Malevus

Category: History

Witness the transformation across time and interpret the past of human societies while shedding light on the most prominent events.

  • Battle of Culloden: Scotland’s Last Jacobite Rising

    Battle of Culloden: Scotland’s Last Jacobite Rising

    On April 16, 1746, on the moor of Culloden in Scotland, the British government army clashed with Jacobite forces. The Jacobites, led by the claimant to the throne, Charles Edward Stuart, fought to restore the Stuart dynasty to power in Britain. The better-equipped and organized Hanoverian government troops defeated them despite their courage. The Battle of Culloden ended the Jacobite rebellions in Scotland. Pursued, Charles Stuart went into hiding before exiling himself to France, while repression struck the surviving Jacobites.

    What Were the Causes of the Battle of Culloden?

    From 1688 to 1689, the Second English Revolution, also known as the “Glorious Revolution,” took place. Following this revolution, King James II overthrew the Stuart dynasty. The English Parliament entrusted the crown to James II’s daughter, Mary II, who ruled with her husband, William of Orange-Nassau. They were considered usurpers by supporters of James II, who had taken refuge in France. The Latin name Jacobus gave James II’s supporters the nickname Jacobites.

    Primarily from Ireland and Scotland, the Jacobites aimed to restore the Stuart dynasty, of Scottish origin, and return the crown to James II. A rebellion broke out in Scotland in 1689, pitting Jacobite forces against the Orangists, resulting in a defeat for the Jacobites. James Francis Stuart, the son of James II, led the Jacobites after his death. They continued the fight and attempted to land in Scotland in 1708 and again in 1715, all of which ended in failure.

    In 1744, a war broke out between France and England. Jacobite refugees in France, led by Charles Edward Stuart (son of the previous claimant), sought to take advantage of this to invade England. The country was under the control of the House of Hanover, with George II at its head. Despite the lack of an invasion, the House of Hanover launched the second Jacobite rebellion. Charles landed in Scotland in July 1745 and managed to assemble a powerful army. His troops won the battles of Prestonpans (September 1745) and Falkirk (January 1746). Ready to invade England, Charles did not receive the expected aid from France and had to remain in Scotland. In April 1746, the Jacobites took Inverness and Fort Augustus. The Hanoverian forces joined them on Culloden’s moor to confront them.

    How Did the Battle of Culloden Unfold?

    Charles Edward Stuart
    Charles Edward Stuart, painted late 1745 (original now lost)

    The Battle of Culloden took place on April 16, 1746. The two armies met on the moor of Culloden, located between Inverness and Nairn in Scotland. When the Hanoverian army arrived in Nairn, the Jacobite troops were at Drummossie, near Inverness. Since early April, Charles Edward Stuart’s supporters have had control of the city, as well as Fort Augustus, a fortified stronghold at the western end of Loch Ness. The weather conditions were poor due to rain, making the terrain marshy. Scottish General George Murray advised Charles against fighting in this location, where his soldiers would be too exposed to enemy fire, but the young claimant did not listen.

    To win the battle, the Jacobites relied on the courage of the Highland warriors, armed with broadswords and axes. They planned to lure the enemy into taunting them, then defeat them with deadly charges. In contrast, the Hanoverian forces were better disciplined and equipped with powerful artillery and bayonet rifles. They used a new technique to break the momentum of the Highlanders’ charges: to render the Scottish shields ineffective, soldiers aimed their bayonets at the enemy coming from the right rather than targeting those coming directly in front.

    Who Won the Battle of Culloden?

    The government army, commanded by the Duke of Cumberland, won the Battle of Culloden. Better organized, the Hanoverians pounded the Jacobites with their cannons and mowed down enemy charges with shrapnel and grenades. In less than an hour, they managed to rout the Jacobite army. General Cumberland commanded the execution of the wounded and low-ranking prisoners. He also hunted down Jacobite survivors in the surrounding villages, searching barns and setting fire to houses near the battlefield.

    The repression resulted in tens of thousands of casualties, earning Cumberland the nickname “Butcher of Culloden.” High-ranking Jacobite prisoners faced imprisonment and trials. High treason led to the trial and execution of some officers. The government offered Charles Edward Stuart’s head as a reward. To escape his pursuers, the Jacobite leader disguised himself as a woman and hid in the western Highlands. In September 1746, he managed to board a ship that took him back to France.

    Who Were the Combatants in the Battle of Culloden?

    The Battle of Culloden pitted the Hanoverians against the Jacobites. The Hanoverian government army, consisting of 8,000 men, fought for King George II, the King of Great Britain. Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, one of King George II’s sons, commanded it. Its ranks included Englishmen, as well as Germans and Lowland Scots, close to England. The Jacobites, numbering 7,000, were under the command of Charles Edward Stuart and General George Murray. Charles Stuart, nicknamed “Bonnie Prince Charlie,” led the second Jacobite rebellion.

    The son of James Francis Stuart and the grandson of James II, he aimed to reconquer the throne of Great Britain and restore the Stuart dynasty. The Jacobite army mainly consisted of Scottish Highlanders, Irishmen, and a few English loyal to the Stuarts, but also Scottish and Irish soldiers from the French army (the Irish Brigade). Indeed, King Louis XV of France was at war with Great Britain and unofficially supported his cousin Charles.

    How Many Deaths Were There in the Battle of Culloden?

    The Hanoverian camp reported only 300 deaths and wounded from the Battle of Culloden. Among the Jacobites, the toll is heavier: between 1,500 and 2,000 dead and wounded. The Hanoverians capture 3,800 Jacobite soldiers and 200 soldiers from France.

    What Were the Consequences of the Battle of Culloden?

    The Battle of Culloden marks the end of the Jacobite rebellions. The British government handsomely rewarded the Scottish lords who remained loyal to it. On the other hand, the Jacobite-supporting nobles lost their lands. As part of a policy to integrate Scotland into the rest of Great Britain, the government drafts laws abolishing the hereditary rights of lords and clan chiefs in the Highlands. This weakens the identity of the Highlanders and, more broadly, Gaelic culture.

    In 1746, the Dress Act declared the wearing of tartan and kilt, the main elements of traditional Scottish costume, illegal. Loyal subjects of Scottish origin received the confiscated lands from the Jacobites. These individuals create large pastures for sheep farming and expel the peasants present on their lands. Many Highlanders emigrate to the Lowlands or settle in North America. We refer to these massive population movements as the “Highland Clearances.”

    Charles Edward Stuart, on the other hand, takes refuge in France and converts to Protestantism, hoping one day to reign over England and Scotland. Expelled from France in 1748, he stayed in Avignon, in papal territory. In 1759, he failed to convince the French to invade Great Britain, which definitively ended his project to ascend to the throne. He settled in Italy and died in Rome in 1788, without any legitimate descendants.

  • The Consulate: Napoleon Bonaparte Came to Power in 1799

    The Consulate: Napoleon Bonaparte Came to Power in 1799

  • Operation Fortitude: A Distraction for the 1944 D-Day Landings

    Operation Fortitude: A Distraction for the 1944 D-Day Landings

  • Italian Campaign: Led by Napoleon I Between 1796 and 1797

    Italian Campaign: Led by Napoleon I Between 1796 and 1797

  • People’s Spring: Summary of the March 1848 Revolution

    People’s Spring: Summary of the March 1848 Revolution

  • Protohistory: The Transition from Prehistory to History

    Protohistory: The Transition from Prehistory to History

    Protohistory is a pivotal period that begins at the end of Prehistory and ends at the beginning of History (with the advent of writing). It encompasses the Bronze and Iron Ages, characterized by the emergence of new tools and currencies. It is also characterized by the founding of the first cities, the emergence of a hierarchical society, and the birth of the economy.

    What Is Protohistory?

    The term “Protohistory” is composed of the Greek “proto” (first) and the word “history.” It first appeared in the late 19th century with a somewhat vague meaning: according to the Dictionary of the French Language (or Littré), the adjective “protohistorique” means “belonging to the beginnings of history.” Protohistory marks the transition between prehistory and history.

    Over time, the definition has become more refined. Protohistory now refers to the intermediate period between Prehistory and History. By metonymy, the term Protohistory can also refer to “the science that encompasses all knowledge about peoples without writing contemporary to the first historical civilizations” (Encyclopædia Universalis). Modern researchers define it as a period of production economy without writing.

    Protohistory is characterized by the progressive structuring of society, significant changes in habitat, the emergence of hierarchy and administrative power, and the birth of an advanced economy.

    buy flagyl online https://jayhawkfoot.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/flagyl.html no prescription pharmacy

    The development of rock art, the emergence of statuary, and most notably, the discovery of metallurgy and the emergence of currency, mark this period. The period also saw the development of early commercial exchanges.

    How Does Protohistory Begin?

    Protohistory corresponds to the Bronze and Iron Ages.

    buy synthroid online https://jayhawkfoot.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/synthroid.html no prescription pharmacy

    It begins at the end of the Neolithic, during the Copper Age (Chalcolithic). This period is mainly known for megalithic culture (4500 BCE) and its anthropomorphic steles, especially those present in the northern Mediterranean. It encompasses the Bronze Age (2100 BCE) and the Iron Age.

    The beginnings of Protohistory are marked by significant innovations, such as the use of salt for food preservation. Habitats undergo a major change. Villages are structured and fortified. Soltnitsana (Bulgaria) is Europe’s first known city.

    In Europe, as well as in Russia and Siberia, several cultures develop, including:

    • The Corded Ware culture (Northern Europe, 3000–2200 BCE)
    • The Catacomb culture (Ukraine, 2800–2200 BCE)

    The Afanasevo culture, also known as Afanasievo, originated in southern Siberia between 3300 and 2400 BCE.

    The use of copper spreads in North America, where native copper, without metallurgy, is evident in the Great Lakes region around 3000 BCE. In South America, copper metallurgy appeared in the Andes around 1300 BCE. Metallurgy appeared around 3000 BCE in Anatolia and spread to Western Europe and China around 2000 BCE, marking the end of the Neolithic in Eurasia.

    What Are the Regions of Protohistory?

    During Protohistory, the main regions of human occupation were:

    • Near East;
    • Mesopotamia;
    • Anatolia (Southeast Asia);
    • Balkans and Greece;
    • Central Europe (along the Danube);
    • Southern Europe;
    • Egypt;
    • Maghreb;
    • China;
    • Sub-Saharan Africa;
    • Mississippi Basin;
    • Mexico;
    • Andes.

    The evolution of burial customs defines protohistory. In Egypt, this period corresponds notably to the construction of the Pyramids of Giza. Among the major protohistoric sites, the Great Wall of China, built in the 3rd century BCE, is also noteworthy.

    The founding of Marseille in 600 BCE by Greeks from Phocaea is considered a key date of Protohistory in the Mediterranean. Southern France developed a network of settlements, most of which remained occupied until the Roman period. Among them is Lattara, located in a lagoon environment south of the current city of Montpellier.

    What Are the Different Periods of Protohistory?

    The Chalcolithic (3500–2100 BCE, or Copper Age) is the last period of the Neolithic. This transitional period between the end of Prehistory and the beginning of Protohistory is debated internationally, with some researchers considering it should be linked to Prehistory.

    The Bronze Age (2100–860 BCE) is divided into three periods:

    • The Early Bronze Age took place from 2100 to 1600 BCE.
    • The Middle Bronze Age lasted from 1600 to 1350 BCE.
    • Late Bronze Age (1350–860 BCE)

    The Anatolian region marks the period with the emergence of bronze metallurgy, a mixture of copper and tin. The oldest documented production in Europe comes from the Unetice culture (Czech Republic).

    The Iron Age (860–52 BCE) has two distinct periods:

    The period sees the emergence of an elite that governs society, organizing the division of labor, while artisans specialize greatly. New weapons and tools appear the scythe, sickle, and harvester, as well as the folding knife and friction lighter, pliers, files, tongs, and chisels. New carpentry and wheelwright methods also emerge during this period with the appearance of wheeled vehicles.

    How Does Protohistory End?

    Protohistory ends at the end of the Iron Age with the emergence of writing, considered the beginning of History (between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE). Most people agree that Antiquity marks the beginning of History, followed by the Middle Ages and Modern Times.

    Protohistoric peoples like the Gauls, Ligurians, and Iberians wrote little—or not at all. Besides excavations providing numerous pieces of information, we mainly know them today through texts from Greek or Roman civilization.

    The Protohistoric era is marked by a strong structuring of society, an improvement in means of production, and the significant development of exchanges as territories organized themselves. In Europe, Roman conquests, especially the Gaulish Wars (52–58 BCE), left their mark on cultures, landscapes, and languages as we know them today.

  • 1982 Chez Jo Goldenberg Restaurant Attack

    1982 Chez Jo Goldenberg Restaurant Attack

    In the tense climate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts in Lebanon, this massacre occurred. The terrorists targeted the Jewish quarter of the Marais and, more specifically, a kosher restaurant, the Jo Goldenberg, located on Rue des Rosiers in Paris. They attacked on August 9, 1982, in the early afternoon, armed with grenades and submachine guns. They killed six people and wounded 22 others. Law enforcement failed to intercept the assailants as they fled. This attack fueled tensions and increased French distrust toward President François Mitterrand, who was criticized for a pro-Palestinian policy. He promised to combat terrorism, and an investigation began. As some witnesses contradicted each other and the attack was successively attributed to various groups, the investigation stalled. In 2020, after forty years of judicial wandering, Palestinian Abou Zayed, the main suspect in this case of anti-Semitic attack, was incarcerated pending his trial.

    What Were the Reasons for the Attack on Rue Des Rosiers?

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has torn the Middle East apart since the 1920s, has repercussions even in Europe. Indeed, tensions run high between the two communities. The Palestinian national sentiment grew even stronger following the crushing defeat of the Six-Day War in 1967; this sense of injustice breeds a desire for revenge and motivates some to commit anti-Semitic attacks. A bomb attack targeted the Copernic Street synagogue in Paris on October 3, 1980, a day of celebration for Jews. The bomb attack left four people dead and 46 injured. This is the first anti-Semitic attack in France since the end of the war. In 1982, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took a new turn as Israel invaded Lebanon. The goal was to push back the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) forces that were bombarding Galilee from the south of the country. Despite the United States securing a ceasefire, tensions intensified, leading to the alleged attack on Rue des Rosiers in August by members of the Fatah-Revolutionary Council.

    How Did the Attack on Rue des Rosiers Unfold?

    On August 9, 1982, a small group of terrorists attacked the kosher restaurant “Jo Goldenberg” at the corner of Rue des Rosiers and Rue Ferdinand Duval. This restaurant, named after its owner, is located in the Jewish quarter of the Marais in Paris. It is the specific target of this anti-Semitic attack without a clear motive. The tragedy occurred at 1:15 PM, with about fifty customers seated. The assailants (either 2 or 5 according to witnesses) burst in, dressed in gray suits and armed with black bags concealing their weapons. They start by throwing a first grenade into the restaurant, opening fire with submachine guns, throwing a second grenade, and then fleeing while continuing to shoot at the crowd somewhat randomly. A plainclothes policeman present in the restaurant tries to retaliate, but Marco Goldenberg, the son of the restaurant owner, thinking he is one of the terrorists, shoots him and seriously wounds him.

    Who Are the Victims of the Attack on Rue des Rosiers?

    Despite the attack lasting only three minutes, it claimed the lives of six people (three men and three women) and injured 22 others. They are the restaurant’s primary customers and employees. The terrorists continued to shoot as they fled, striking a few passersby with machine gun fire. As previously mentioned, Marco Goldenberg also inflicted injuries on a plainclothes policeman. Among the victims are two American citizens.

    How Was the Investigation Into the Attack on Rue des Rosiers Conducted?

    Jean-Louis Bruguière, the anti-terrorism judge, is leading the investigation into this attack. It is particularly laborious. Witnesses diverge, making it impossible to pinpoint the precise number of attackers. Moreover, the attack is initially claimed on behalf of an anarchist-communist organization called Action Directe. They deny it, and suspicions then turn to a dissident Palestinian group led by Abu Nidal: the FCR (Fatah-Revolutionary Council). Since they, contrary to their usual practice, do not claim the attack on Rue des Rosiers and no suspects are arrested, doubt remains. A neo-Nazi lead is even mentioned before being abandoned. In 2007, Judge Marc Trévidic took over the investigation and decided to conduct interrogations anonymously. These incriminate the FCR. In 2015, France issued international arrest warrants against three main suspects: Mouhamad Souhair Al-Abassi, Mahmoud Khader Abed Adra, and Abou Zayed. Only the latter was extradited from Norway in 2020 and placed in detention. As of 2023, he is still awaiting trial.

    What’s the Secret Pact for the Attack on Rue des Rosiers?

    Le Parisien published an article on August 8, 2019, detailing revelations made by Yves Bonnet, the former head of the Directorate of Territorial Surveillance (DST). He confesses before the court the existence of a secret agreement between France and the terrorist group Abu Nidal, potentially linked to the attack on Rue des Rosiers in 1982. This oral pact would have allowed members of Abu Nidal, who were refugees abroad, to come to France without the risk of prosecution in exchange for their commitment not to commit violent actions. The perpetrators of the attack on the Jewish restaurant were potentially associated with the group.

    What Are the Consequences of the Attack On Rue des Rosiers?

    François Mitterrand, heavily criticized for his policy deemed pro-Palestinian, is greeted with cries of “Mitterrand assassin! Mitterrand accomplice!” as he moves to pay tribute to the victims. To appease tensions and demonstrate that he acknowledges the seriousness of the events, he announces his intention to fight terrorism more effectively and create a State Secretariat for Public Security. They classify the facade of the Jo Goldenberg restaurant as a historical monument and affix a commemorative plaque there. The enactment of a law against terrorism and attacks against state security occurred in September 1986. It provides a clear definition of the concept of terrorism and outlines the procedure by which suspects in such cases will be treated (extended detention to 4 days, lawyer intervention delayed to 72 hours after the start of detention, facilitated searches, etc.).

  • Travelling to the Time of the First Crusade

    Travelling to the Time of the First Crusade

  • Renaissance Kings in France

    Renaissance Kings in France

  • The Fronde: From the Parliamentary Revolt to the Revolt of the Princes

    The Fronde: From the Parliamentary Revolt to the Revolt of the Princes

    Revolts undermined the French royal power for four years, from 1648 to 1652. Originating from the Parliament initially, they extended to the princes of the kingdom. Stemming from excessive taxation imposed by Minister Mazarin, this movement known as the Fronde deeply impacted the young Louis XIV. Upon ascending the throne, he spared no effort to ensure that such a crisis would never occur again.

    What Are the Causes of the Fronde?

    The Fronde movement was born in a particular context. Since 1643, the kingdom of France has been governed by Anne of Austria, wife of the late King Louis XIII and mother of Louis XIV. As the latter is still too young, she assumes the regency of the country, accompanied by her principal minister, Jules Mazarin, a trusted man who has already distinguished himself under Richelieu. But the minority of a king always weakens a kingdom, which can see discontented people take advantage of the sovereign’s inexperience to revolt at any moment.

    Despite this situation, Mazarin’s acceptance among the subjects is far from universal. An outsider, as most consider him, pulling the strings of the country alongside the queen mother, is hardly acceptable. And when this same outsider decides to increase taxes to cover the cost of the Thirty Years’ War, it is entirely unacceptable.

    What Is the Parliamentary Fronde?

    To collect the taxes in question, Mazarin resorts to intendants, who wield significant power. Therefore, the Parliament and the nobility fear that this system will further threaten their situation. On May 13, 1648, the Parliament of Paris, the Cour des aides, and the Chambre des comptes issued the Union decree. Defying the royal prohibition, they decided to assemble to consider state reform. The aim of the movement was to reduce the absolute power of the king and to regain certain prerogatives abolished by Richelieu.

    Thus, during the summer, the representatives submit to the queen mother a program of twenty-seven articles, demanding, among other things, the abolition of the intendants and the principle of not levying any new tax without parliamentary consent. Anne of Austria agrees but does not sign the document. Offended by the deputies’ behavior, she waits for the ideal moment to put an end to this charade. In August 1648, she was surprised by the arrest of one of the main counselors of the Parliament, Pierre Broussel. Immediately, the Parisian population revolts (Broussel is a highly esteemed figure), to the point that the Court is forced to flee the Capital. Filled with resentment, the regent has no choice but to confirm the reform program of the parliamentarians.

    The royal family has already lost some of its prestige, and it takes little to arouse the anger of the people and the nobility. The nobles, the princes, and the population all wish for one thing: the departure of Mazarin, which is still far from being considered by the authorities. Therefore, it became imperative to act, especially as the end of the Thirty Years’ War allowed France to recover its troops. The dangerous Capital is once again abandoned by the royal family, which this time goes to Saint-Germain (January 1549).

    Once safe, the regent’s task is now to reaffirm her authority over Paris. To begin with, the regent tries to install parliaments in the provinces to distance them. But to no avail, as they, supported by the bourgeoisie, raised an army led by nobles (Prince Conti, Duke of Longueville, etc.). Meanwhile, Mazarin places the royal troops under the command of the Prince of Condé, who agrees to besiege Paris. Disorganized, the Parisian revolt lost steam, and the Parliament eventually accepted the peace of Rueil in March 1649 before signing the peace of Saint-Germain on April 1, 1649.

    How Was the Fronde Des Princes Organized?

    After the agreements, the kingdom’s elites are rather satisfied, unlike the people, who are still bending under the weight of taxes while Mazarin retains his functions. However, the Prince de Condé, expecting more privileges from the royal family, is very disappointed and makes it known. Mazarin then seeks the help of Prince de Gondi, willing to betray Condé for a few promises. Thus, on January 18, 1650, the Princes de Condé, de Conti, and the Duke of Longueville were arrested and imprisoned at Vincennes. The shadow of a new Fronde becomes increasingly oppressive, especially since Mazarin did not keep his promises to Gondi.

    The latter demands the immediate release of the princes, but Anne of Austria opposes it. The supporters of the princes take up arms throughout France; the country is on the brink of civil war. When the Parisian population discovers, in February 1651, that the royal family is attempting to flee the capital again, it revolts, invades the palace, and blocks the city. Once again, the queen has no choice; she capitulates and releases the princes. Immediately upon his release, Condé begins to plot his revenge. Mazarin, meanwhile, goes into exile in the Rhineland to calm spirits.

    How Did Le Grand Condé Deal with His Own Fronde?

    Soon, Louis XIV reached the age of majority and, distrusting the Grand Condé, raised troops with his mother to quell the insurrection. Condé had indeed joined the rebellion of the Ormée, going as far as to ally with Spain. Cardinal Mazarin emerged from exile to support the young king in Poitiers, even as the despised minister faced a bounty on his head. France became the scene of multiple devastations, with the countryside pillaged and the poorest dying of hunger.

    Under the command of Turenne, who had once again allied with the king, the royal army marched against Condé to put an end to the prolonged horror. Several battles ensued until the fateful day of July 2, 1652, when Condé and Turenne clashed on the outskirts of Paris. However, on the brink of defeat, Condé received assistance from the king’s cousin, known as the Grand Mademoiselle. She ordered the Saint-Antoine gate to be opened, allowing her troops to enter, and directed cannon fire against the royal forces.

    Condé was thus able to seize Paris, a city descending irreversibly into anarchy. Eventually, the Parisians overthrew Condé and initiated negotiations with the royal power. Among the conditions negotiated was the departure of Mazarin from the country, enabling the king to reclaim his authority over Paris. Consequently, the advisor went into exile in Belgium.

    What Were the Consequences of the Fronde?

    On October 21, 1652, Louis XIV made his entrance into the capital. Mazarin was finally recalled in February 1653, and the last insurrection was suppressed in Bordeaux in August 1653. The Prince de Condé was sentenced to death. Nevertheless, he continued his vengeance by fighting against France and Spain. He was pardoned in 1659 by the Treaty of the Pyrenees. After four years of civil unrest organized by parliamentarians, princes, and the population, France regained some stability. However, its sovereign, the young Louis XIV, remained deeply affected by these events, which nearly cost the country dearly.

    Determined to prevent them from happening again, he tirelessly strengthened his absolute power: he had no prime minister, deprived the parliament of power, and surrounded himself at Versailles (far from Paris and its revolts) with the grandees of the kingdom to keep them under surveillance. Thus, these few years of the Fronde were more than enough to dictate the entire policy of a personal reign lasting 54 years.

  • Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476: History, Causes and Consequences

    Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476: History, Causes and Consequences

  • Vase of Soissons: Legendary Relic of French History

    Vase of Soissons: Legendary Relic of French History

    In 481 AD, Clovis inherited the kingdom of his father, Childeric I. After unifying the Frankish peoples, the Merovingian monarch launched into the conquest of Gaul. In 486, he defeated the Gallo-Roman leader, Syagrius, at the Battle of Soissons. Following their victory, the Franks plundered the churches in the region and took away many valuable objects. Shortly after, the bishop of Reims asked Clovis to return a vase. The latter agreed, thereby transgressing Frankish traditions. One of his men challenged him by striking the vessel, but the monarch swallowed his anger.

    A year later, Clovis recognized the warrior and shattered his skull with his Francisca (a favored short war axe of the Franks). He then uttered these famous words: “Just as you did to the vase of Soissons!” These words have stood the test of time and notably echoed under the Third Republic. Nearly a century after Gregory of Tours first reported it, the story of the Soissons vase continues to generate discussion. However, it carries strong symbolism: the connection between the Catholic Church and Clovis, who asserted his authority over the Frankish chiefs.

    Note

    The Vase of Soissons is significant in Frankish history as it is part of the legendary narrative surrounding Clovis I’s rise to power and his conversion to Christianity. The story illustrates aspects of Clovis’s character and leadership, as well as his relationship with his soldiers.

    What Was the Historical Context of the Vase of Soissons?

    Clovis and the Soissons vase Vase of Soissons
    Clovis and the Soissons vase, Grandes Chroniques de France, 14th century

    In 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire vanished, yielding a patchwork of barbarian kingdoms. Around 481, upon his father’s demise, Clovis assumed leadership of the Salian Franks. Having consolidated his authority, he initiated the conquest of Gaul. In 486, scarcely 20 years old, the Frankish king vanquished the Gallo-Roman leader Syagrius in the Battle of Soissons. This event marked the demise of the final remnants of Roman authority in Gaul.

    The account of the Soissons vase comes to us from Gregory of Tours, who, a century later, chronicled it in his work, “The History of the Franks.” The bishop and historian situate this incident in 486, directly following the Battle of Soissons. Clovis subsequently selected the captured city as the new stronghold of his realm. Following their triumph over the Roman army, the Frankish forces pillaged the religious edifices within Syagrius’s territory, seizing numerous precious artifacts and liturgical decorations, including a splendid vase of unparalleled beauty.

    What Is the History of the Vase of Soissons?

    After the plundering, the Bishop of Reims, Saint Remi, requests that Clovis return the liturgical vessel to him. Eager to please Saint Remi, the young Frankish king, as documented by Gregory of Tours, accedes to his request. Confronted with the gathered booty, Clovis seeks permission from his warriors to retrieve the object for its return to the bishop. This action deviates from Frankish custom, which typically mandates the distribution of wealth through drawing lots.

    Nonetheless, his men willingly acquiesced to their monarch’s request. Only one warrior dissents, striking the vessel with his Francisca, a prized short war axe of the Franks. Clovis tolerates the insult and surrenders the dented vase to Saint Remi. 

    A year later, while inspecting his troops during the March field, Clovis identifies the dissenting warrior. Intent on retribution for the earlier challenge, he chastises the warrior for his negligent appearance. Subsequently, Clovis confiscates the warrior’s weapons and hurls them to the ground. The Frankish soldier stoops to retrieve them, at which point Clovis fatally strikes him with a blow from his Francisca, splitting his skull.

    Why Do We Say “Remember the Vase of Soissons”?

    At the Champ de Mars, Clovis delivers what could be considered a funeral oration for the warrior: “Just as you did to the vase of Soissons!” These words of the Merovingian king have remained famous throughout history, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Third Republic, school textbooks reported the most famous formulation: “Remember the vase of Soissons!” At that time, the national narrative, the story that valorizes the construction of the nation, becomes of great importance. Clovis, the first Frankish king converted to Christianity and grandson of the legendary Merovech occupies a central place.

    It was during his reign that the borders of the Frankish kingdom were extended to most of Gaul. He is also credited with choosing Paris as the capital, and his victories are commemorated, notably at the Battle of Tolbiac. Baptized on December 25, between 496 and 511, he is honored as the founder of the Christian monarchy. Finally, the anecdote of the vase of Soissons, the first act of his reign, is remembered.

    Did the Event of the Vase of Soissons Really Happen?

    The episode of the Vase of Soissons remains a subject of debate among historians today. It is very difficult to separate fact from fiction due to the lack of detailed information about the Merovingian era. The writings of Gregory of Tours, who was not contemporary with Clovis, are the only source from this period. Therefore, it is impossible to confirm with absolute certainty the events the bishop described in the “History of the Franks,” written a century later.

    They could have been distorted or twisted to serve the author’s ideas and used for political purposes. Nevertheless, the story of the vase of Soissons has a strong symbolic significance. Clovis departs from Frankish customs, centralizes power, and asserts his superiority over his warriors. He also demonstrates, through delayed violence, that one does not flout the king’s authority with impunity.

    By returning the liturgical vase to Remigius, Clovis shows his respect for the bishops and aligns himself with the Catholic Church. With his baptism in Reims, he definitively rejects his pagan beliefs and ensures the support of the Gallo-Roman elites!

  • Combat of the Thirty: A Medieval Clash of Honor and Valor

    Combat of the Thirty: A Medieval Clash of Honor and Valor

    The Combat of the Thirty is a marginal episode of the War of the Breton Succession (1341–1365) that took place in March 1351 in the territory of the present commune of Guillac (Morbihan), located between Josselin and Ploërmel.

    Thirty supporters of Charles de Blois and thirty supporters of John of Montfort organized a battle after Jean IV de Beaumanoir issued a challenge. The supporters of Charles of Blois-Châtillon emerged victorious, but this had no major consequences for the rest of the war.

    Note

    The rules of engagement for the Combat of the Thirty allowed for thirty knights from each side to engage in combat. It was agreed that no reinforcements would intervene, and the combatants would fight until one side surrendered or was defeated.

    Origins

    In 1351, during the War of the Breton Succession, the town of Josselin was in the hands of Jean de Beaumanoir, a supporter of Charles de Blois, while Ploërmel was held by the Englishman Robert Bemborough (or Brandebourch, according to Froissart), a supporter of the House of Montfort. The supporters of Charles de Blois besiege Ploërmel.

    One day, while Beaumanoir goes to negotiate with Bemborough, he sees Breton peasants mistreated by English soldiers. He complains to his adversary.

    The ensuing dispute leads the two men to determine the terms of a duel aimed at settling the territorial dispute. Jean de Beaumanoir challenges Robert Bemborough by proposing a tournament similar to those of the Knights of the Round Table. Bemborough accepts and proposes thirty fighters on each side.

    Timeline

    Date

    26 March 1351.

    Location

    The chosen location, the heath of Mi-Voie, is equidistant from Josselin and Ploërmel, near a tree called the “Mi-Voie oak.”

    Arrival of the Fighters

    On the appointed day, the fighters attend mass at the Notre-Dame du Roncier church in Josselin, then arrive on horseback at the chosen location but enter on foot with their weapons into the enclosed field. They must not leave it under the penalty of dishonor.

    The thirty-one Bretons of Jean IV de Beaumanoir immortalize themselves by fighting against the thirty-one men commanded by Bemborough. In this camp is the famous adventurer Croquart, whom Philippe VI de Valois would have liked to recruit. Alongside Robert Knolles, we also notice the nephew of Thomas Dagworth, victor of Charles de Blois at the Battle of La Roche-Derrien.

    The Battle

    Combat of the Thirty
    Combat des Trente: an illumination in the Compillation des cronicques et ystoires des Bretons (1480), of Pierre Le Baud

    The battle begins in a confused melee. The Blésistes lose several men at first; a break is allowed, during which the fighters refresh themselves with wine from Anjou! The lance of Alain de Keranrais pierces Bemborough as soon as the fighting resumes. Croquart, a German mercenary, takes his place at the head of the Monfortists.

    Bemborough and eight of his men are killed, as well as six men from Beaumanoir (not counting those who will die from their wounds). According to legend, the latter, exhausted by the heat, the combat, and fasting, would have asked for a drink, to which his companion Geoffroy du Bois would have replied, “Drink your blood, Beaumanoir; your thirst will pass.” This phrase became the motto of the Beaumanoir family. Guillaume de Montauban managed to break through; the Blésistes then massacred the Monfortists, who would leave the battle “defeated.”

    The surviving Anglo-Bretons surrendered because it would have been dishonest to deprive the victors of the benefit of ransoms. In feudal warfare, one does not seek to kill on the battlefield but to make one’s campaign profitable by capturing wealthy prisoners. According to chroniclers, there are between 10 and 17 dead on the Monfortist side and between 4 and 8 on the Blésiste side.

    Croquart is declared the best fighter for the Anglo-Bretons, while Alain de Tinténiac is considered the best among Beaumanoir’s men.

    Suites

    The outcome of the battle resolves nothing: the Blésists besiege Ploërmel in vain until the spring of 1352.

    During the Battle of Mauron that takes place shortly after (where the Blésists are defeated), seven of the Bretons who participated in the Combat of the Thirty are present; Beaumanoir and Simon Richard will die years later.

    The War of Succession ended in 1365 with the victory of the Montfort camp, represented at the time by Jean de Montfort’s son, Duke Jean IV.

    Combatants

    In a book published in 1770, Jacques Villaret described the Combat des Trente and provided a list of participants.

    Franco-Breton force

    Knights

    • Sir Jean de Beaumanoir, Constable of Brittany, Governor of Josselin
    • Sir Olivier Arrel
    • Sir Caron de Bosdegas
    • Sir Geoffroy du Bois
    • Sir Yves Charruel
    • Sir Guy de Rochefort
    • Sir Jean Rouxelot
    • Sir Robin Raguenel
    • Sir Huon de Saint-Hugeon
    • Sir Jean de Tinténiac

    Squires

    • Geoffroy de Beaucorps
    • Hughes Capus-le-Sage
    • Olivier de Fontenay
    • Louis de Goyon
    • Alain de Keranrais
    • Guillaume de la Lande
    • Guillaume de la Marche
    • Geoffroy de Mellon  †
    • Guillaume de Montauban
    • Olivier de Monteville
    • Maurice du Parc
    • Tristan de Pestivien
    • Guyon de Pontblanc
    • Geoffroy Poulard †
    • Simonet Pachard
    • Geoffroy de la Roche
    • Jean de Serent
    • Alain de Tinténiac
    • Maurice de Tréziguify
    • Geslin de Trésiguidy

    Anglo-Breton Force

    Knights

    Squires and men-at-arms

    • John Plesington
    • Richard Gaillard
    • Hughes Gaillard
    • Huceton Clemenbean
    • Hennequin de Guenchamp
    • Renequin Hérouart
    • Hennequin Le Mareschal
    • Raoulet d’Aspremont
    • Gaultier l’Alemant
    • Bobinet Melipart
    • Jean Troussel
    • Robin Adès
    • Perrot Gannelon
    • Guillemin-le-Gaillard
    • Jennequin Taillard
    • Rango-le-Couart
    • Raoul Prévot
    • Dardaine †
    • Repefort
    • Croquart the German
    • Isannay
    • Dagworth (nephew of Sir Thomas Dagworth)
    • Helichon
    • Helecoq

    Tales of Combat

    The chronicler Jean Froissart composed a lengthy poem detailing the Combat of the Thirty, titled “Here begins the battle of thirty Englishmen and thirty Bretons, which took place in Brittany, in the year of grace one thousand three hundred and fifty, on the Saturday before Laetare Jerusalem”; this text is accessible on the mentioned website.

    Théodore Hersart de La Villemarqué authored The Battle of the Thirty, a poem found in the Barzaz Breiz, drawing inspiration, albeit modified, from Froissart’s work.

    Historical Interpretation

    Presenting this battle solely as an Anglo-Breton confrontation risks distorting historical truth. It is a pivotal episode of the War of Succession of Brittany, involving one faction led by the nephew of the French king and the other supported by England.

    According to historian Jean-Jacques Monnier, the author of History of Brittany for Everyone, “this battle lacked significant historical impact. It essentially comprised French-leaning knights facing off against English-leaning knights, resulting in minimal consequences. It resembled more of a tournament. The battle remained largely forgotten until its resurrection around 1880 during the Third Republic, driven by a desire for commemorative events. This ancient symbol garnered unanimous support from both the right and the left during a period characterized by a thirst for revenge. Patriotism needed to be mobilized!”

  • Music in the Middle Ages

    Music in the Middle Ages

    From the monk’s chant, praising God six hours a day, to the improvisations of a trouvère or troubadour, music’s omnipresence gave rhythm to daily life in the Middle Ages, in both the collective and private spheres. Yet medieval society didn’t think in terms of music; it thought in terms of music, which was seen as the keystone of Christian society in the West.

    The result was a philosophical conception inherited from Greco-Latin antiquity and adapted to Christianity by the Church Fathers, making music as much an art as a mathematical, philosophical, and divine science, contributing through its harmony to the order of the world.

    The Greco-Latin Heritage of Music in the Middle Ages

    From Greek antiquity until the 16th century, a theory persisted that the universe is governed by harmonious numerical relationships and that the distances between planets are distributed according to musical proportions. This is traditionally known as the music or harmony of the spheres. At that time, only seven planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) were known to orbit around the Earth; it wasn’t until Nicolaus Copernicus introduced heliocentrism in the 16th century that planets were understood to orbit around the Sun, corresponding to the seven musical intervals (excluding the octave) from a mathematical perspective.

    This concept of cosmic music originated from Pythagoreanism and gained popularity among Greek philosophers, notably through Plato in his Timaeus and Republic as well as through Aristotle. The theory of the harmony of the spheres flourished subsequently under the pen of illustrious Latin authors such as Pliny or Cicero and remained vibrant in neo-Pythagorean and neo-Platonic schools with authors like Macrobius or Martianus Capella.

    Primarily, it was the philosopher Boethius who synthesized around 510 AD the fundamental principles of Pythagorean and Platonic theory. His treatise, De institutione musica, became an indispensable reference throughout the Middle Ages. Indeed, his work was elevated to the rank of a “best-seller” among medieval musicologists and appeared to be the reference manual in musical education at the University of Paris in the 13th century.

    In it, he categorizes music into three categories: musica mundana, musica humana, and musica instrumentalis.

    buy soft cialis online http://mediaidinc.com/scripts/js/soft-cialis.html no prescription pharmacy

    The first, the music of the world (the harmony of the spheres), is at the top, harmoniously ordering the universe. The human body produces music, which is a harmonic relationship between the soul and the body. The latter characterizes music from instruments and voice; it is the only music perceptible a priori by the senses. Thus, while Boethius distinguishes musical practices linked to the sensible domain, he presents music primarily as a speculative and rational science organized around numbers.

    A Mathematical Science?

    As strange as it may seem to us today, music in the Middle Ages was not only taught as an artistic discipline but primarily as a mathematical discipline. For Boethius, only the theoretical aspects of music are worthy of study since musical practice falls under the manual labor of the artisan, instinct, and servitude. His treatise examines the various types of proportions, consonances, and dissonances based on their mathematical nature.

    This conception of music as a mathematical science was taught throughout the Middle Ages, mainly within the quadrivium of the liberal arts.

    buy antabuse online http://mediaidinc.com/scripts/js/antabuse.html no prescription pharmacy

    In medieval universities, every “student” begins their curriculum with a common foundation of disciplines: the study of the liberal arts, divided into two categories: the trivium and the quadrivium. The trivium brings together language subjects: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. As for the quadrivium, it encompasses the four mathematical sciences: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.

    However, music sometimes occupies a shifting place between the trivium and the quadrivium, as mastery of singing resembles mastery of speech and thus rhetoric. Furthermore, in addition to Boethius’s writings, another musical treatise universally known and used during the Middle Ages is Saint Augustine’s De musica. This latter, bishop of Hippo in the 4th century, considers music the “science of audible number,” allowing for proper modulation.

    buy amoxicillin online http://mediaidinc.com/scripts/js/amoxicillin.html no prescription pharmacy

    Consequently, he undeniably places this discipline on the side of mathematics, but he also understands music as the mirror of universal harmony, in other words, the reflection of divine beauty.

    From Spiritual Science to Musical Practice

    For Christian theorists of the Middle Ages, music allows reason to rise to the contemplation of divine beauty and wisdom. From a mathematical science, music is considered a spiritual and philosophical science that enables one to approach the divine. This explains its omnipresence in medieval liturgy.

    But this conception of music thus requires resorting to musical practice. The encyclopedist Vincent de Beauvais in the 13th century summarized music from both a theoretical and physical point of view, focusing on describing strictly musical aspects of the discipline such as rhythm, melodies, and musical instruments. He follows in the footsteps of the famous 11th-century musicologist Guy d’Arezzo, inventor of the Western musical notation system, who partly rejects Boethius’ treatise, judging it more useful to the philosopher than to the singer.

    Many medieval thinkers, mainly from the late 13th century onwards, subsequently distanced themselves from the founding texts of musical conception, placing practical aspects above theory. For them, music should serve human pleasure and not be limited to the praises of God. This rupture leads to theological debates on the place and role of music. We can think of Thomas Aquinas, who, in his Summa Theologica, accepts the pleasures and diversions that a juggler can bring moderately for the common good of society.

    Finally, let us mention the formula of the most famous French composer of the 14th century, Guillaume de Machaut: “And music is a science that wants us to laugh, sing, and dance; there is no cure for melancholy.” The change in how people perceived music at the end of the Middle Ages is comparable to the Ars Nova’s representation of artistic development. These changes also reveal the duality of this discipline.

    Music in the Middle Ages: A Multifaceted Concept

    Throughout the Western Middle Ages, the Christian view of music presented a notable contradiction that dates back to ancient Greek times. In the 13th century, the Dominican preacher Étienne de Bourbon recounts an episode from Homer’s Odyssey in which Ulysses, to resist the enchanting songs of the sirens, plugs his ears.

    Through this tale, Étienne de Bourbon aims to caution believers about the psychological impact of music. In medieval thought, music was believed to have the power to influence the human soul, which could be both beneficial and harmful to Christian society. While medieval musicians and physicians recognized music’s therapeutic potential, they also warned of its unpredictable and potentially dangerous effects. Not all music was deemed good; the Church Fathers vehemently opposed harmful music, viewing it as a symbol of pagan decadence and effeminacy. Clement of Alexandria sought to ban artificial music that could lead to idolatry, while John Chrysostom warned against its seductive allure, particularly the voices of women.

    One of the greatest concerns for Christian theologians was the figure of the entertainer, whether a juggler, troubadour, comedian, or similar, often regarded as a performer of the devil who could not be buried in consecrated ground. This viewpoint, however, was not universal throughout the Middle Ages.

    Some medieval theologians admired the oratory and musical talents of entertainers, even likening the biblical figure of King David to a “juggler of God.” Medieval clerical literature abounds with tales where entertainers, through their art, could lead the faithful to divine faith. This duality exemplifies the ongoing clash of perspectives on music. While theologians saw music as a means to praise divine greatness, it also held the potential to lead believers astray into sin. Musical practice could either contribute to salvation or damnation.

    The medieval understanding of music was diverse, encompassing various forms such as learned or aristocratic music, philosophical discourse, and artistic expression, whether oral or written, sacred or profane. It defies precise definition, evolving over time and presenting historians with a rich tapestry of cultural and societal issues from the Middle Ages.

  • Marriage in the Middle Ages

    Marriage in the Middle Ages

    Marriage is one of the oldest social institutions, typically sanctioned by law, uniting a man and a woman in a special form of mutual dependence, often to establish and maintain a family. As early as the Middle Ages, the Church sought to regulate the union of spouses very strictly with the establishment of the sacrament of marriage in 1181, codifying marital life from the publication of banns to the consummation. But what actually happened behind the scenes of this so-called marriage?

    The Church Formalizes Marriage in the Middle Ages

    In the 11th century, during the Gregorian reform, the Church sought to impose a rigid distinction between clerics and laypeople. The former, tasked with ensuring the spirituality of society, were required to remain celibate, while the latter were responsible for the biological reproduction of the species and were required to marry according to increasingly strict rules that were identical for all. Marriage thus became a sacrament based on four central pillars: indissolubility, monogamy, consensus, and exogamy.

    The union between a man and a woman must be unique and never be broken during the lifetime of the spouses. The publication of banns is mandatory to ensure greater publicity for the union. Severe sanctions threaten clandestine marriages. The Prior of St. Eloi reminds us that man is made in the image of God (made for himself), and woman is made in the likeness of man (created to help man), which is why she is subject to him!

    By the end of the medieval period, women married around the ages of 17 and 18, and men were about ten years older, an age difference that reinforced male dominance. “Le Ménagier de Paris,” a treatise on morality and domestic economy, is intended for young wives. Obedience is imperative for women, but this does not prevent them from playing an important domestic role. The wife brings to the family her dowry plus a wealth of culinary, horticultural, and educational expertise.

    buy zoloft online https://healthempire.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/zoloft.html no prescription pharmacy

    A woman who exercises authority over her husband is unnatural; a beaten or cuckolded husband is a sign of scandalous inversion, attracting dishonorable ridicule. The ridiculed man must ride a donkey backward through the streets of the city!

    Beat Your Wife or Celebrate Her

    The husband holds over his wife a right of correction that an Italian proverb confirms: “Good wife or slob, every woman wants the stick.” Any head of household can punish his wife and family without anyone intervening. It is only when he exceeds what is ”accepted” that he can be condemned. However, such violent examples are rare; murder between spouses represents, in 1380–1422, less than one case of homicide out of a hundred.

    The strong hierarchy within the couple does not prevent the expression of feelings.

    buy voltaren online https://healthempire.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/jpg/voltaren.html no prescription pharmacy

    There can be a real attachment between spouses.
    buy tizanidine online http://comdistec.com/gallery/images/gif/tizanidine.html no prescription pharmacy

    This marital affection can be seen in the rare epistolary sources from the late Middle Ages.

    Out of Wedlock in the Middle Ages

    At the end of the Middle Ages, not all heterosexual couples were married. Before the Council of Trent (1545–1563), there were other forms of temporary or permanent cohabitation between men and women, even if they were condemned by the church: adulterous relationships, bigamy, concubinage, and second unions after separation.

    It’s the infidelity of the married woman, not that of the man, that constitutes adultery due to the illegitimate children introduced into the household. The term “adultery” is used for women. Concubinage is widespread: clerics live with a concubine as “husband and wife,” sometimes with children too! For many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, this could be a temporary choice while waiting to have a “real marriage.”

    A Calendar for Love

    The Church portrays the carnal act as a duty that spouses have to one another under conjugal law. However, it stipulates that such acts should only occur for procreation purposes and at specific times throughout the year. Spouses are required to abstain on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, as well as during the significant fasting periods leading up to Easter and Christmas, along with numerous feast days dedicated to saints. Furthermore, abstinence is mandated during the woman’s menstruation, pregnancy, the 40 days following childbirth, and prior to the churching ceremony.

    Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the practical realities of human behavior. If these prohibitions were strictly adhered to, the frequency of intercourse between couples would have been limited to one to three days per month.

    buy cialis super active online http://comdistec.com/gallery/images/gif/cialis-super-active.html no prescription pharmacy

    Prohibited Positions

    The position of the woman on top of the man is prohibited by the church, as is the one where the man places himself behind his partner because it reduces him to the level of an animal. Canonical texts and medical works assure Christians that if they adopt these positions or if they engage in intercourse during periods not prescribed by the church, they will give birth to infirm, leprous, and deformed children.

    However, the historian cannot extend his knowledge regarding these prohibitions.

    buy promethazine online http://comdistec.com/gallery/images/gif/promethazine.html no prescription pharmacy

    Was the intimacy of the medieval couple limited? Only revealed to us is the restraint of men and women of the Middle Ages who preferred to cast a modest veil over amorous encounters forever lost.