Showing posts with label battle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label battle. Show all posts

Saturday, December 31, 2016

The siege of Paris by the Vikings. '' Without these sieges, perhaps another city would become the capital '

Siege of Paris (845) Viking Ships besieging Paris. photo: wikipedia







If you love Paris, thank the Vikings. Centuries before tourists thronged to the City of Lights, the globetrotting Vikings also traveled to Paris—although there was nothing romantic about their visits. A new book about the Vikings’ wide-ranging journeys details how their raids on Paris transformed a small market town into the eventual capital of France.

On a late November day in A.D. 885, a bishop clutched a crucifix in his hand as he looked out from his perch atop the Ile de la Cite. After surveying the foreigners gathering far below on the banks of the River Seine, he planted his cross in the ramparts and picked up a bow and an axe. The shedding of blood may have violated his priestly vows, but these were no ordinary times.


Updated today 16/05/2020

The Vikings had returned to Paris

This was hardly the Scandinavians’ first trip to the market town that would become the “City of Lights.” Today’s tourists with passports full of stamps had little on the medieval men from the north who traveled far and wide—from Newfoundland to Baghdad. “Most people in those days lived and died in the village they were born in, but the Vikings had such enormous horizons,” says John Haywood, who chronicles the exploits of the Scandinavian raiders on four continents in his new book,

“Northmen: The Viking Saga AD 793-1241.”


Northmen: The Viking Saga, Ad 793-1241: John Haywood Amazon.co.uk

Harwood tells HISTORY that the peculiar dynamic of the state formation process in Scandinavia caused the Vikings to become globetrotters. “The nature of Scandinavian kingship enabled anyone with royal blood to be a king, and that made it more competitive and violent than in other parts of Europe,” he says. “Around A.D. 800 the intensity of competition, because there are so many people who could be king, boils over and propels the Vikings out of Scandinavia.”


The losers in the internal power struggles could, by virtue of royal blood, still command enough men in a longship to raid foreign shores, and among the repeated targets of Viking raiders in the ninth century was a market town clinging to a small island in the Seine—Paris. Long before it became a cosmopolitan city, Paris was a stop on the liquid highway to the richer lands of Burgundy.


Map of Paris in the 9th century. The city was concentrated on Île de la Cité, an island on the Seine. photo: wikipedia

Coastal protections built by the emperor Charlemagne had brought peace and prosperity to inland river settlements such as Paris, but after his death in 814, the defense system began to decay along with the Carolingian Empire. The Danes first attacked Paris on Easter Sunday in 845 when the Viking Ragnar, who is traditionally linked with the legendary saga character Ragnar Lodbrok, led a fleet of 120 ships and as many as 4,000 men up the SeineAfter defeating troops sent by West Frankish King Charles the Bald, Ragnar’s men plundered and occupied Paris until the follically challenged monarch gave the Vikings 7,000 pounds of silver to leave.


Charles the Bald in old age; picture from his Psalter photo: wikipedia

Repelling the Vikings may not have been on the bottom of the king’s list of problems, but it didn’t top it either. More preoccupied with defending his throne from power-hungry brothers and preventing rebellious counts from usurping his royal power, Charles the Bald repeatedly paid to the Vikings tributes raised by increased levies on his subordinates. 

He hoped the money would make the problem—and the Vikings—go away, but the payouts only encouraged more raids and hurt his popularity with his subjects, who were not only being plundered and taxed to benefit the Scandinavian invaders but barred from constructing fortifications out of fear that rebellious counts would use them for protection against royal troops.


photo: pinterest

The Vikings sacked Paris in 856 and burned it again five years later. When the Danes returned in late November 885, eight years after the death of Charles the Bald, the settlement was better prepared. Two wooden bridges that linked the Ile de la Cite to both banks of the Seine prevented the passage of raiding ships further upriver, and a soaring wall built under the supervision of the Bishop of Paris, Gauzelin, encircled the island.

The Viking leader Sigfred arrived in Paris to ask Gauzelin for free passage to ravage the countryside in return for sparing the walled town, but the bishop refused. The following morning, the Vikings launched an assault on Paris with catapults and battering rams. Even the bishop joined the Parisians who defended their settlement by launching arrows from crossbows and pouring buckets of boiling oil, pitch and wax onto the raiders.


The Twelve defending the Petit Pont against the Vikings MeisterDrucke

As Haywood points out, it was unusual for the Vikings to lay siege to a town because mobility was their key to success, but Sigfred’s men hunkered down for the winter on the banks of the Seine and did not attack again until the last day of January 886 when they launched three fireships into the Grand Pont in an unsuccessful attempt to burn it. What the Vikings couldn’t do, however, Mother Nature did weeks later when floodwaters washed away the Petitie Pont. The Vikings were finally able to move further upstream but continued the siege as hunger and disease claimed the lives of many Parisians, including Gauzelin.

Not until October 886 did King Charles the Fat, the new ruler of West Francia, send troops to end the nearly year-long siege of Paris. The king ultimately paid the Vikings 700 pounds of silver and granted their original request to move freely up the Seine. Parisians felt betrayed by their ruler.


King Charles the Fat Wikipedia


Charles the Fat: A seal of Charles III with the inscription KAROLVS MAGS ("Carolus Magnus") photo: wikipedia

Although the Vikings never took Paris, the nearly year-long siege marked a turning point in French history. The failure of the king to protect his subjects accelerated the decline of royal authority and the breakup of Charlemagne’s empire. 

After Charles the Fat was deposed in November 887, West Francia eventually chose Odo, the count of Paris who led its valiant defense, as its new king. Odo’s reign saw a marked decline in Viking activities in the region, and the defenses of Paris withstood the occasional attacks that occurred in the ensuing years.


Empire under Charles in 887  photo: wikipedia

That heroic resistance gave Western Franks something to focus on and helps grow the disillusionment with the Carolingian system of government, which they see as failing to defend the country,” Haywood says. “Charles the Fat’s slow reaction to relieving Paris is one of the factors that contributed in a few years’ time to the final breakup of the Carolingian Empire and the emergence of West Francia as the Kingdom of France.”

“It’s at this time that the strategic importance of Paris is revealed in a clear way and marks its emergence as a dominant power in West Francia,” Haywood adds. “By laying siege to Paris, the Vikings bring it to national prominence and give it the prestige that eventually makes it the capital of France. Without the siege, maybe Rouen or another city would have been the capital.”


Other articles on the same theme:








Story source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by History and wikipedia . Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Last words of King Richard III “This day I will die as a king or win” 10 facts you need to know about the battle of Bosworth


Battle of Bosworth Field ( photo: wikipedia.org )
























Updated 05/05/2020 Last words of King Richard III

The battle of Bosworth, in which Richard III was killed, was the last significant clash of the Wars of the Roses. Here, Chris Skidmore MP, the author of Bosworth: The Birth of the Tudors, summarises 10 need-to-know facts about the battle that heralded the end of the Plantagenet dynasty and marked the birth of the Tudor age.

Richard III (play) - Wikipedia

For many, 22 August 1485 remains one of the key dates in British history. Yet what exactly took place in the early hours of the morning (the battle was over by noon) still remains tantalisingly elusive.


Portrait of Richard III of England, painted c. 1520 (approximate date from tree-rings on panel), after a lost original, for the Paston family, owned by the Society of Antiquaries, London, since 1828. ( photo: wikipedia.org )

Nevertheless, many myths surrounding Bosworth remain prevalent – stirred by the imaginings of Shakespeare, whose famous words, “A horse, a horse, a kingdom for my horse”, placed in the mouth of the defeated Richard III, are occasionally still recounted as part of the narrative description. Despite decades of research into what exactly happened at Bosworth, and where exactly the battle was fought, it seems truth remains inconvenient when it comes to telling a good story.

That shouldn't stop anyone knowing the basic facts of one of the most famous battles in English history, however. So for anyone interested in knowing as far as possible 'what happened', here are 10 key things to bear in mind:



1) The battle of Bosworth wasn't actually fought at Bosworth

It only became known as the battle of Bosworth from around 25 years after it was fought. Instead, contemporaries knew it as the battle of 'Redemore', meaning place of reeds. Other names for the battle included 'Brownheath' and 'Sandeford'.


Dadlington is located in Leicestershire ( photo: wikipedia.org )


























The site of where the conflict took place has now been located two miles from the battlefield centre, close to the villages of Dadlington and Stoke Golding. The landscape would have been a marshy plainland (later to be drained), across which ran a Roman road.



2) It is hard to imagine the scale of battle sometimes


Richard III's army, at around 15,000 men, was approximately three times the size of Henry Tudor's army at just 5,000 men. Meanwhile the Stanley brothers 


Battle of Bosworth Field photo: tes.com 






















Henry Tudor's step-father, Thomas Lord Stanley, and Sir William Stanley) had around 6,000 men between them. These numbers meant that the battle site would have had to stretch across several miles.


3) At the same time, Richard had an impressive military arsenal
Medieval cannon ( photo: wikipedia.org )


One account mentions 140 cannon, while the archaeological searches of the battlefield have found more than 30 cannonshot – more than any other discovered on a European medieval battlefield.


4) Henry Tudor had landed in Wales on 7 August, and had marched more than 200 miles into England


"This impressive portrait is the earliest painting in the National Portrait Gallery's collection. The inscription records that the portrait was painted on 29 October 1505 by order of Herman Rinck, an agent for the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I. The portrait was probably painted as part of an unsuccessful marriage proposal, as Henry hoped to marry Maximillian's daughter Margaret of Savoy as his second wife".( photo: wikipedia.org )

Richard III had been 'overjoyed' to hear of his landing, confident that he would defeat the 'rebel'. So confident was the king that he even delayed leaving his base at Nottingham by a day in order to celebrate a feast day.


5) A novice when it came to battles, Henry Tudor remained stationed at the back of the field, while his forces were led by the Lancastrian general, John de Vere, the earl of Oxford, who also led Henry's vanguard

In between the two forces was a marsh, which Oxford managed to navigate around, keeping the marsh on his right, before launching an attack against Richard III's vanguard, led by the aged John, duke of Norfolk.


Right: Agnes Tilney, wife of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk (1443–1524). On her kirtle she displays her paternal arms Azure a chevron between three griffin's heads erased or (Tilney) and on her mantle the quartered arms of Howard (1&4: Gules a bend between six cross crosslets fitchy argent (Howard); 2&3: grand quarterly first and fourth Brotherton second and third Mowbray). Below is inscribed in Latin: Elizabeta nat(a) Tilney ux(or) Thomae Howard ("Elizabeth born Tilney wife of Thomas Howard"). Stained glass in Holy Trinity Church, Long Melford, Suffolk( photo: wikipedia.org )


 6) It was Oxford's crushing of Richard's vanguard that began to turn the battle for Henry: Richard's troops began to desert him

In particular, his 'rear guard' – 7,000 men led by Henry Percy, the earl of Northumberland – stood still, and 'no blows were given or received', suggesting that Northumberland's men were kept out of the action. Perhaps they were unable to cross the marsh.


Coat of arms of Sir Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland, KG<br\ > Quarterly: 1 and 4, or a lion rampant azure (for Percy), quartering gules three lucies argent (for Lucy); 2 and 3, barry of six or and vert, a bend gules (for Poynings)<br\ > Henry Percy's mother, Eleanor Poynings, daughter of Sir Richard Poynings, of Poynings, was heir general to her grandfather, Sir Robert Poynings, 4th Baron Poynings. ( photo: wikipedia.org )

Alternatively, tales of Northumberland's treachery were rife. Later he was killed by his own supporters for 'disappointing' Richard. Whatever the cause, the fact that the rear half of Richard's army did not engage in battle left the king in real trouble.


7) Richard was offered a horse to flee the battle, but refused 

Last words of King Richard III 

God forbid I yield one step”, he is reported to have said. “This day I will die as a king or win”. Richard spotted Henry Tudor's standards and decided to charge towards him with his mounted cavalry, perhaps some 200 men in total, wearing the crown over his helmet.


Late 16th century portrait, housed in the National Portrait Gallery, London. photo: wikipedia.org 

 8) The battle around the standards was brutal
All accounts attest to Richard's strength in battle. Even John Rous, who compared Richard to the Antichrist, admitted “if I may say the truth to his credit, though small in body and feeble of limb, he bore himself like a gallant knight and acted with distinction as his own champion until his last breath”.


Cover of the 1594 quarto of The True Tragedy of Richard III. ( photo: wikipedia.org )

Richard knocked down Sir John Cheyney, who at six foot eight inches was the tallest soldier of his day, while Henry's standard-bearer Sir William Brandon was killed. Richard's own standard-bearer, Sir Percival Thribald, has both his legs cut from underneath him, but still managed to cling to the king's standard.


9) It was only when Henry was in 'immediate danger' that the Stanleys – or rather Sir William Stanley – came to his aid, crashing into the side of Richard's men and sweeping them into the marsh

Sir William had nothing to lose if Richard had won – he had already been declared a traitor days previously. His wily elder brother, Thomas Lord Stanley, despite being married to Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort, seems to have thought best to stay out of the battle altogether. When Henry was crowned on a nearby hill, one source reported that it was Sir William Stanley, rather than his brother, who placed the crown on Henry's head.


10) Thanks to the discovery of Richard's remains, we now know in detail how Richard must have met his end

One report puts his death down to a Welsh halberdier – the halberd being an axe-like weapon on the end of a six-foot long pole. The king's helmet seems to have been cut away (there are cut marks on the skull's jaw suggesting that the helmet's strap has been cut off) to expose his head.

Several gouge marks in the front of the skull seem to have been caused by a dagger, perhaps in a struggle. Then the two wounds that would have killed Richard include the back part of his skull being sheathed off by what seems to be a halberd; if this did not kill him, a sword blade thrust from the base of the skull straight through the brain certainly would have done the job.

Richard was then placed on the back of a horse, trussed up like a hog (his insignia) with his 'privy parts' exposed, to be taken to Leicester, where his body was put on public display.


The death of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, from an 18th-century illustration photo: wikipedia.org

In conclusion, Bosworth remains a battle with an enduring appeal: it is not simply a tale of defeat and victory, but also of treachery and intrigue. 


Memorial to Richard III until 2015 in the choir of Leicester Cathedral photo: wikipedia.org

But as recent discoveries have shown, the battle's own history remains very much a living one, with our understanding of where the battle was fought and how exactly Richard III died being completely transformed in recent years. The story of Bosworth, 529 years on, remains very much alive.


Other articles on the same theme:





Story source:


The above post is reprinted from materials provided by HistoryExtra. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Monday, October 31, 2016

William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066

Battle of Hasting Photo source: Wikipedia
William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066 marked the removal of the Anglo-Saxons to the throne and opened the way to the establishment to the throne as the first Norman king. The consequences of this battle were amazing: forever changed the way the English language was spoken.

1066 was marked by the near death of King Edward the Confessor, who had no his successor, and many Europeans wanted to take the throne after his death. It is believed that Edward, whose mother was originally from Normandy and promised the throne to his cousin, William, Duke of Normandy. However, King changed his decision last moments of his life, naming him as his successor his brother, Harold Godwinson Count Wessex. King Edward died on January 5, 1066.

William the Conqueror photo source alchetron

The next day, Godwinson was crowned and became King Harold II of Westminster's keeping the tradition of Anglo-Saxon kings, which have been on the throne for six centuries, from the time the Roman Empire disappeared.

King Harald of Norway Hadrada became interested in obtaining the throne and exiled with his brother of newly crowned king, staged an invasion scheduled for September of 1066. On September 25 broke the Battle of Stamford Bridge, a ferocious confrontation after which both the king of Norway and its ally died. Just days after this event, King Harold and realized that it is again in danger, William the Conqueror initiating an attack proportions against him and holding an army of about 7,000 soldiers, to whom was added and infantry. Harols's army and that of William clashed at a distance of about 7 miles from the city of Hastings, on 14 October 1066. For William, the battle was an unexpected success, and among the deceased who was King Harold according to legend, he was struck by an arrow in one eye.

Since then, the 6 centuries of government Anglo-Saxon ended and the Norman conquest of England ended on Christmas Day, when William was crowned in Westminster Abbey, becoming the first king of origin Norman England. 


This event changed the history of England, but also world history forever. This territory entered a strong connection to Scandinavia and also marked a cultural transformation of England. In the months following, the Normans began imposing castles that had the role of building the fortifications, but also to defend the Anglo-Saxon rebellions. Just months after his coronation, William started the beginning of the construction of the Tower of London and Windsor Castle. Moreover, using English labor, built enormous fortresses, which represented a model for future Anglo-Saxon manor.


But the most important transformation was found in the spoken language. Immediately after the victory, he became predominant French and the British monarchy's motto still is the phrase in French "Dieu et mon droit". Old English language used by the Anglo-Saxons looked like German and French language Normans combined with the language and thus was born modern English. Words used by Norman were introduced in this new language and are used today: beef (beef), Button (Buttons), Duke (lead), flowers (flowers), justice (justice), marriage (matrimony) , soldier (soldier). French names were also highly used in England, and Henry and Richard have become extremely common. In the thirteenth century, the name of William originated from Germanic (Wilhelm) was the most common surname among men across England. Even today, it is extremely popular and will become the name of an English monarch for the fourth time, where Prince William will get the throne.


Other articles on the same theme:




Story source: 


The above post is reprinted from materials provided by History . Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.