Charlemagne's Remains Proven--Kind Of

You know Charlemagne---aka Charles the Great, Karl der Grosse, Carolus Magnus, to name a few.  He was born in 747 or 748, although popular tradition states 742.  He died on January 28, 814 in Aachen (in modern Germany) and was entombed in the Aachen Cathedral.

Gilded sarcophagus of Charlemagne in Aachen Cathedral.  Photo:  DPA

He became King of the Franks in conjunction with his brother, but when his brother died in 771, Charles pre-empted his brother's heirs and became sole king.  Through military campaigns he annexed northern Italy in 773-774, assuming the Lombard crown as well.  He suffered a major defeat in Spain, but then annexed Bavaria in 787-788.

Charlemagne was able to expand his empire and maintain it through the interweaving of military ability, diplomatic skill, determined bureaucratic regulation, and a knack for maintaining a good relationship with the papacy. His focus on strengthening the role of ecclesiastics, who were mostly learned men, in his kingdom also led to a revival of culture within the kingdom.

His relationship with the papacy grew even stronger when, in 799, Pope Leo III was physically attacked by a group of Romans that included some high-ranking members of the church, who accused him of misconduct and tyranny.  Pope Leo fled to Charlemagne for protection, who then negotiated with Pope Leo's attackers so that, in lieu of being judged, he publicly swore an oath purging himself of the charges that had been laid against him.  Two days later, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans."

Charlemagne's sarcophagus was opened in secret by German researchers back in 1988.  After nearly 26 years, these researchers confirmed 1200 years to the day since the emperor's death, that the bones interred are in fact--most likely--those of Charlemagne.  Most of the bones were recovered from the sarcophagus, although some skull fragments were taken from a bust of the emperor.  Some bones are missing, and the researchers speculate they were given away in the years after the emperor's death as relics.

The determination that the remains are "probably" those of Charlemagne is based on the fact that the bones are consistent with the descriptions of Charlemagne--an older, thin, unusually tall man for the times (6 feet) that showed indications of a possible injury to the kneecap and heel bones that would be consistent with descriptions indicating that Charlemagne walked with a limp.

Source:  "The Local: Germany's News in English", Germany edition, January 31, 2014, http://www.thelocal.de/20140131/charlemagne-bones-proven-genuine-1200-years-later

This Day in History - January 30th

On this day in 1077:

Pope Gregory VII pardoned Henry IV, the German king and Holy Roman Emperor.  Henry had engaged in a long struggle with the Pope over the question of lay investiture, the right of a ruler to install men of his choice as bishops and abbots.  Henry was excommunicated by the Pope, but did penance at Canossa and his excommunication was withdrawn.

On this day in 1349:

Gunther von Schwarzburg was elected King of Germany by opponents of Emperor Charles IV after the throne was refused by Edward III, King of England.  Gunther did not enjoy the position for long:  He was defeated by Charles at Eltville, and renounced his claims after being paid 20,000 silver marks.  He didn't get to enjoy that long, either--he died 3 weeks later in Frankfort.

On this day in 1592:

Ippolito Aldobrandini is elected as Pope, and becomes Pope Clement VIII.  One of the largest milestones of his papacy was the reconciliation of the Church and King Henry IV of France.  Three years after he became Pope, he initiated an alliance between European Christian powers to fight against the Ottoman Empire in what became known as "The Long War" and which outlasted his lifetime.

On this day in 1647:

The Scots agree to sell Charles I to England for 400L.  Charles I inherited a lot of issues along with the throne.  Financially strapped and unpopular with parliament, he incited a rebellion in Scotland when he tried to force a new prayer book on them.  In order to address the rebellion, he attempted to call Parliament twice, but failed.  His attempt to then have 5 members of Parliament arrested upon the advice of his wife ultimately resulted in civil war when he raised his standard against Parliamentary forces at Nottingham in 1642.  His supporters (Cavaliers) and supporters of Parliament (Roundheads) were further divided by religious and economic issues.  Supported by the growing middle class of merchants and tradesmen, along with those of the nobility who were embracing Puritanism, the Roundheads had greater financial resources, and a larger population base from which to draw support.

Oliver Cromwell routed the Cavaliers in 1645.  About a year later, Charles surrendered to the Scots, who then ransomed him back to England.  His homecoming was not pleasant:  Charles was tried for treason and executed in 1649.  For additional information, check out this blog:  Today in British History

Family Drama, Middle-Ages Style

Everything is made into a reality series for television, it seems.  From following folks who catch massive fish barehanded, to the family squabbles of a pawnshop owner, to the foibles of a juvenile would-be beauty queen, a sort of public voyeurism seems to be all the rage.

I can only imagine the eagerness with which people would flock to the tablets, smartphones, or DVRs for the drama that surrounded King Alfonso XI of Castile.

King Alfonso XI.  Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Source: "Chroniques" Vol I by Jean Froissart
Illumination by Virgil Master, c. 1410

King Alfonso's marriage to Maria of Portugal in 1328 was no doubt arranged for its political and/or material benefits.  Unfortunately for Maria, he was not especially fond of his wife, and showed a marked preference for a lady by the name of Leonor de Guzman.  In fact, once Queen Maria produced the required son, Pedro, 1334, she and the boy were sent away from the Royal Court to essentially live in exile.  She supposedly requested that King Alfonso stop making a public display of his preference for his mistress, which he ignored.  Leonor was presented with considerable property, and was installed in Seville, where it's believed that she even was allowed to involve herself in political matters.

Leonor de Guzman was a widow of Juan de Velasco, who had died in 1328.  She was the daughter of a nobleman, Pedro de Guzman, and her mother, Beatriz Ponce de Leon, was a great-granddaughter of King Alfonso IX of Leon.  She and King Alfonso had ten children.

When King Alfonso XI died in 1350, Pedro, as the legitimate son, became the new King of Castile.  He had a long memory, and now that his exile was over, he had scores to settle.  He wasn't nicknamed Pedro the Cruel without reason.  Coming into the throne with a Court that had for years been under the influence of Leonor and her sons meant that Pedro was stepping into the midst of intrigue.

Physical descriptions give him as being blond-haired and blue-eyed, thin, and with a slight speech impediment.  His personality was said to be manipulative and vindictive.  Several members of the aristocracy were assassinated or executed even after they had thought they had made peace with him.  One of his first targets was Leonor herself.  He had her imprisoned, and she was executed upon the orders of Pedro's mother--the slighted Queen Maria--in 1351.

The treatment of his mother doesn't seem to have curbed a similar tendency in Pedro, for he preferred his mistress to his wife.  He married Blanche de Bourbon, daughter of the Duke of Bourbon, to solidify the alliance with France, and which also brought a massive dowry.  They were married in 1353, and two days after the ceremony, he abandoned his new bride for his mistress.  The resulting scandal strained the alliance with France, and caused Pedro to fall afoul of the Papacy.  He tried to obtain an annulment, but ultimately had her imprisoned, and then murdered in 1361.

Pedro wasn't done causing problems.  Castile had historically directed its martial energies toward the Moors in the south in Granada.  Pedro ended the hostilities with them, instead allying with them to invade his fellow-Christian kingdom of Aragon because he had decided he wanted to control the Iberian peninsula.

Having successfully stirred up trouble away from home, Pedro now concentrated on home.  In 1358 he invited his illegitimate yet powerful half-brother, Fadrique, to have dinner with him at the palace in Seville.  Fadrique was escorted to the dinner table by Pedro's guards, where an execution order was given, and Fadrique's head was smashed in from behind by a mace.  Pedro then went through the castle murdering members of the contingent that had traveled to the castle with Fadrique.  The story is that he then returned to his table, only to find the unfortunate Fadrique still alive.  He gave a dagger to a page and told him to finish the job.  According to chronicles, Pedro then sat down and finished his meal.

This proved to be too much.  Fadrique's twin brother, Enrique, approached the ruler of Aragon, Pere III, with whom Pedro had gone to war.  When the Aragonese King agreed to support Enrique, many of Castile's nobles also sided with Enrique.  The war that resulted ultimately drew in England and France, making Iberia a part of The Hundred Years War.

Image from Froissart's "Chroniques" Pedro the Cruel killing a prisoner after
the Battle of Najera.  If the image here is a true and accurate portrayal of the
 event, the location of the wound being inflicted could indicate either practicality (the armor
 would be hard to penetrate anywhere other than the articulations) or the illustrator's attempt to
show Pedro's cruelty, as such a wound results in a miserable, sometimes lingering death.

By 1366, after ten years of warfare with Aragon, Enrique succeeded in forcing Pedro to abandon his kingdom.  In return, Pedro reached an agreement with Edward, the Black Prince and the English invaded the Iberian peninsula.  The English army numbered 28,000.  They defeated a combined force of Castilian and French at the Battle of Najera on April 3, 1367.  Enrique escaped, but many of his followers were captured.  Pedro saw one of his former followers among the prisoners and, in a fit of rage, stabbed him to death.  The Black Prince was appalled at both the dishonor of the conduct, and the disregard for potential ransom.  Pedro then offered to pay the ransom for every captive.  Prince Edward refused, saying he wouldn't let Pedro pay the ransom, even if he payed more than the prisoners were worth, because he believed that Pedro would murder them all.

The alliance with England was over shortly afterward, when Pedro delayed sending the money he had promised to Prince Edward.  With the departure of the English, the Castilians again threw their support behind Enrique.  He also succeeded in getting a defector from the French--Bertrand du Guesclin, a knight and one of the commanders of the Free Company mercenaries.  Two years after the defeat at Najera, Pedro was ambushed and found himself under siege in the castle of Montiel.

Pedro's intrigues were not over yet.  He sent a knight who knew the French knight to offer him a huge bribe if Bertrand would let Pedro escape.  The next day Pedro got word that Bertrand had accepted the offer, and he and a few of his followers sneaked out of the castle and went to the French camp.  He was delayed there by Bertrand until Enrique arrived.

That was when Pedro realized that Bertrand had set him up.  The events that happened next aren't entirely clear, as they differ slightly depending on what chronicle is read.  Regardless of precisely what insults they hurled at each other, they both drew weapons and wound up on the ground, grappling with each other.  It seems that Pedro was on the verge of winning, but someone pulled him off of Enrique.  According to Froissart's chronicle, Enrique then killed Pedro with a sword-thrust to the stomach.  Enrique thus became the undisputed King of Castile.  Bertrand was rewarded with six towns and 200,000 gold doubloons.  He was summoned back to France by the king in 1370 and became commander of the military there, where he helped France to regain much of the territory it had lost to England.

It sounds to me like there's enough material here to cover at least two or three television seasons.  Move over, Kardashians.

Stepping from Reality to Legend - The Story of Elizabeth Bathory

It would seem that the Near East, perhaps more steeped in superstition than the West, has given rise to numerous legends.  One of the best known, of course, is that of Vlad Drakul, or Dracula.  A less well-known one involves Elizabeth Bathory, "The Blood Countess."




Image of Original Painting of Elizabeth Bathory
 

The legend that grew up around this woman is, of course, dramatic and exciting.  Written versions did not appear until more than 100 years after Elizabeth's death.  She was said to be a cruel and incredibly beautiful woman who became involved in the occult.  She came to believe that the blood of young women would revitalize her youth and beauty, and, determined to keep them, she kidnapped and murdered young girls to bathe in their blood.  By the late Middle Ages, the number of deaths laid at her door numbered around 600.

Her dark deeds were brought to light when the bodies of some young noblewomen were found thrown from the castle towers, drained of blood.  The locals began to suspect the countess and went to authorities.  King Matthias II sent his delegation, who discovered rooms spattered with blood, and in some versions, virtually caught the countess red-handed in the midst of her beauty ritual of bathing in blood.  The countess' accomplices were executed, and the countess herself imprisoned in her castle until her death.

Elizabeth Bathory was an actual person.  She was born into a very prominent and wealthy Transylvanian family in 1560.  Her cousin, Stephen Bathory, was King of Poland between 1576 and 1586.

At age 15, Elizabeth was married to Ferencz Nadazdy, also of a powerful and influential family, and the couple lived in a castle near Cechtice.  Her husband was a soldier and an intellectual who was often away, either engaging in battles or studying in Vienna.  This left Elizabeth to manage the castle, properties and business affairs of her husband.

She proved herself more than capable, sometimes personally interrogating prisoners, which in those times often involved various degrees of torture.  There is some possibility that she and her family were Protestant adherents, which may have added to the ill-will between her family and the Hapsburgs.  As did all powerful people in those times, she had numerous political enemies.  When her husband died in 1604, it is extremely likely that her wealth and lands were eyed as glittering prize by her enemies. 

In 1610, the Hungarian King Matthias II, who owed significant sums to Nadazdy, sent his Viceroy to the Bathory castle to investigate rumors of murder.  Documents contemporary to the time state that her believed "accomplices" testified that they had seen her torture and kill between 30 and 35 people.  Some of these "accomplices" were later executed.  Elizabeth herself was never formally and publicly tried, but was exiled to a section of the Bathory castle, where she died in 1614.

Of course, the entire truth will never be known.  Elizabeth may very well have been a cruel and harsh taskmistress who tortured and murdered political prisoners, or who abused or even murdered servants who fell afoul of her.  It is also entirely possible that King Matthias found a strong-willed, wealthy, and influential woman to whom he owed a great deal of money to be inconvenient.  Whether her supposed accomplices were loyal servants who were questioned and then punished for their loyalty, or whether they were poor souls who were bribed to implicate the countess and then murdered so that they couldn't reveal the falsity of the charges will forever be open to speculation.

William Marshal

First, let me say I'm sorry for the delay in a new post--technology is wonderful when it works, but the last few days of dealing with a crashed computer have left me yearning for, well, something else.

But now that I've (mostly) resolved my computer issues, I was able to read an interesting little article from my friends at Medievalists.net about William Marshal, a man who interests me greatly.  For not ever actually being a king, he played a large role in British history. 

He was born in 1146, probably at Hamstead Marshall Castle in Berkshire, or possibly at Marlborough Castle in Wiltshire.  He was the son of John the Marshal, and nephew through his mother to the Earl of Wiltshire.  He married Isabel de Clare, daughter of Richard de Clare, the 2nd Earl of Pembroke, and it is through her that he ultimately became Earl of Pembroke himself.

He served three kings, King Henry II, King Richard III, and, despite a tumultuous relationship with him, King John.  William was known as a talented knight as well as a shrewd statesman, which may be why he was able to not only survive the treacherous sands of shifting alliances throughout his lifetime, but to flourish in them.  He suddenly fell ill and died on May 14, 1219 at his own Caversham Castle in Oxfordshire.

To read the story about how he avoided being ammunition in a catapult, please see the link below:

William Marshal at Medievalists.net