.

As described in an earlier post, by this point in history, the Merovingian kings of Francia had become little more than crowned figureheads as a result of centuries of land grants made in perpetuity to aristocratic Frankish families in exchange for their support. Since power, wealth, and authority lay in land ownership, the real power in Francia had long since been divided among Frankish magnates, supreme among whom was the Pippinid Mayorial dynasty whose members ruled Francia (in practice if not in name... yet) as Mayors of the Palace.

In 711, when Pippin II, Mayor of the Palace in Francia to Merovingian King Dagobert III, nominated the illegitimate infant Theudoald as Mayor of the Palace in Neustria and his heir, he all but ensured plots and rebellions would spring up as soon as he died. The violent nature of the age and the militaristic mindset of Frankish aristocracy did not lend themselves to being led by a tottering, three-year-old child - and an illegitimate one, at that. Although the specifics are lost to history, making it unclear why Pippin didn't choose one of his two legitimate, adult grandsons - sons of Pippin's eldest son Drogo - as his heirs. Although Hugh would later become the Archbishop of Rouen, Bishop of Bayeux and Paris, as well as Abbot of Fontanelle (Saint Wandrille) and Jumièges, he was still a layman in 711, the year Pippin II made the fateful nomination, and either he or his adult brother - both legitimate sons of Pippin's eldest son Drogo - could've prevented what happened next. This is true especially because of their lineage: Hugh and his brother were descendants of the most dominant families of Neustria and Austrasia: their maternal grandfather, Warrato, was Mayor of the Palace in Neustria, while their paternal grandfather, Pippin II, was Mayor of the Palace in Austrasia.

The reasons why Pippin II chose the illegitimate infant Theudoald have been lost to history: perhaps some undisclosed break within the family made either Hugh or his brother unacceptable, or perhaps Pippin wanted his wife, Plectrudis, to hold power in his name while the malleable child grew up to kingship; or perhaps Pippin believed the Frankish magnates would remain loyal even after his death... In the end, speculating as to his true motive serves little purpose. We're here to discuss history, after all! And in the end, the fact remains that, by choosing Theudoald (illegitimate, infant son of Grimoald) instead of Hugh, the eldest among his two legitimate, adult grandsons (from his eldest son, Drogo), Pippin II nearly destroyed a united Francia and the future of his descendants.

Following Pippin’s death in December 714, his widow Plectrudis took control of Francia - and their illegitimate, three-year-old grandson and Pippin's heir: Theudoald - and imprisoned Pippin II's illegitimate son Charles (later known as "Martellus," "the Hammer" - from the story of Judas Maccabeus, "the hammerer"; the result of Pippin's "unsacramental" relationship with Alpaida) so as to ensure he wouldn't attempt to seize power. It should be noted that, although Merovingian King Dagobert III was still on the throne of Francia, his position was given little account.

Almost simultaneously, Frisia - the territory Pippin II had been trying to definitively conquer in his last years of rule - declared its independence from the newly weakened Francia, followed not long after by Neustria, which quickly rose in revolt against the rule of Plectrudis's illegitimate 3-year-old grandson, Theudoald, as their Mayor of the Palace. The Franks sent an expedition to bring the Neustrians to heel in 715 but Theudoald's supporters were defeated, leaving the rebelling Neustrians free to proclaim Raganfred as Mayor of the Palace in Neustria. When Merovingian King Dagobert III died in 715, the Neustrians set up another Merovingian - Chilperic - as King Chilperic II, having pulled him out of the monastery to which he had been confined. The Neustrians then made an alliance with Frisia and their King Radbold, joining forces to invade Austrasia - what remained of the beleaguered Frankish state.

Fortunately for his descendants (and for European history, for reasons we'll discuss below), Charles Martel managed to free himself from Plectrudis's grasp "by the Grace of God," and begin reclaiming what had been lost while he'd been imprisoned.

At first, Charles Martel was unsuccessful: the united armies of Frisians under King Radbold and the Neustrians, who had jointly invaded Austrasia, forced Charles and his supporters to retreat after a period of heavy fighting. The combined Frisian/Neustrian force then made its way through the Forest of the Ardennes and advanced onto Cologne - the base of Plectrudis and her supporters, forcing her to come to terms with them by surrendering “much treasure,” which may have well included what Pippin II had taken from Neustria in 687.

In April 716, Charles returned to the fight, ambushing the victorious Neustrian force at Amblève, as they were marching home. Although there were heavy losses on both sides, the battle proved undecisive and the fighting continued through 717.

In the spring of the following year, 717, and despite his offer of a peace treaty between them, the Neustrians attempted to crush Charles Martel, forcing him to renew the war effort. Again Charles Martel faced the combined forces of Frisians and Neustrians, the latter under the Merovingian King Chilperic, this time on March 21, 717 at Vinchy. Having carried the day against the combined force, Charles forced them back to Paris before turning on Plectrudis. Later in 717, Charles Martel defeated the supporters of his one-time captor, forcing Plectrudis to surrender Cologne along with what remained of the treasure she had once controlled. It is at this time that she and her grandson Theudoald disappear from the record. Following his defeat of the Frisian and Neustrian invaders, Charles Martel arranged for another Merovingian - Chlotar - to become King Chlotar IV of Austrasia yet all knew it was only a temporary solution: Austrasia and Neustria were, once again, divided - each with a different king and Mayor of the Palace - but reconquest would have to wait until Charles dealt with the greater threat of King Radbod of Frisia -- or died trying.

In 718, Charles Martel engaged King Radbod and his force of Frisians in battle, ensuring the security of his eastern frontiers with their defeat. Meanwhile, the Neustrians - who well understood that their independence was ebbing away as Charles dealt with his more immediate enemies - sought an alliance with Duke Eudo of Aquitaine to provide them with an army of Basque mercenaries in their struggle for independence. In 719, Charles and his forces faced the combined army of Neustria - under Merovingian King Chilperic II - and Aquitaine - under Duke Eudo - and in a series of engagements, pushed them back, south of the Loire.

Following the Neustrian defeat, King Chilperic II of Neustria fled to Aquitaine with a few of his supporters and Hugh, now Bishop of Bayeux and Paris - the legitimate son of Drogo, the eldest son of Pippin II and Plectrudis - was able to take control over the major ecclesiastical centers in Neustria, becoming also the Archbishop of Rouen.

Hugh's lineage (his grandfather was Neustrian Mayor of the Palace Waratto) made him, at the same time, a representative of the dominant Austrasian line of the Pippinids and the entrenched, greater aristocracy of Neustria. Therefore, his support of Charles Martel will be instrumental for the reunification effort.

With the power of the Neustrian church behind him, Hugh turned his support to his kinsman: his illegitimate half-uncle Charles Martel (the illegitimate son of his grandfather, Pippin II, and Alpaida), and to the reunification of Neustria and Austrasia.

Although he had recently defeated them in battle and now had a religious support base in Neustria, which provided some stability in the region, Charles chose diplomacy instead of pursuing a military campaign against the Aquitanians and opened negotiations with Duke Eudo. Late in 719, the Merovingian King Chlotar IV of Austrasia - whom Charles had appointed in 717, only two years before - had died and, in exchange for peace between them, Charles requested that Duke Eudo of Aquitaine "return" the fugitive Merovingian King Chilperic II of Neustria.

Although this meant that Aquitaine retained its independence through the 720s, even in retrospect Charles' strategy appears militarily sound, given that the reunification of Francia had not yet been successfully completed.

Needing to cement a peace with the rebellious Neustrians and convince them to remain unified with Austrasia, Charles Martel installed the recently returned fugitive - the Merovingian King Chilperic II (who was initially chosen by the Neustrians as their King in 715, when they first rebelled) - as the Merovingian King of both, Austrasia and Neustria. Chilperic II would remain King until his death in 721. At his death, Charles replaced him with Theuderic IV - son of Dagobert III - as King, who would "reign" (under Charles' control) until his death in 737.

In 724, Hugh, the Archbishop of Rouen, and Bishop of Bayeux and Paris, was named Abbot of Fontanelle (Saint Wandrille), which gave him control over all the major churches in the lower Seine valley – area of future Normandy. As was discussed earlier, Hugh's lineage made him a representative of both, the dominant Austrasian line of the Pippinids through his grandfather, Pippin II, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia, and the entrenched, greater aristocracy of Neustria through his grandfather Warrato, Mayor of the Palace in Neustria. Therefore, Hugh's support – as well as the support of Godobald, Abbot of Saint Denis (himself a supporter of Dodo, brother of Charles’ mother Alpaida) – allowed Charles to keep Neustria loyal, freeing his hands to venture east.

In 725, Charles Martel launched a major expedition against the Alamans, Thuringians, and Bavarians – all of whom had once been subject to Merovingian kings during their heyday but had been allowed to go the way of ducal dynasties of Frankish origin. As a result of the campaign, they were “punished” and “subjugated,” and Charles returned to Austrasia with the wife and daughter of former Bavarian duke Grimoald (717-725) as his hostages. Taking his duties as host to a completely different level, Charles Martel will go on to have an illegitimate son - Grifo - with his younger hostage, the daughter of Duke Grimoald of Bavaria. Although he'll be excluded from succession by Charles's two legitimate sons - Pippin III, "the Short" and Carloman - Grifo will be engaged in frequent struggles for power with his half-brothers until he is eventually killed in 753.

**It's important to clarify that, although Charles couldn’t impose his authority over these areas, they were brought back - and remained firmly - within the Frankish sphere of political influence. They’ll be more closely integrated into the Frankish Kingdom under his grandson in the 770s and 780s.

Charles Martel and His Significant Role in History

It is fortunate that Charles Martel survived his imprisonment by Plectrudis and succeeded in reuniting Neustria in Austrasia because Charles would go on to play a decisive role in one of the most important events of European history: the Battle of Poitiers, at Tours, in October 732 (733 according to some chroniclers). In the fall of 732, an army of Arabs, Berbers, and even subject Visigoths numbering in the tens of thousands of cavalrymen under governor ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn ibn Gafìqi of Ummayad Cordoba had sacked Poitiers. In October, Charles Martel, Mayor of the Palace and de facto ruler of the Frankish realm of Austrasia – moved his infantry south to intercept them as they advanced northward, toward the monastery of St. Martin of Tours.

Charles positioned his Frankish army - made up entirely of armored infantry with heavy shields and long spears – between the larger Muslim invasion force and the monastery of St. Martin. ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn's army - made up entirely of Arab and Berber cavalry - met the Franks near Tours, and the two sides skirmished and scouted each other's position for nearly a week before commencing battle on the seventh day.

The Frankish infantry formed into a tightly grouped phalanx - it is said that the Franks drew themselves into a large infantry square in such a way that they were "like an immovable wall" and a "glacier" - and managed to repel successive Muslim cavalry charges throughout the day, while the mailed Muslim cavalry threw themselves at the Frankish square in fruitless attempts to break through the formation. Many Muslims were cut down by Frankish swordsmen and although the Arab cavalry broke into the interior of the Frankish square several times, still the Franks held.

Late in the battle, as he attempted to rally waning Muslim forces, general ‘Abd ar-Rahmãn was killed and as night fell, his army halted their attacks. At dawn on the following day, Frankish scouts discovered that the Muslim camp had been hastily abandoned in the night, the fleeing army having left behind in their otherwise-empty tents a great deal of plunder they'd captured during their campaign through the territory of what is today southern France.

Contrary to some of what has been written about the Battle of Poitiers, it didn't save Christendom from imminent Islamic conquest nor was it the only battle fought against the Muslim invaders. In later campaigns, Charles Martel continued pushing the Iberian Muslims back across the Pyrenees Mountains and out of France. His victory at Poitiers did, however, cement Charles Martel's political position, earning him the moniker "the Hammer" (for the way in which his men broke the great Muslim invasion force; later chroniclers referred to him as Charles "Martellus," "the Hammer," a name derived from the Biblical story of Judas Maccabeus, "the hammerer"), as well as open Aquitaine to the reimposition of greater political control from the north. The defeat of the seemingly unstoppable Muslim force likewise ensured Charles Martel's name and reputation lived on, allowing him and his descendants to continue to expand Carolingian power throughout France and Germany.

In the wake of the Battle of Poitiers, Charles began integrating Arab-style heavy cavalry - using mailed armor and possibly stirrups (however, there is no actual evidence that stirrups were used until almost a century following the Battle of Tours: stirrups don't appear on inventory lists or in graves until the 800s) - into his army, training his infantry to fight alongside a cavalry force; a tactic that would serve him well during the 736/737 campaigns and especially at the Battle of Narbonne.

Between 732 and 739, using ruthless methods and by providing "aid," Charles Martel would come to control virtually all of the territory south and west of his base in northeast Francia; even the Church - which was initially supremely grateful for his victories against the infidels - later castigated him for forcing monasteries to make precarial grants of property (leases for life in return for fixed annual renders) that Charles relied on for military support. By controlling principal or powerful political and ecclesiastic offices, as well as patronizing ecclesiastical institutions in return for loyalty (along with spiritual and material benefits), Charles was able to solidify a loyal and powerful landed base in recently reconquered regions of Neustria, Austrasia, Frisia, Aquitaine, and Provence that could be transformed into military power. After all, instead of temporary military conquest, Charles concentrated on (re)imposing a centralized authority over these regions - exercised by the Pippinid Mayoral dynasty in the name of the Merovingian kings - by building up a network of local supporters.

The result of Charles Martel's ambitions was that - after the collapse of the Roman Empire - none of the major western kingdoms was as continuously organized for war as were the Franks, a factor that would serve his grandson, Charlemagne, well. The primary instrument of political control was the “Marchfield”: a gathering held between March and May, attended by leading territorial magnates from the kingdom, during which political issues and new laws were discussed, and military campaigns initiated and agreed on. The nobles that attended the Marchfield arrived with a retinue of those who depended on them for their livelihoods, and who, in turn, formed the basis of the fighting force that contributed to the royal army. Such assemblies were both a guarantee of large measures of consensus behind royal decisions and a ready-made military force to be directed at the enemy. Likewise, control of the eastern duchies - the Saxons, Thuringians, and others - was an important military resource that added to Charles Martel’s greater military strength and manpower in the 730s. As the aristocracy that backed him learned to trust in his military acumen, Charles (and, later, his son Pippin III) could resume a policy of aggressive border campaigns to further expand his sphere of influence and, in turn, reward his supporters.

Charles Martel died on October 22, 741 and was buried at the Monastery of Saint Denis, to the north of Paris - a former pantheon of the Merovingian dynasty – that had benefitted from a grant of a royal villa of Clichy during Charles's life. At his death, his two legitimate sons - Pippin III, "the Short," and Carloman - began a six-year period of Joint Rule as Mayors of the Palace.

Unfortunately, the future would not be easy for his descendants: at his death in 841, the Frankish Kingdom that Charles Martel had managed to rebuild fell apart. Once again, Aquitaine regained its independence under Duke Hunald, son of Duke Eudo of Aquitaine. Likewise, the Alamannian Duke Godafred threw off his forced subservience to the Pippinid Mayors of the Palace, declaring his independence from them. Last - but definitely not least - Odilo, Duke of Bavaria, threw his support behind Grifo - the illegitimate son of Charles Martel and his hostage, the daughter of Duke Grimoald of Bavaria - who had been excluded from succession by his two legitimate half-brothers.

Yet even while faced with enemies from all sides, Charles Martel's descendants manage to turn a defeat into a victory, first rebuilding a kingdom, then creating their own, and, finally, carving out an empire as they follow their path through the Merovingian, to the Pippinid, and, eventually, to the Carolingian dynasty.

2 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

The Year 711: the Death, Birth, and Rebirth of Dynasties

With today's post, I wanted to do something a bit different: instead of an article describing what happened "on this day history," I wanted to give readers a more in-depth glimpse into events that shaped our past through an annual overview of fairly obscure events that, in due course, changed western history. And I'd like to begin this little experiment by discussing world events in the year 711, the year I'd like to dub: "the Death, Birth, and Rebirth of Dynasties":

BYZANTINE EMPIRE in 711: End of the Heraclian Dynasty

For the Byzantine Empire, 711 brought with it the death of a dynasty: a revolution against the tyrannical rule of Emperor Justinian II, "Rhinotmetus" ended with the massacre of him and his family, bringing with it the end of the Heraclian dynasty.

Interestingly but perhaps unsurprisingly, the beginning of Justinian II's reign was as bloody as the end: he inherited the throne because his father, Emperor Constantine IV was worried that his two brothers - who were crowned with him as Co-Emperors - would pose a threat to him, and so had ordered that both of them be mutilated (castrated) to prevent that from happening!

Emperor Justinian II ruled twice: first, for a decade between 685 and 695, and then (following an interval in which two successful generals - Leontios and Tiberios III briefly ruled) again between 705 and 711. Emperor Justinian II was able to come to power a second time only with the help of the Bulgars, who aided him in regaining the throne with military force. Following his reascension to the throne in Constantinople, Justinian II "Rhinotmetus" took revenge upon all those who had opposed him, adding yet more bloodshed to an already bloody reign.

Following his death, the Byzantine Empire experienced what can only be described as an, "Uncertain Period," when - for six years, between 711 and 717 - the Empire was in a state of turmoil as Emperors came to power and were removed every two years. The Armenian Vardan - Philippicus / Philippikos - came to power first, ruling from 711 to 713. Artemius (renamed Anastasius II during his coronation ceremony) followed, ruling between 713 and 715. Theodosius III came next, ruling between 715 and 717.

Finally, the state of near-anarchy that had prevailed in Byzantium between 695 (the year Justinian II was first removed from the throne) and 717 ended with the ascension of Leo III, the "Isaurian": the first of the Isaurian Dynasty that was to rule the Byzantine Empire until 802.

UMMAYAD CALIPHATE in 711: Rebirth of the Dynasty in Spain

By the year 700, the Ummayad Caliphate centered in Damascus was ruled by its sixth ruler: Caliph Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, a man whose reign marked the apex of Islamic power. In 711, Caliph Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik sent the first Muslim expedition into the Iberian Peninsula under the command of the Berber Tariq ibn al-Ziyad. That year, the mixed party of 7,000 Arabs and Berbers headed by Tariq al-Ziyad crossed the Straits of Gibraltar (Jabal Tariq), marking the beginning of the Arab invasion of Spain. Although they would conquer only the southern parts of the Iberian Peninsula by the end of the year, Tariq and his army would also defeat Roderick, the last King of the Visigoths, and begin the systematic take-over of the Iberian Peninsula that was to last a decade. The area they conquer would be known as Al Andalus - centered around the city of Córdoba - and eventually become a beacon of learning and innovation much more advanced than other states of its day.

Although the Ummayad Caliphate centered in Damascus would initially rule the newly conquered territories in Muslim Spain, the invaders soon settled inAl Andalus as property owners, marking Córdoba as a new capital of an emerging independent state.

When Ummayad Caliph Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik sent the first expedition into the Iberian Peninsula in 711, he had no way of knowing that less than four decades later - in 750 - his descendants in Damascus would be overthrown by the Abbasid dynasty and that his family line would be wiped out, all except for one man: the Caliph Abd ar-Rahman. In 711, Caliph al-Walid could not have predicted that, after six years on the run, in 756, Abd ar-Rahman would find refuge in Al Andalus and seize power in Córdoba, defeating the area's Islamic rulers to eventually become Emir Abd ar-Rahman I, the first Emir of Córdoba. Yet it was there, in Córdoba, that the Ummayad dynasty under Abd ar-Rahman was reborn!

FRANKISH KINGDOM in 711: Death of the Merovingian Dynasty and birth of the Carolingian Renaissance

In the year 711 in Francia, the Merovingian King Childebert III died, succeeded to "kingship" by his young son Dagobert III (711-715).

By this time, the Merovingian kings had long ceased to have any real power, having emerged instead as little more than crowned figureheads of the Franks. In the preceding centuries, the Merovingian kings had alienated too much land into the hands of their supporters through grants made in perpetuity, ensuring that the real power and authority lay in the hands of rival aristocratic factions. And supreme among the Frankish aristocracy was the Pippinid Mayoral dynasty, whose members ruled Francia (in practice if not in name) as Mayors of the Palace.

In 711, Pippin II, Mayor of the Palace in Francia to both, Childebert III and Dagobert III, had also arranged for his own succession by nominating his only surviving legitimate son Grimoald as Mayor of the Palace in Neustria. Yet as Pippin II lay ill, Grimoald was mysteriously murdered, leaving Pippin with no surviving legitimate sons to inherit his power after his death. In a move that was to have disastrous consequences yet speaks highly of the power he wielded, Pippin II nominated Grimoald's illegitimate infant son Theudoald - Pippin's illegitimate, infant grandson - as Mayor of the Palace in Neustria.

The Middle Ages were a turbulent and violent period in human history and an infant boy served as no deterrent to rival aristocratic factions wanting to usurp the power and influence young Theudoald had inherited as a three-year-old toddler. Yet what makes Pippin's choice of heir even more surprising is the fact that he had at least two living, legitimate, adult grandsons - sons of Pippin's eldest son Drogo - whom he bypassed to the great detriment of his own family and the future of Francia. Pippin's death in December 714 heralded an eight-year period of unrest in Francia, which almost put an end to the Pippinid dynasty and resulted in a massive loss of territory (and, consequently, power) for the Pippinids as first, Frisia, then Neustria, and then Austrasia broke off and declared their independence. It was only after many years of war and countless lost lives that the Pippinid dynasty was able to regain what was lost when Pippin II made his fateful decision and the family, forged by steel and war, rose to ever greater prominence, giving birth to the Carolingian dynasty. It is precisely because this period is so pivotal - and interesting - that I wrote a separate post detailing the painful transition of the Pippinid dynasty.

1 note · View note

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Photo

Miniature from the Mannasas Chronicle: Above: Emperor Nicephorus enters Bulgaria with his army Below: The captured Nicephorus is presented to Khan Krum Learn the fascinating history behind the painting here! (And it really is fascinating! Not only is a Byzantine Emperor killed in battle for the first time in over 500 years, but his skull is encrusted in silver and converted into a drinking cup for a pagan khan!)

#medieval #medieval ages #medieval warfare #battle #Battle of Pliska #Khan Krum #Emperor Nicephorus #byzantine empire #byzantium #Bulgars #Bulgarian kingdom #Middle Ages #history

39 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

Today in History: April 8, 809 - sack of Serdica and the roots of the Bulgarian Empire

On April 8, 809 - Easter - the Bulgarian Khan (khagan; king) Krum (803-814) seized the fortress of Serdica (today’s Sofia) and razed it to the ground, slaughtering its garrison of 6,000 men.

Serdica was a fortress and outpost of the Byzantine Empire on the borderland of Slavic Macedonia, between western Bulgaria and imperial Thrace.

Regional tensions between the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgars have been growing for decades: the struggle against the pagan Bulgars was the main conflict faced by the Byzantine state within the territories of modern Europe.

Around the year 800, Byzantine Europe was organized into four themes: (1) Macedonia; (2) the maritime thema of Caravisionorum (later called the Cibyrrhaeot / Cibyraiot theme), on the southern shore of Asia Minor and in the neighboring islands, intended as a defense against the Abbasid Muslim fleet; (3) Thrace in the Balkan peninsula, created against the Slavs and Bulgarians; (4) and the Greek military district of Hellas (or Helladici; Helladikoi), formed against Slavonic incursions into Greece. It is within these last two thematic regions - Thrace and Hellas - that most of the conflict between the Byzantines and the Slavs took place: between 809 and 814, the fighting between the Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria would be centered around three imperial land fortresses of Serdica (Sofia), Philippopolis (Plovdiv), and Adrianople; and the sea-port of Develtus (modern Debelt, near Burgas), across the southern half of present-day Bulgaria. (From south to north, the ports on the Black Sea coast were: Sozopolis, Develtus, Anchialus, Mesembria, and Varna.) 

Bulgarian expansion was the result of many factors, including the succession of Khan (king) Krum in 803, following the death of his predecessor Khan Kardam (777-802). Prior to his death, Khan Kardam, ruler of the much-smaller Bulgarian state, forced the Byzantine Empire to (again) begin paying tribute to the Bulgars in 796, embroiled as it was in conflicts with the Abbasid Caliphate and protecting its territories in Italy - a fact his successor Khan Krum was likewise determined to exploit.

It is believed that Krum spent his youth establishing his authority over large swaths of modern-day Hungary and Transylvania. When he succeeded to the Khanate in 803, Krum added these territories to Bulgaria so that his realm stretched from Thrace to the northern Carpathians, and from the lower Sava River to the Dniester, bordering the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne along the river Tisza. Unsurprisingly, Krum’s aggressive expansionist policies brought him into repeated conflicts with Byzantium.

To alleviate the financial strain of war with the Abbasid Caliphate, the Byzantine government under Emperor Nicephorus I had instituted a system of financial reforms, resulting in additional taxes levied across its empire. Unhappy with Byzantine rule and the additional taxation, the Peloponnesian Slavs - those living in the region of modern Greece - rose up against the Byzantines in 807 in another bid to win their independence (an earlier earlier revolt, in 783, was put down by the Byzantines). Aided by a Muslim fleet, the Slavs launched a major attack on the Romanic outpost of Patras (Patri; Constantine Porphyrogenitus called them "Saracens and Africans" in his chronicle), occupying the town's outskirts and besieging the city. (It is likely that the recently rebuilt Patras - located at the western mouth of the Gulf of Corinth in Greece - was already the new thematic capital.) The town successfully resisted the siege and the Slavs were defeated but, although the joint attack was repulsed, a series of punitive expeditions by the Byzantines were to follow, resulting in the reconquest of the Peloponnesus.

Emperor Nicephorus decreed that all trophies seized from the defeated Slavs would belong to him but, since the Byzantines believed that the victory at Patras was due to the blessing of the Apostle Saint Andreas, the city's patron saint, he also ordered that those Slavs who had rebelled and besieged the city - as well as their family, kin, and possessions - would be be bound to the soil of the Church of St. Andreas. Thus bound, the Peloponnesian Slavs would now have to pay all expenses of those strategos, archons, patricians, and all other dignitaries sent to the outpost by the Emperor.

Naturally, Slavs in other parts of the Byzantine Empire saw this as a sign of things to come and - reputedly - the Macedonian Slavs turned to the Bulgars for aid against future imperial demands.

While the Abbasid Caliph al-Harun was occupied with putting down rebellions in the Khurasan province, the Byzantine Emperor considered the time ripe to send the message that Bulgar interference within imperial territory would not be tolerated and, wanting to secure a border between the Byzantine state and the Bulgarians, the Empire turned its military focus on Bulgaria. In 807, the Byzantine Emperor (Basileus) Nicephorus led an army into the Balkans and, during the course of that campaign, the region of Serdica - modern-day Sophia - was briefly recovered from the Slavs. Having thus secured his borders, Nicephorus installed a garrison at Serdica to hold the region as a frontier against the Bulgars and returned to his capital.

The following year, in 808, the Bulgars retaliated, penetrating the Struma valley and killing the strategos of Macedonia along with many of the thematic soldiers, as well as capturing more than 1,100 pounds of gold that had been sent by the Byzantines to pay the soldiers’ salaries in Macedonia. It was said that regimental officers from Thrace were also killed in that attack.   

A year later, on Easter 809 (April 8, 809), Khan Krum advanced into the territory recently captured by the Byzantines, sacking the newly fortified town of Serdica (present-day Sofia) and killing 6,000 of its garrison. Its walls razed, Serdica was abandoned for at least the next half-century until, by around 864, a Slavonic settlement grew up beside the old Roman fortress.

Following the sack of Serdica, Khan Krum surged into the Byzantine territory of Macedonia, thus doubling the size of his state.

In response to the capture and slaughter of the outpost at Serdica, Emperor Nicephorus led an army into the region later that year, in 809, with plans to rebuild the sacked fortress but - since they'd be the ones having to do the rebuilding - the Byzantine troops rebelled and the excursion ended without having achieved its goal.

Also in 809, the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (ar-Rashid) died 809, plunging the Abbasid caliphate into a civil war as his two sons, al-Amin and al-Ma'mun, fought for supremacy within the territories of modern-day Iraq and former Persia; in the course of the war, Baghdad's destruction was so complete that it was only in 819, six years after al-Ma'mun's ascended to the Caliphate in 813, that the new Caliph was able to reenter the city and begin its reconstruction.

By 811, the Bulgars under Khan Krum (803-814) extended their control over the Slavic tribes of Thrace and Macedonia and, after Charlemagne’s defeat of the Avars in 811 - which ended the dispute between the Avars and the Slavs, they incorporated a part of modern Hungary into their empire, pushing their borders as far as modern Serbia.

Although the Abbasid Caliphate - Byzantium's main military rival - was embroiled in a civil war since the death of Caliph al-Harun in 809, it wasn't until 811 that the imperial army was finally able to retaliate for the sack of Serdica (809) and the consequent Bulgarian expansion into Thrace and Macedonia by burning the Bulgarian capital of Pliska.

By late June 811, Emperor Nicephorus had assembled a large force for the Bulgarian expedition, drawn from the Tagmata, as well as Eastern and Western themes (and which included a number of irregulars “many poor men armed with their own hunting slings and clubs”). The Emperor was so confident in his victory that he permitted large numbers of courtiers and palace officials to come along on campaign into Bulgarian territory. On July 10, 811, Nicephorus and his army reached the frontier at Markellai (Marcellae; northwest of Burgas, near modern Karnobat) where they were met by messengers Khan Krum had sent to ask for peace. Nicephorus refused and the Byzantines crossed the mountain range into Bulgarian territory. Following several feints aimed at confusing the enemy, the attack into Bulgaria was launched more than a week later, on July 19th or 20th (Theophanes' date for when the Byzantine army entered Bulgarian territory is July 20th according to the Julian calendar, which is July 24th according to the Gregorian calendar). Under Nicephorus' direction, several columns entered Bulgaria separately through “difficult passes” and modern, recreated accounts of the campaign date the recombined army as reaching Pliska, the Bulgarian capital, on July 22 or 23. There, Nicephorus and his troops destroyed the Bulgarian garrison and defeated a large relief force sent by Khan Krum. According to accounts, the imperial troops "easily" destroyed two Bulgarian armies - consisting of “12,000” and “50,000” men, respectively - near Pliska. The Emperor then ordered that the town be burnt. To quote the Scriptor Incertus,

he found some army of elite armed Bulgars, about 12,000, left to defend the place, fought against them, and killed all of them. Also, another 50,000 [Bulgars] met him which he fought and killed all of them... Having spent several days there (at Pliska), he (Nicephorus) left impious Krum’s palace, and on his departure burnt all the buildings and the surrounding wall, which were built of wood.

On July 24, 811, the Byzantine army departed inland, first marching southwest and then west, in the general direction of Serdica (Sofia). In pursuit of the remaining Bulgarian forces, the imperial army destroyed all settlements and farms along its route. With Pliska not far behind them, the pursuing troops entered one of the many wooded river-valleys that run down from the Balkan Mountains - allegedly, they entered the Ticha River valley, south of Preslav, heading for an exit pass called Varbitsa (Vurbishki). Given their "easy" defeat of the Bulgar forces, the Byzantines were overconfident: the discipline was relaxed or even nonexistent in some corps, and it can be said that insufficient efforts were made at scouting along their line of march. Even worse, sources say that Emperor Nicephorus declined to heed the advice of his leading officers and the warnings from his scouts to advance more cautiously.

After Emperor Nicephorus refused his offer of peace, Khan Krum recruited new troops from among the Slavs and Avars and, after many of his own troops were destroyed around Pliska, used them to help his surviving men fortify the mountain passes both, to hinder the Byzantine advance and, when placed in the rear of the Byzantine troops, to seal off their exit. Bulgarians moved quickly to fell trees and build heavy log walls across the mouth of several of the most important passes through the Sredna Gora (Middle Mountains) mountains. When fronted by a ditch, such a palisade could detain an army long enough for an attack from above or from the flanks, which was the Bulgars' goal.

At dusk on July 24 or 25th, imperial forward scouts reported that one such palisade blocked the army's exit from the valley (via either the Chalaka or the Varbitsa pass). According to a contemporary source, it was said that, the "Bulgars had constructed a fearsome and impenetrable fence out of tree trunks, in the manner of a wall." [Or, as another translation has it, “a terrible and impassable wall-like rampart from large tree trunks”.] However, instead of retreating, the army was ordered to halt for the night. Contrary to Roman military traditions, the several divisions of the Byzantine army camped separately and some distance apart from each other. Surrounded as it was by Tagmata troops, the Emperor's own encampment - which included all the court dignitaries - proved easy to identify and it was the one targeted by the small force of Bulgarians and their allied Avar and Slav troops in their pre-dawn attack.

During the dark, early-morning hours of July 26, 811, while the Byzantine sentries slept, the Bulgarians and their allies - the Avars and neighbouring Slav tribes (Sklavênias), whose women had even been armed for the attack - managed to break into the perimeter of the emperor’s camp. Despite meeting some resistance from the Tagmata of The Watch, the imperial troops were soon cut to pieces in the chaos, noise, and semi-darkness. The Emperor Nicephorus, himself, was killed in the first moments of the attack - the first time an emperor was killed in battle since the death of Emperor Valens in 378 AD.

After Emperor Nicephorus I (802-811) was killed in the Province of Moesia, during what eventually became known as Battle of Pliska, Khan Krum ordered that his skull be encrusted with silver and used it for a drinking cup.

It was perhaps the news of the Emperor's death that caused the troops of The Watch to break and flee. The sound of fighting alerted the nearest camps of the thematic divisions but darkness prevented them from intervening effectively. Learning from the fleeing guardsmen of the Watch that the emperor was already dead, they, too, turned and fled. As the Bulgarians advanced, the whole Byzantine army dissolved rapidly before them. Many perished in the along the river marshes and while trying to cross to the other side of the river to escape. To again quote the Scriptor Incertus, “the river became so filled with people and horses that the enemy passed over them safely and pursued the rest who, naturally, thought that they would escape”.

Those imperial troops who managed to flee on horseback further forward into the valley found themselves up against the wooden palisade and trench built by the Bulgarians. Those soldiers who managed to climb the log-wall fell off to their death while attempts by others to burn it down led to them falling through the collapsed, burning timbers into the ditch. Scriptor Incertus: “At other places, the rampart was put on fire. When the ties burned and the rampart fell upon the moat, the running soldiers unwarily fell down and came into the moat together with the fire.” Many imperial troops managed to escape but more died than got away; if the expedition numbered 30,000 men, then perhaps 20,000 died during the night ambush. (Although contemporary sources claimed that “70,000” had died, the figure is too great since the entire strength of the imperial army - from Sicily to Chaldia - was approximately 90,000 men. Yet if even half of the entire Tagmata was lost, it would still number 11,000 dead, lending credibility to a death toll number around 20,000 men.) The Byzantine Empire was sufficiently well resourced that they could send another strong army after the Bulgars as early as 813 but the impact of the pre-dawn ambush on the Byzantines shouldn't be underestimated: in addition to the overwhelming number of Byzantine troops killed in battle, many of the top officers of the themata had also lost their lives, including the domestic of the Excubitors, the drungary of the Watch, and the strategoi of the Anatolics and Thrace, not to mention the Emperor Nicephorus I, himself. Likewise, the emperor's son and heir - Emperor Staurakios (Stauricius) - was wounded during the battle, reigning for only two months before abdicating and consigning himself to a monastery where he died, some five months after the ignominious battle.

There are conflicting versions of the imperial succession: in one, Emperor Staurakios, knowing that he is dying, willingly abdicated in favor of his brother-in-law, the palace official supervisor of the palace, Michael Rhangabe. In another, Staurakios is forced to abdicate after Prokopia - the emperor's sister and wife to his successor - fails to persuade him to name Michael as his successor, so Michael's supporters force Staurakios to abdicate in Rhangabe’s favor instead.

In either case, on October 1, 811, “all the senate and the guard regiments” acclaimed Michael Rhangabe as Emperor in the hippodrome. The following day, on October 2, 811, Michael Rhangabe was formally raised to the throne as Michael I - a man described as “handsome and cultivated . . . amiable to a fault, lacking in judgement and easily led” - in a ceremony at the Hagia Sophia. The new Emperor promised - in writing - to defend the faith and to protect both clergy and monks, and was crowned with much solemnity by Patriarch Nicephorus.

Unfortunately for Michael Rhangabe I, Khan Krum followed his victory at the Battle of Pliska by unleashing total war against the Byzantine Empire, laying waste to most of its territory outside the protected walls of Constantinople. According to one East Roman source, Khan Krum was able to field "30,000" men in armor (i.e. mail; holosideroi in Greek) and 5,000 wagons with iron tires against the Byzantines. In June 813, defeated by the Bulgarians at the Battle of Adrianople, Michael I understood that his time on the imperial throne was all but over: preempting a conspiracy that would leave him dead, he abdicated the throne in favor of Leo the Armenian and became a monk. (Although he succeeded in saving his life, his sons would be castrated and relegated into monasteries by his successor.)

Khan Krum died unexpectedly in 814, in the midst of preparations for an attack on the metropolis and although he ruled the Bulgars for only 11 years, he's credited as being the first Bulgarian ruler to begin centralizing the Bulgarian kingdom (it would be recognized as an Empire by the Byzantines in 913) by providing a common administrative and legal framework; during his reign, the ex-Turkic Bulgars and the Slav tribes he subjugated would reach approximate social and legal equality. Moreover, Khan Krum began the process through which a semi-professional military body separated from the mass levy of peasants and, once brought under centralized state control, gave the Bulgar kingdom the ability to successfully resist its more powerful neighbor and regularly defeat the Byzantines in battle.

0 notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

Today in History: April 5, 882 - Viking raids in West Francia

On this day in history, on April 5, 882, the Vikings of the "Danish Great Army" sacked the great city of Trier in East Francia, pillaging it for three days before returning to their fortified camp at Esloo on the Meuse. The movements of this great band of norse raiders evidence the interrelation between Danish raids on the countries of Western Europe: Intent on plunder, the "Danish Great Army" had arrived in England in 878 to join their brothers-in-arms in the wars against the Anglo-Saxons. Upon their arrival in the Thames valley, however, they learned that Guthrum and the “Summer Army” (which had first reached England in April 871) had been defeated by King Alfred at Edington and there was little chance of successful plunder in England following Guthrum’s baptism and treaty of peace with the Anglo-Saxons, they decided to stay the winter at Fulham on the Thames and in the following year – 879 – to sail for the continent.

In mid-July 879, the "Great Army" landed on the coast between Calais and Boulogne and by the end of the month, they had already sacked Thérouanne and the abbey of Saint Bertin. As they proceeded deeper into East Francia, the vikings raided the Yser, Lys and Scheldt valleys before they encamped for the winter at Ghent.

Early the following year, in 880, this Viking army left its camp at Ghent and attacked Tournai, Condé, Valenciennes, and even Reims. While on his way home from Ribemont in February 880 – where he was ratifying a treaty giving him lands in the kingdom of Lothair II - Louis "the Younger" came upon a party of the Viking raiders at Thion (Thiméon; modern Belgium, prov. Hainaut) on the Sambre and heavily defeated them. However, his illegitimate son Hugh died in battle.

King Louis the Younger of Saxony didn’t press his advantage, however, and this defeat did not prevent the Vikings from burning Arras and Nimeguen. Moreover, in retribution, the Vikings mounted an expedition into Saxony itself, defeating Louis’s men in Saxony and killing Duke Bruno, brother of Louis’ wife Queen Liutgard, before returning to their camp at Ghent. In the fall, the Vikings moved to a new, fortified camp at Courtrai and between December 880 and January 881, raided Arras, Cambrai and Péronne. Within a matter of only weeks, around February 881, they were on the move again, harassing Thérouanne, the coastal region between Boulogne and Saint Valéry, and the Somme valley, including Amiens and Corbie, before again returning to their camp at Courtrai.

The Danes suffered another defeat on Aug. 3, 881 at the Battle of Saucourt, between Abbeville and Eu, at the hands of joint Kings Louis III and Carloman II of France. Their famous victory against the marauding pagans is celebrated in a German cantilène that has survived till this day. Unfortunately, because neither monarch pressed the advantage following their defeat, the Vikings were able to reach the Meuse valley unmolested and fortify themselves in a camp at Elsloo.

In the winter of 881, they moved along the Meuse, sacking and burning the monasteries of St-Lambert at Liège, Prüm, and Inden, and even the palace at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle; the main palace of Emperor Charlemagne), as well as all of the monasteries in the neighboring dioceses: Tongres, Arras and Cambrai, as well as part of the diocese of Rheims, much of which they had burned, including the fortress of Mouzon and the city of Maastricht on the Meuse. Moving to the Rhine, they burned Cologne and its adjacent monasteries, as well as Bonn and Koblenz. Early in 882, the Vikings were on the Moselle and, after attacking Treves, they attacked, pillaged, and burned the great city of Trier.

Starting on April 5, 882, Trier and its adjacent monasteries were sacked during a period of three days. Afterward, the Vikings made their way to Metz but were confronted at Remich on the Moselle by Bishop Wala of Metz, Archbishop Bertulf of Trier, and Count Adalard of Metz. Although Bishop Wala was killed in battle, their counterattack was unsuccessful and the Frankish forces fled, leaving Metz to be sacked by the invaders.

*** It should be noted that though Viking raiders specifically targeted ecclesiastical lands (for reasons described in an earlier article) and although it wasn't unusual for Frankish bishops to participate in battle or even personally lead armies or fleets against the Danish invaders -- as was the case with Abbot Hugh of St. Martin, who took part in the battle at Thion (Thiméon) on the Sambre in February 880 -- some prominent religious figures, including the formidable Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, insisted that bearing arms and fighting was contrary to ecclesiastical law and their episcopal office. Following the death of Bishop Wala of Metz during the attempted defense of his bishopric and its populace in 882, Archbishop Hincmar wrote that Wala's "bearing arms and fighting, (was) contrary to sacred authority and the episcopal office."

Viking raids of Frankish lands that began in 879 ended in 892, when two armies - one led by Hasting (Hæsten ; Hasteinn), which operated along the Loire, and another led by Rollo, who'd been ravaging areas along the Seine - departed for England, providing yet more evidence to the interrelation between Danish raids in Europe: Although Hasting (Hæsten ; Hasteinn) and his band of Viking raiders (who had been attempting to establish a settlement on the Loire in the region of Nantes - a "Loire Normandy" - since the 870s through ethnic cleansing of the region) had been defeated in Frisia at the Battle of Louvain the year before, in 891, they didn't leave because of Frankish military strength... they left because of the weather!

The summer of 892 was exceptionally dry, leaving the earth parched and destroying much of the harvest. Unsurprisingly, these natural conditions resulted in famine and disease and the Vikings retreated, seeking better opportunity in England in campaigns against King Alfred. Hasting and his (smaller) Viking band left Boulogne and, after landing in Kent in 892, began the War of 892 between the Danes and the English.

20 notes · View notes

fascinatinghistory · 11 years

Text

The sack of Lindisfarne: the age of Vikings raids on monastic houses

As briefly discussed in an earlier post, the first recorded Viking raid on a monastic house in Europe occurred on June 8, 793, when Viking raiders sacked the monastery of Lindisfarne on the Northumbrian coast (Lindsey) of Britain: the monastery was burned, its treasures pillaged, and its monks either killed or enslaved.

The Christian world was shocked by the desecration of Lindisfarne yet Alcuin (Albinus; 735-804) - a deacon of Saxon roots and among the most learned men of his day - viewed the attack as divine judgment for the sins of Northumbrian rulers and the weaknesses of their churches.  Although Alcuin knew King Æthelred I and welcomed his restoration to Northumbrian rule (Æthelred ruled from 774-779, when he was exiled, and again from 790-796, when he was murdered), he had no respect for his behavior as a king. In 791, Æthelred killed Ælf and Ælfwine: æthelings (princes) and sons of King Ælfwold (779-788), the king in whose favor Æthelred was deposed. The following year, in 792, King Æthelred I killed Osred II: the deposed and tonsured King of Northumbria (788-790) in order to shore up his power in his kingdom and eliminate any opposition to his rule. Given the bloody path King Æthelred I carved in the preceding years, Alcuin viewed the sack of Linidsfarne by Northmen in 793 as the beginning of judgements that were about to fall on Northumbria as a result of the violence, contempt of justice, and evil lives of its rulers.  Wanting to warn King Æthelred I of the looming Viking threat, Alcuin wrote him a letter:

Lo, it is nearly 350 years that we and our fathers have inhabited this lovely land, and never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race, nor was it thought that such an inroad from the sea could be made. Behold the church of St Cuthbert [Lindisfarne, which held the Saint's relics] spattered with the blood of the priests of God, despoiled of all its ornaments; a place more venerable than all in Britain is given as a prey to pagan peoples. And where first after the departure of St Paulinus from York [in c. AD 634] the Christian religion in our race took its rise, there misery and calamity have begun. Who does not fear this? Who does not lament this as if his country were captured?

These would be prophetic words: after seventy-three years and numerous attacks and devastations later, Alcuin's "patria" - (country - the land of the Northumbrian Angles) - would collapse in the face of the onslaught of the Great Heathen Army of the norsemen, making York the center of power for a Scandinavian dynasty for almost a century after Northumbria's fall.

WHY VIKINGS ATTACKED MONASTERIES

Since the major objective of a norse pirate was to acquire loot, monasteries like Lindisfarne - stocked with riches (relics, gold, books, etc.) created or donated for the glory of God - were easy and profitable targets for Viking raids. In addition to monastic treasures, medieval monasteries also often served as banks, offering a "safe deposit" facilities to local lords because, in an otherwise violent Christian society, ecclesiastical strongrooms enjoyed immunity from attack and theft... at least when Christian thieves were concerned. Yet Vikings didn't stop at merely acquiring things: there was money to be made in the trade of people. Raiders seized monastic tenants (including peasants that merely lived on the ecclesiastical lands) to sell into slavery and even made money through ransom payments for high-status captives or cult ecclesiastical objects like gospel books and reliquaries. Scandinavian raiders also seized corn and livestock from ecclesiastical estates, picking the ecclesiastical estates clean of everything of any value.

EFFECTS OF VIKING RAIDERS ON MONASTIC LANDS The organization of early medieval monasteries and bishoprics - which lay at the centers of great estates - depended on church lords and their entourage for their administration. By driving off (or killing) a bishop and his household from his see, or an abbot and his monks from a monastery, the Northmen thereby dealt a serious blow to the agrarian organization of the area.  The impact of Norse raids on monasteries can't be underestimated: as a result of the Viking raids at the beginning of the 9th century, Northumbrian coinage temporarily collapses.

#Sack of Lindisfarne #Lindisfarne #Monastery of Lindisfarne #monastery #vikings #Viking raid #Viking pirates #Norsemen #Alcuin #Great Heathen Army #Viking age #history #Middle Ages #Early Middle Ages #medieval #medieval ages #battle

19 notes · View notes