Category: History

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

Mendicant Orders: Origin, History, and Features

Mendicant orders are Catholic religious orders characterized by living off the alms of others. They consist of brothers, known as friars; sisters, known as nuns; and tertiaries, formerly called Brothers and Sisters of the Order of Penance. The friars make up the First Order, the nuns the Second Order, and the tertiaries the Third Order.

Their members, both friars and nuns, take a vow of poverty, renouncing all types of personal or communal property or possessions and placing them at the disposal of the religious order to which they belong. Thus, they live in poverty, supported solely by charity. In addition to the vow of poverty they solemnly profess, they also take vows of chastity and obedience. Unlike monks, their members are not bound to the structure of a monastery.

Origins of the Mendicant Orders

Saint Francis, founder of the Franciscans — Francis of Assisi, founder of the Franciscans. Image: Uffizi.it.

The mendicant orders emerged in the Middle Ages around the 13th century with the aim of bringing a new direction to the religious life of the Catholic Church. These orders maintained the tradition of monastic rules based on study as well as the active lives of secular clergy, the military, and hospital orders. The Trinitarian Order (Latin: Ordo Sanctissimae Trinitatis et Captivorum; abbreviated OSsT), started in 1193 by the French Saint John of Matha, stood out among these three currents. It was the first non-armed active order in the Church, with its own rules, approved by Pope Innocent III in 1198.

Saint Francis of Assisi was the model of a friar, a man who renounced all material possessions and devoted his life to God under the vows of chastity, obedience, and poverty. Eleven more men joined him, imitating his life, and they embarked on a pilgrimage to Rome, where they presented their Rule of Life and requested its approval. In Rome, they encountered opposition from many monks and bishops who saw Francis and his brothers as beggars rather than religious figures.

However, Pope Innocent III did not share this view and approved the Order of Friars Minor in 1209. This was the second mendicant order, as the Order of the Brothers of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel was already established in Haifa, Palestine, and approved in 1204 with its own rule by Patriarch Albert of Jerusalem, now a saint.

The poverty vow in Mendicant Orders was a central tenet. Members renounced personal possessions and lived a life of radical poverty, relying on alms and the support of the communities they served.

Saint Dominic, detail of Christ in the Outrages, a fresco by Fra Angelico in the Convent of San Marco. — Saint Dominic, detail of Christ in the Outrages, a fresco by Fra Angelico in the Convent of San Marco, circa 1437-1446. Image: Museo San Marco.

A group of religious people who wanted to live in poverty and preach the gospel under the direction of the priest Saint Dominic (also known Dominic de Guzmán) approved the Order of Preachers in 1216.

In 1244, upon seeing the approval and fame enjoyed by the Franciscans and Dominicans, Pope Innocent IV decided to call together all the hermits of Tuscany and impose the Rule of Saint Augustine on them, which was already followed by many canons. This marked the beginning of the Order of Hermits of Saint Augustine (Order of Saint Augustine), which in 1256, during the time of Pope Alexander IV, underwent its definitive unification that continues to this day.

In 1247, the same Innocent IV introduced some modifications to the rule that Albert of Jerusalem had written for a group of pilgrims who had settled near Mount Carmel in Palestine. These pilgrims were living in a style inherited from the times of the prophet Elijah. This marked the birth of the Carmelite Order.

Mendicant Orders and Monastic Orders

Benedictine monks singing Vespers on Holy Saturday.

The mendicant orders exhibit a distinctive “mixed lifestyle,” incorporating elements of both contemplative and active existence. They commit themselves to prayer, placing particular significance on the Eucharist and the Divine Office. In addition, they participate in preaching, evangelization, and education, which constitute their primary pursuits.

An often encountered misconception involves associating the male division, or first order, solely with active life and the female division, or second order, exclusively with contemplative life. However, both factions strive for equilibrium between contemplation and preaching.

Unlike traditional monastic orders that focused on a contemplative and secluded lifestyle, Mendicant Orders embraced an active and public role. They traveled, preached, and lived in poverty while serving the needs of communities.

Several notable distinctions set mendicant orders apart from monastic orders:

Diverging from monastic communities where the leader is known as an abbot for males and an abbess for females, holding a position of authority over the other brethren with a lifelong tenure, friars and sisters have a prior or prioress, respectively. This distinction arises due to their fraternal and sororal nature, with their superior merely being the foremost among siblings. After completing their term, the prior reverts to being an ordinary member.
No distinctions are made between lords and servants or between ladies and maids, as these designations once denoted social hierarchies. Historically, friars included choir friars who were proficient in Latin and often priests and lay brothers who lacked reading skills but still embraced religious life. This contrast was eventually abandoned to underscore equality among the brethren.
Another divergence is the forsaking of the Vow of Stability by friars. This tradition, rooted in Benedictine practices, obligated monks to remain perpetually in the monastery where they initially joined, even if it belonged to the same order. Departure from the monastery was restricted, barring specific duties, with preaching not among them. In contrast, friars stand ready to heed divine providence, venturing wherever it may lead. They might spend one day in a convent and the next on a mission, engaging in preaching one day and tending to the sick the next. Their approach is proactive rather than passive.
In terms of attire, monks don habits for daily tasks but don cowls—tunics featuring wide sleeves and hoods—over their habits for the Divine Office. Similarly, the secular clergy wear cassocks as everyday attire but adopt choir habits for Office attendance. In contrast, friars have a single habit that serves for domestic tasks, preaching, and prayer. It usually consists of a long tunic that represents poverty, a belt, or cincture for the Franciscans, tight to the waist that represents chastity, and a hood over the shoulders with a hood that represents obedience.
A final crucial distinction between mendicant and monastic lives pertains to the location of their establishments. While monasteries are often situated outside cities or in remote locales like mountains or caves, friars’ and sisters’ convents are intentionally placed within urban settings to manifest a visible presence in society.

Since their inception, members of mendicant orders have been granted an array of privileges. These include exemptions from obedience to the diocesan bishop and, even in the present day, specific privileges related to absolution for “reserved” sins, including abortion.

List of Mendicant Orders

Symbol of the Trinitarian order. Image: Agustín Hormigo Valencia. Upscale: Malevus.com

Trinitarian Order or Order of the Most Holy Trinity and of Captives
- First Trinitarian Order Friars
- Second Order Trinitarian Nuns
- Third Order Trinitarian Laity

Order of Friars Minor or Franciscans
- First Franciscan Order
- Second Franciscan Order or Poor Clares
- Third Order of St. Francis

Order of Preachers or Dominicans
- First Dominican Order
- Second Order Dominicans or Catalinas
- Third Order Dominicans

Order of St. Augustine or Augustinians
- First Order Augustinian
- Second Order Augustinian or Augustinian Sisters
- Third Order of Saint Augustine

Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel or Carmelites of the Ancient Observance
- First Carmelite Order
- Second Order Carmelite or Carmelites
- Third Order Carmelite

Servite Order of the Servants of Mary or Servites
- First Order Friars Servants of Mary
- Second Order Servants of Mary
- Third Order Seculars

Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy, or Mercedarians

Over the years, new mendicant orders emerged from these orders as a result of the Recollect and Discalced life movements. Among them, the following stand out:

Order of Friars Minor Capuchin or Capuchins.
Order of Augustinian Recollects or Recollects.
Order of the Discalced Friars of the Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel or Discalced or Teresians.
Order of the Bethlemite Brothers and Institute of the Bethlemite Sisters or Bethlemits

The two most prominent Mendicant Orders are the Franciscans and the Dominicans. The Franciscans, founded by Saint Francis of Assisi, emphasized poverty and humility, while the Dominicans, founded by Saint Dominic, focused on preaching and education.

Mendicant Orders

Order	Official Name	Alias	Founder(s)	Foundation and Approval
Order of Augustinian Recollects	Ordo Augustinianorum Recollectorum	Agustinos Recoletos o Descalzos	Act V of the Chapter of Toledo. Fray Luis de León	1588 – Toledo, Spain
Discalced Carmelites	Ordo Fratrum Carmelitarum Discalceatorum Beatae Mariae Virginis de Monte Carmelo	Carmelitas Descalzos	St. Teresa of Jesus and St. John of the Cross	1562, Spain
Order of Friars Minor	Ordo Fratrum Minorum	Franciscanos	Saint Francis of Assisi	1209 – Assisi, Italy
Order of Friars Preachers	Ordo Fratrum Praedicatorum	Dominicos	Saint Dominic	1216 – Prouille, France for women – Toulouse, France for men
Order of Friars Minor Conventual	Order of Friars Minor Conventual	Conventual Franciscans or Minorites	Saint Francis of Assisi	1209 – Rome, Italy
Order of Servants of Mary	Ordo Servorum Beatae Mariae Virginis	Servite Order	Seven Holy Founders	1203 – Florence, Italy
Order of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Captives	Ordo Sanctissimae Trinitatis et Captivorum	Trinitarians	St. John of Mata and St. Felix de Valois	1198, Rome, Italy
Order of Friars Minor Capuchin	Ordo Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum	Capuchins	Matteo Bassi	1525 – 1528, Rome, Italy
Order of Minims	Ordo Minimorum	Minims	San Francisco de Paula	1435 – Rome, Italy
Order of Discalced Trinitarians	Ordo Ssmae Trinitatis	Discalced Trinitarians	Juan García López-Rico	1597 – Spain.
Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy	Ordo Beatae Mariae de Mercede Redemptionis Captivorum	Mercedarians	Peter Nolasco	1218 – 1235, Barcelona, Spain
Order of the Brothers of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel	Ordo Fratrum Beatissimæ Virginis Mariæ de Monte Carmelo	Carmelites	Berthold of Calabria	Late 12th century – 1209, Mount Carmel
Order of Saint Augustine	Ordo Fratrum Sancti Augustini	Augustinians	St. Augustine and Pope Innocent IV	1244 – Rome, Italy
Order of the Immaculate Conception	Ordo Inmaculatae Conceptionis	Conceptionists	Beatrice of Silva	1511, Toledo, Spain
Order of the Ministers of the Sick	Chierici regolari Ministri degli Infermi	Camillians	Camillus de Lellis	1586- 1591, Rome, Italy
Order of Bethlehemite Brothers	Ordo Fratrum Bethlemitarum	Bethlehemite Brothers	Peter of Saint Joseph de Betancur	1658 – 1984, Guatemala (original foundation). Spain (current headquarters)
Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus	Instituti Sororum Bethlehemitarum	Sisters Bethlehemites	Peter of Saint Joseph de Betancur. Reformer of the Order: Maria Vicenta Rosal	1668 – 1891, Guatemala (original foundation). Colombia (current headquarters)

Mendicant Orders

Profession of Vows

Prospective candidates looking to join any mendicant order are obligated to undergo a period known as the novitiate. During this year, they delve further into their comprehension of the spirituality and distinctiveness that define the institute to which they are seeking admission.

Subsequent to this year-long phase, they formally present their application to become a part of the religious community. This submission is then reviewed by the religious family’s authorities, who carefully assess each case, determining whether to accept or decline the applicants. Once approved, the candidates must publicly make their First Profession of Simple Vows, thus promising chastity, poverty, and obedience to the religious superior of the family.

Following a period of evaluation and, if deemed appropriate, the renewal of their simple vows, which have a duration of one year, those in the religious order must seek to undertake the Solemn Profession of vows. By doing so, they solidify their enduring connection to the religious community, and their lifelong dedication to God becomes an irrevocable commitment. The vows embraced by all friars and sisters encompass:

Chastity

With the vow of chastity or continence for the Kingdom of Heaven, the friar seeks to imitate Christ’s chastity both in action and in spirit, willingly renouncing the possibility of marriage and having offspring, aspiring to a higher good.

Poverty

With the vow of poverty, the friar seeks to imitate Christ’s poverty, who, though the Son of God, was born in a manger, thereby renouncing the possession of material goods, making everything available to the community, and seeking not to attach their heart to possessions. This also involves renouncing any inheritance and the possibility of acquiring personal property.

Obedience

With the vow of obedience, the friar seeks to imitate Christ’s obedience to the Father, even to giving His life on the cross. This entails renouncing one’s own will, striving to obey Christ as manifested in the religious superiority of the community. Interestingly, the vow of obedience is directed towards the religious superior and not the bishop, so all friars are exempted from obeying the bishop regarding appointments and functions; they must only obey the superior and the Holy Father.

August 19, 2023

Lorica Hamata: The Roman Chainmail Used For 600 Years
The term “lorica” meant body protection in ancient Rome, and “hamata” was the name of the chainmail made of interlocking rings. The lorica hamata was the 1/4-type chainmail armor used by the Roman soldiers between c. 200 BC and c. 400 AD. In this type of mesh armor, 1 ring connects to 4 others, and rivets are used to fasten these rings (hence the root term “hamatus” or “hooked”). A lorica hamata was basically chainmail protection consisting of two main parts: a shirt and a neckline for fastening.
About 35,000–40,000 rings made up the armor and the rings could hardly rust thanks to the constant friction between them.
History of the Lorica Hamata
The Gallic Celts invented the lorica hamata before the Romans. The Latin League’s (793–338 BC) armed forces were reorganized after the disastrous conquest of Rome (about 390 BC). During this time, the armor used by the Celtic enemies, ring chainmail, was adopted in place of the traditional bronze cuirasses.
Lorica, quod e loris de corio crudo pectoralia faciebant; postea subcidit gallica e ferro sub id vocabulum, ex anulis ferrea tunica
“Lorica ‘corselet’, which they made chest-protectors from rawhide thongs; later, a Gallic corselet made of iron fell under the same name, an iron shirt made of rings.”
Varro, On the Latin Language (De lingua latina libri) Book V, 24:116.
The ancient Romans used this armor for the first time in the conquest of Hispania which began in 218 BC. As shown by the oldest reliable pictorial testimony, all Roman soldiers were in chainmail in 168 BC without exception. It was reserved for the wealthiest of Roman fighters. They favored this armor for so long due to its superior protection and low upkeep requirements.
Several variants of this armor existed, each tailored to a certain unit and its missions. Therefore, there could be a variety of scout, cavalry, and spearman variants. In the first few decades of the first century, the lorica hamata was gradually phased out in favor of the lorica segmentata. This is the most easily recognized Roman armor by most people.
Historians, however, disagree on whether or not the lorica segmentata really became as common as was formerly thought and for how long. What is known for sure is that in the latter decades of the Empire, the lorica hamata was once again the standard armor, but it seems that certain legions in Africa and Asia never ceased wearing it.
How Good Was It?
Battle of Magnesia, 190 BC.
The primary purpose of the lorica hamata was to absorb the impact of strikes and thrusting movements. However, its design made it vulnerable to stabbing motions, which could cause the rings to separate. Since the rings on their own were insufficient to withstand the force of a blow, a subarmalis, made up of multiple layers of linen and/or felt, was worn beneath the armor. It’s likely that these layers were padded, possibly with materials like sheepskin.
Additionally, an extra layer of chainmail was frequently added over the harness, specifically on the shoulder area, to better absorb impacts. Overall, it wasn’t great at absorbing blows from heavy objects or blocking the arrows, but it was durable, adaptable, and would last for decades when not neglected. In later periods of the empire, Germans and Persians also used the lorica hamata. This armor was further used in medieval Europe and Byzantium.
Features of the Lorica Hamata
Around 35,000–40,000 rings made up the lorica hamata and the rings could hardly rust due to the constant friction between them. The average lorica hamata weighed anywhere between 20 and 28 lb (9–13 kg). The armor was made of bronze and iron, with rings in a diameter of 0.2–0.3 inches (5–9 mm) and 0.04–0.08 inches (1–2 mm) in thickness.
The Romans modeled the lorica hamata’s fastening system after that of Greek “linen armor,” such as the gambeson and linothorax. This happened around the time when the Romans conquered Greece and the Levant in the 1st century BC.
They simply upgraded their lorica hamatas with U-shaped neckline armor that went around the chest, shoulders, and upper back. The uniform side of the U was fastened in the upper back, while its split arms crossed over the shoulders and fastened at their tips on the chest (sometimes with a fibula or brooch).
However, the shoulder pads frequently did not stay in place because the undergarments worn beneath this chain mesh for added comfort were more unstable than the Greeks’ linen. When this armor slid down the arms, the shoulders became exposed. It often continued to slide down the torso in the heat of a battle and blocked the arms at the end.
Thus, extra side clips have been added to the lorica hamata to secure these shoulder pads in place. A piece of cloth or leather was also used to reinforce the neckline. This reinforcement doubled the underside of the neckline and folded over the top by 0.80 or 1.20 inches (2 or 3 cm). A seam held together the fold of the lining, the mail fabric, and the lining itself.
Derivatives
The Warrior of Vachères with lorica plumata. (Image: Daniele Giannotti, Flickr)
Evidence suggests the existence of derivatives of lorica hamata. Among them, most people are familiar with the lorica plumata. One example of this armor can be seen in the statue of a Roman Gaul soldier with a large oval parma shield and Celtic torc necklace.
The Gallo-Roman statue of an ancient soldier is known as the Warrior of Vachères, and it dates from the late 1st century BC to the early 1st century AD (the reign of Augustus). He is wearing chainmail, which is believed to be the lorica plumata. Gauls were the fierce enemies of Rome, even giving birth to the Murmillo gladiators.
Evolution
The development of a more secure way for fastening the lorica hamata. (File, CC BY-SA 3.0)
The development of a more secure way for fastening the lorica hamata went as follows:
- (1) An “open” neckline is seen in the first image. You slip it on top, then fold down the shoulder pads and secure them.
- Later designs are shown in the next two images where new attachments for the shoulder pads are seen (2). The two shoulder pads are secured with a leather strap. (3) A rivet in the middle of the chest keeps this strap in place.
The next three images depict the additional development over time.
- (4) Lower on the chest are the rivets for the retention strap.
- (5) Instead of using straps to fasten the neckline, now rivets are used.
- (6) The strap is finally replaced with a metal attachment. This piece is partially riveted to the chest. There is now a hook at the end of each shoulder arm. The hook for the arm is attached to a button.
Replacement of the Lorica Hamata
Lorica hamata remained almost unchanged in this form until the 5th century AD. It lost popularity in the 5th century and was supplanted by simpler and, most importantly, cheaper ring armor (unlike mail armor, the rings were not connected).
The ancient Roman blacksmiths increased the lorica hamata’s length under Julius Caesar. This armor started just above the hips, grew to nearly the knees, and then returned to its original size again.
The length of the sleeves also varied in size. The first versions did not have sleeves. But later, a few inches of short sleeves were introduced. After that point, sleeve lengths changed based on local trends and cultural preferences. For instance, the Roman legionaries in Syria started wearing lorica hamatas with long sleeves.
Roman cavalryman. (Illustrated by Adam Hook, Internet Archive)
The practice of securing shoulder pads with metal attachments expanded widely by the late 1st century AD. The padding on the shoulder blades also seems to be missing. Around this period, some horse riders started using lorica segmentata shoulder pads instead of the traditional Greek neckline.
Nonetheless, the lorica hamata has been 1/4-type chainmail armor throughout its history (where 1 ring connects to 4 others).
Attachments to the Lorica Hamata
Centurion wearing a subarmalis or thoracomachus under the lorica hamata. A Roman centurion in Pompey’s time. (Photo by Medium69, CC BY-SA 3.0)
The lorica hamata attachments used by the legionnaires varied according to personal preference and the level of threat they faced.
Light tunics worn over chainmail were documented throughout the Roman Near East; thus, it’s safe to assume that surcoats were also used in these regions. While heavy tunics were occasionally worn in the winter, it is known that sutcoats were used in northern Gaul and on the Germanic borders.
Some mesh sleeves could be either permanently attached or easily removed which protected both the arms and legs. It was not uncommon to see the Greek greaves worn alongside the lorica hamata.
Focale scarf.
There are bas-reliefs depicting the use of metal plates to secure the front of the neckline. Also, a scarf (focale) was almost always worn with any Roman armor, including the lorica hamata. It was to protect the neck from the chafing of the armor. This was necessary since Roman armor usually had wide neck openings, which posed significant risks of injury.
Under the lorica hamata was a gambeson called the subarmalis or thoracomachus, which had been worn since Augustus’ time (r. 27 BC–14 AD). Optios and decurions (Roman cavalry officer) wore this gambeson as a mark of status, elaborately ornamented.
Manufacturing
The iron wire used to make the lorica hamata’s rings. This iron wire has been made by driving an iron ingot through a die with holes of progressively smaller sizes. This production method has been the case since at least the 8th century AD.
The metal rings of the lorica hamata chainmail Roman armor, a replica of the 2nd century species.
However, forging an ingot through a die with a single puncture directly generated the finished iron wire in Roman times. Using a single die was significantly more finicky since the wire would break as it was moved around. The iron wire was difficult and cost more coins than cheaper ring armor.
After Julius Caesar’s death, there was a power struggle between Mark Antony and Augustus, which led to the development of a new type of Roman armor called lorica segmentata. This new armor provides clues regarding the production time of the lorica hamata. According to historical accounts, a lorica segmentata required around 70 hours to produce with ready-use iron. This gives us roughly three times as much production time for lorica hamata since it is made of complex wire.
The most commonly used type of lorica hamata was the traditional 4:1 riveted variety. The spinnerets or spinning mills were a thing at the time, but the rings were often flattened and riveted, since this is what we learn from both historical sources and relics. Some of the examples, however, seem to be constructed of “open” ring armor (where rings are not connected).
Some lorica hamatas with 4:1 mesh were also made with a welded ring. In this variant, the 4 rings held together by the central ring were not riveted but welded. Only the central ring was riveted. This probably lowered the cost.
Decoration
The Roman legionaries had their armor and weapons adorned with elaborate designs. Even though this trend peaked with parade weapons, it also included battle equipment.
One or more rows of bronze rings have been seen lining the bottom of the lorica hamata on the remains of some pieces recovered in rivers around the world. This embellishment is reminiscent of what was seen on Indian parade chainmail from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The fibulas (brooch) were used to seal several lorica hamata on the chest, as was mentioned above. This fibula had two arms that met in S form. The entire structure had the shape of a U or twisted lyre, with two arms joined at their bases by an axis. It was common practice to adorn this flat surface. The whole fibula could be chiseled and gilded, and this was the status of rank among Roman legionaries.
The complexity and quantity of a person’s armaments in the Roman army served as one indicator of their wealth and status.
References
Featured image: Photo by Frila, This file is licensed under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Chainmail armor repair. Gallery images: Roland zh, CC BY-SA 3.0
August 18, 2023
Bucephalus: Alexander the Great’s Horse
August 18, 2023
Trade and Commerce in the Middle Ages
August 17, 2023
Murmillo: A Heavily Armored Gladiator with a Fish Crest
August 17, 2023
French East India Company: A French Empire in Asia
August 16, 2023
Beguines: Free Women of the Middle Ages
The Beguines materialized as a devout and communal movement within the confines of the Low Countries, encompassing contemporary realms of Belgium, the Netherlands, and portions of France and Germany, throughout the epoch of the Middle Ages. The name “Beguine” initially denoted females inhabiting semi-monastic enclaves, wholly dedicating their existence to supplication, altruism, and benevolent endeavors benefiting their localities. The movement later expanded to include men as well, who were known as “Beghards.”
Key Takeaways: Beguines
- During medieval times in Europe, there existed a religious movement known as the Beguines. These were ordinary women who desired to lead lives of devotion, prayer, and service, all without committing to formal religious vows.
- Distinct from official monastic orders or established religious bodies, the Beguines enjoyed a level of autonomy. This freedom allowed them to pursue their spiritual journeys while playing an active role in society.
Half-Religious, Half-Secular Communities
Print of a Beguine in Des dodes dantz of Matthäus Brandis, Lübeck 1489.
This community, renegade for its time, was born at the end of the 12th century. Within the feudal tapestry of society, women found themselves ensnared beneath the dominion of patriarchal rule, confronted with a binary juncture: matrimonial union or embracement of the ecclesiastical fold.
Nonetheless, the reverberations of the Crusades cast men afar, while conventual sanctuaries stood in scant supply, necessitating a dowry as an entry fee. What fate, then, awaited these women sentenced to a life of chastity? Unity beckoned as the answer! Thus unfurled the beguinages—a hybrid confluence of spiritual devotion and worldly existence.
A charter of 1065 mentioned the existence of an institution similar to the Beguinage in Vilvoorde (Belgium). In the annals of history, the first beguinage arose in Liège in the year 1173, and a second soon after in Oignies (Pas-de-Calais), both revolving around the devout Marie of Oignies.
The term “beguines,” shrouded in etymological enigma, congregated around the ethos of evangelical poverty akin to the Mendicant Orders, which concurrently thrived in a pious Europe.
Yet, their commitment refrained from formal vows, liberating them to practice their faith in an unparalleled manner, emancipated from constraints. As evangelists, they disseminated their creed, embarking on the translation of the Scriptures and other divine manuscripts into vernacular French, imparting wisdom through their pedagogical endeavors.
Nearly a Million Beguines in Europe in the Early 14th Century
Brussels Beguines.
During the subsequent century, this movement expanded its influence across Europe. Letters penned by Pope John XXII in 1321 revealed a remarkable presence of 200,000 beguines residing solely in Western Germany.
At the zenith of their prominence in the early 14th century, approximately one million Beguines’ voices echoed throughout the continent. In France, upon his return from the crusades in 1264, Saint Louis embraced them under his protective wing, gifting them parcels of land nestled in the heart of Paris.
This gesture emancipated them from feudal constraints and empowered them to flourish beyond the bounds of subjugation. The grand beguinage of Paris flourished into a sanctuary, where the noise of male yielded to the resilience of steadfast women—a haven not of confinement, but of empowerment.
Neither Subjected to Male Authority nor to That of the Church
Saint Elisabeth Beguinage of Kortrijk (Belgium): former house of the mother superior, now the Beguinage museum. Image: Paul Hermans.
Within the confines of these walls, the beguines, free in their exploration of the urban expanse, resided in self-governance. While diligently enacting Christian benevolence, they were also vested with the prerogative to engage in labor.
On occasion, they instituted infirmaries and transition into the roles of caregivers, frequently inaugurating diminutive ateliers dedicated to the crafts of pottery, weaving, textiles, and the art of candle making.
These communal enclaves appointed a “grand dame” who presided over the beguinage for a span of several years, as determinations coalesced during expansive convocations reminiscent of plenary assemblies. This marked an exceptional manifestation of democratic custom during that epoch.
These women attained a state of near-complete autonomy ensconced within the core of the Medieval era. They remained unburdened by marital bonds and unaffected by male dominion or ecclesiastical authority.
Their endeavors encompassed gainful employment, astute management of possessions, and the ability to bequeath these endowments to their fellow beguines. This was a freedom that women had lost for a very long time. Long before these concepts became trendy, the beguines embodied sisterhood and solidarity.
Changing View Under Pressure From the Church
Interior of a convent in the 19th century, Turnhout Beguinage Museum, Belgium. Image: Vitaly Volkov.
As substantiation of their assertion, certain prominent figures within the movement exhibited no reluctance in taking up the quill, an infrequent occurrence for women during that era. Inspired and often mystical, grappling with metaphysical questions, they even dared to write in vernacular languages—a departure from recognized Latin.
Predictably, these unconstrained women unsettled many establishments. Particularly the ecclesiastical establishment, which, subsequent to an initial consent, curtailed their emancipatory endeavors.
Their piety lived apart from any ecclesiastical authority, as well as their ideal of poverty, made them suspicious. Apprehensions arose that they might lead astray the monks, with whom they frequently partook in prayers, from the righteous path and their vow of chastity.
In the year 1244, the Archbishop of Mainz mandated a regulation upon beguinages, stipulating the exclusion of individuals below the age of 40, ostensibly to “forestall the misemployment of liberty by younger beguines.”
Certain individuals paid the price for their self-reliance with their lives. Instituted in 1231, the Inquisition consigned notable personalities to the pyre, including Lutgarde of Treves in 1231, and Marguerite Porete in 1310. In the subsequent year, the Council of Vienne classified the beguine movement as heretical.
The impetus suffered a bust; numerous communities found themselves compelled to shutter their homes and forfeit their possessions. In Paris, the royal beguinage ceased operations in November of 1317.
It would subsequently reemerge with markedly stringent regulations before succumbing to disintegration circa 1470. Universally, these autonomous collectives metamorphosed into secluded enclaves governed by stringent directives or vanished altogether.
Notable Beguines
- Agnes Blannbekin (Around 1250 – d. 1315)
- Marguerite Porete (Around 13th century – d. 1310)
- Colette of Corbie (1381 – d. 1447)
- Juliana of Liège (1193 – d. 1258)
- Margareta of Magdeburg (1237 – d. 1270)
- Mechthild of Magdeburg (Around 1207 – d. 1282/1297)
- Ida of Nivelles (1190 – d. 1237)
- Marie of Oignies (Around 1177 – d. 1213)
- Maria van Oosterwijck (Around 1470 – d. 1547)
- Gertrud of Ortenberg (Between 1275 and 1285 – d. 1335)
- Marcella Pattyn (1920 – d. 2013)
- Marguerite Porete (Around 1250/1260 – d. 1310)
- Christina of Stommeln (1242 – d. 1312)
Marcella Pattyn: The Last Beguine Died in 2013
Marcella Pattyn, the last beguine.
Only the beguine residents of the Netherlands and Belgium survived the persecution thanks to two papal decrees. The initial one, issued by John XXII in 1319, safeguarded those in the Brabant province, while the second, granted by Clement VI in 1343, extended protection to those in Holland.
Their survival was secured through a willingness to distance themselves from certain radical ideals and embrace a closer alignment with the Church. This shift marked a farewell to their previous autonomy as the beguines realigned themselves.
As the 19th century drew to a close, Belgium still counted 600 of these women among its ranks. However, the last beguine bid farewell to the world a century later, precisely on April 14, 2013, in Kortrijk. With her passing, the curtain fell on the era of these pioneering religious women, who defied conventions well ahead of their time.
August 15, 2023
Iron Lung: History, How It Works, and More
August 14, 2023
The Rise of Universities in the Middle Ages
August 14, 2023
A Brief History of the Spanish Netherlands
Up until the 1640s, the expanse of the Spanish Netherlands exceeded the modern-day area of Belgium. These territories were a part of the Holy Roman Empire, having a place within the Burgundian Circle, which encompassed Franche-Comté as well. Among these lands was the Duchy of Luxembourg; however, the Liège region, functioning as a neutral ecclesiastical principality, was not included. By the 17th century, the dividing line separating present-day Belgium and the Netherlands was located farther to the south compared to the boundary between the Spanish Netherlands (also referred to as the Southern Netherlands) and the United Provinces.
From the 15th century onward, the Netherlands emerged as a prominent hub of culture, nurturing diverse religious reforms and fostering the humanist wave. Erasmus of Rotterdam played a pivotal role in guiding the latter movement. Notably, Philip the Good founded the esteemed University of Leuven in the year 1425. The inception of the inaugural printing presses in Leuven in 1473 propelled the Netherlands to the forefront of European printing innovation. Due to its intricate trade networks and sizable financial reserves, Antwerp rose to become an economic center in the early 16th century.
Key Takeaways: Spanish Netherlands
- The Spanish Netherlands, also known as the Southern Netherlands, was a historical region located in the Low Countries (modern-day Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of the Netherlands and northern France).
- The Spanish Netherlands emerged as a pivotal theater during the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648), pitting the Spanish Habsburgs against the Dutch Republic. Ultimately, the northern provinces of the Spanish Netherlands progressed into the autonomous Dutch Republic.
- Distinguished artists such as Peter Paul Rubens, who cast an enduring influence on European artistry, hail from this region.
The Netherlands Entered into Opposition Against Spain
Spanish Low Countries c. 1700 (grey/green).
The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, also known as King Charles I of Spain, who was born in Ghent (present-day Belgium), demonstrated strong determination against the Protestant “heresy” that was gaining ground in the Netherlands in the 1520s. His fight for Christian unity was, in fact, a struggle to maintain cohesion among the scattered Habsburg possessions.
This battle against heretics served in the construction of a centralized modern state, granting the right to intervene in religious matters. Anti-Protestant laws against “Placards” (anti-Catholic posters) were issued between 1520 and 1550. In 1555, Charles V abdicated his claims to the Netherlands and Spain in favor of his son, Philip II of Spain.
The emperor had always been attuned to the social developments in the Netherlands; he spent his youth there and was fluent in Dutch, French, and Spanish.
Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands.
Philip II grew up in Spain and spoke only Spanish. Under his rule, increased taxation, the fight against Calvinism, and a policy of centralization led to numerous tensions with the population of the Netherlands. Philip II offered several representatives of the Dutch nobility a role in the States General, the assembly governing the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands.
He appointed his half-sister, Margaret of Parma, born in the Netherlands and fluent in Dutch, as the governor. By 1558, the parliament opposed Philip II’s demands by refusing to approve new taxes and demanding the withdrawal of the Spanish army.
The dioceses of the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands, inherited from the Middle Ages, no longer corresponded to geographical realities and administrative needs. The creation of new dioceses, a demand that had persisted for decades, was finally approved in May 1559, but it was decided outside the Netherlands without consulting local religious organizations.
The population grew concerned about the rise of Catholic religious absolutism and the strengthening of the Inquisition, which had been officially introduced in 1524. Protestant protests multiplied across the country, and in 1566, a delegation of noble members presented a petition to Margaret of Parma, urging her to halt religious persecutions.
This signaled the start of the “Beggars’ Revolt (Geuzen),” and Calvinist-led iconoclastic riots wreaked havoc on religious structures throughout the Netherlands.
The Breakup and the Birth of the United Provinces of the Netherlands
United Provinces of the Netherlands, The Four Days’ Battle, 1666. Image: Abraham Storck.
Philip II’s grip on the northern regions slipped, prompting him to dispatch his military to quell the uprising. By August of 1567, the Duke of Alba had marched into Brussels, leading a formidable force of ten thousand soldiers. He established the Council of Troubles, tasked with adjudicating all those who defied the authority of the Spanish Crown.
Commencing in 1568, William of Orange embarked on a resolute policy of resistance, culminating in the Union of Arras on January 6, 1579. This pact brought the southern provinces of the Netherlands under Philip II’s dominion. In response, the seven northern provinces—Holland, Zeeland, Gelderland, Friesland, Utrecht, Overijssel, and Groningen—retorted on January 23, 1579, forging the Union of Utrecht.
By 1581, the seven predominantly Protestant provinces asserted their autonomy via the Act of Abjuration, effectively declaring independence and establishing themselves as the United Provinces.
Conversely, the ten Catholic southern provinces remained under the sway of the Spanish Crown and morphed into the Spanish Netherlands. These territories, tethered to the Spanish monarchy, resisted assimilation into Iberian Spain due to their geographic separation by the expanse of the Kingdom of France.
Bearing the legacy of the Habsburgs’ Burgundian heritage, they exhibited a distinctive political and legal identity. A strong commitment to provincial and municipal privileges as well as ingrained self-governance traditions made this uniqueness abundantly clear.
To assert his authority, Philip II had to grapple with the political ethos of these former Burgundian domains, where a profound reverence for provincial and urban rights intertwines with deeply entrenched habits of autonomy.
A Short-Lived Period of Prosperity
Portrait of Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, Archduchess of Austria.
The Netherlands experienced a notably prosperous era referred to as the “Archdukes” epoch, commencing in 1598 with the ascendancy of Infanta Isabella and Archduke Albert, who were the offspring and son-in-law of Philip II.
The sway of the Spanish continued to hold significant influence until the demise of Archduke Albert in 1621. This dominance was owed to the formidable Flemish military and the strategic geographical positioning of the Netherlands. The Archdukes asserted their authority as independent sovereigns, garnering international recognition for their rule.
In 1621, Infanta Isabella assumed the role of the Netherlands’ governess; however, her authority waned due to the resurgence of conflict with the United Provinces. Subsequent governors followed in succession in Brussels until the passing of the final Spanish Habsburg in 1700.
Their primary task was to uphold the Spanish king’s dominion, even as his financial and military backing progressively dwindled. Additionally, they had to navigate the influential counterforces posed by the nation’s elites: the cities, the influential clergy, and the nobility, who wielded control over governmental institutions at all tiers of the state.
The Spanish Netherlands: A Battlefield of the European Wars of the 17th Century
The Swearing of the Oath of Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, oil on copper by Gerard Terborch, 1648.
During the 17th century, the Spanish Netherlands were deeply entrenched in the throes of warfare. They actively participated on the European political stage, extending a warm welcome to a succession of esteemed political exiles who greatly supported the Spanish cause.
Notable figures among them included Queen Marie de Medici and her son Gaston d’Orleans, Duke Charles IV of Lorraine, Queen Christina of Sweden, and the future King of England, Charles II.
The conflict against the Dutch Republic persisted relentlessly until a twelve-year pause was reached in 1609. This hiatus concluded in 1621, and ultimately, in 1648, the Peace of Westphalia was established.
Louis XIV at Douai in the War of Devolution 1667.
Between the 1640s and 1650s, the Dutch emerged as staunch allies, pivotal to the survival of the Spanish Netherlands. Their concerns revolved around the aspirations of the French King, whom they were apprehensive about having as their neighbor.
The capture of Arras in 1640 by Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu marked a pivotal juncture, but the era of Fronde (from 1648 to 1653) enabled Philip IV of Spain’s monarchy to reclaim Dunkirk and Barcelona.
The definitive clash unfolded near Dunkirk in 1658, where the French, in alliance with Cromwell’s English forces, achieved victory over a combined army of Spanish and royalist English troops. The Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 forestalled the Turenne-led French army from annexing the Spanish Netherlands.
In orange, the Spanish Netherlands before its split. In violet, the Principality of Liège. In pink, the princely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy.
In 1662, Louis XIV reacquired Dunkirk from the English prior to initiating the Wars of Devolution (1667-1668) and subsequently the Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678). These conflicts resulted in a substantial one-third territorial loss for the Spanish Netherlands.
The region became a focal point for intermittent conflicts and a theater of operations for the armed forces of prominent European nations. Following the culmination of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1713, the Spanish Netherlands transitioned into Austrian ownership.
August 12, 2023
Michael Jackson’s Height: How Tall Was the King of Pop?
August 12, 2023
Did George Washington Have Wooden Teeth?
While it may initially seem uninteresting or even repulsive, a set of false teeth is poised to unveil captivating stories about its owner—none other than George Washington. The question that everyone asks is: Did George Washington have wooden teeth? Let’s find out.
The Myth About George Washington’s Wooden Teeth
It is an undeniable fact that famous people frequently come with a collection of half-truths and urban legends. These narratives are often born from misunderstandings or the imaginative faculties of the masses. Such is the case with George Washington, who finds himself entangled in a particular myth that has stood the test of time: the notion that he resorted to wooden teeth as concealment for his “edentulous” state.
Although the image of this statesman, adorned in velvet attire and a wig, sporting a face framed by wooden dentures, possesses allure, this narrative is a complete fabrication. So, no, George Washington did not have wooden teeth.
However, the actual truth holds a deeper fascination in this situation, shedding light not only on the man himself but also on the era he inhabited and the emerging domain of a discipline: dentistry.
In a similar vein to Achilles’ vulnerability in his heel, George Washington’s Achilles’ heel lies in his dental well-being. In the year 1756, when he was a spirited and resolute commander at the youthful age of 24, he underwent the extraction of his initial tooth by the hands of Dr. Watson.
This initial procedure paved the way for the removal of an additional 30 teeth, all of which were in such dire states of decay that their retention within the young man’s oral cavity would have been far from reasonable.
While Washington himself attributed his dental predicaments to a habit of utilizing his teeth for the purpose of cracking open nuts, modern-day scholars are inclined to believe that the root cause behind his alarming dental condition was a medication he had been prescribed: a calomel treatment (consisting of mercury chloride) employed in his fight against the smallpox infection he had contracted in the year 1751.
The Emergence of Dentists
Had George Washington come into existence fifty years prior, or even a mere few decades earlier, the statesman would have likely experienced his inauguration with just the single tooth that remained during his election period.
However, a sequence of edicts proclaimed in the latter part of the 17th century would bring about a complete transformation in the realm of medical practice, not only within Europe (specifically France) but across the global spectrum.
This transformation encompassed the establishment of a distinct group of skilled surgeons. The era of barber surgeons, tooth-extractors, and bone setters was left behind. A certification denoting mastery in dental expertise emerged, leading to the advent of the first dental practitioners who set up clinics in urban centers or traversed rural pathways to address the substantial healthcare requirements of the populace.
In the mid-1760s, an English individual by the name of Dr. John Baker became the first dentist working in the United States. His accomplishments were nothing short of remarkable—he tended to almost 2,000 patients in the city of Boston, a settlement that, during that time, harbored a mere 15,500 residents, including more than 2,000 households.
He continued his vocation as a peripatetic specialist, embarking on journeys along the Eastern coastline, reaching as far as Virginia. It was in 1772 that his path intersected with that of George Washington in Williamsburg.
The state of his patient’s dental array didn’t augur well for the quality of his smile in the years ahead. Yet, if salvage was beyond reach for those teeth, perhaps replacement was a possibility.
Teeth, Dentures, and Ivory
Washington’s dentures, by John Greenwood, 1789. Image: Courtesy of the New York Academy of Medicine Library, New York, NY.
A critical differentiation arose between tooth-pullers and dentists, for the former engaged in the extraction of irreparable teeth, whereas the latter undertook the responsibility of imparting oral hygiene practices and conducting minor interventions to safeguard the dental well-being of their patients.
Another avenue pursued involves the advancement of increasingly intricate prosthetic devices aimed at replacing lost incisors or canines, even encompassing elaborate ivory dentures, which gained prominence during the 18th century.
Notably, the Greenwood family ascended to expertise in this domain. The patriarch and skilled ivory turner, Isaac, received training under the aforementioned John Baker. It was his son, John Greenwood, who crafted Washington’s first denture in 1789. This denture was designed to fit over the President’s remaining natural tooth.
Upon the eventual surrender of the last tenacious tooth, Greenwood confronted the necessity of employing an alternate contrivance to obscure his patient’s edentulous (toothless) state. The foundational lead was affixed with a metal spring, exerting pressure to affix the denture securely against the wearer’s jaw, averting dislodgment.
Though perhaps pragmatic in the era preceding the advent of denture adhesives, comfort for the wearer was compromised. The artificial teeth were perforated and threaded onto a brass wire, interlinking them within the framework. However, the most remarkable facet pertains to the material composition. For instance, the sole surviving denture attributed to Greenwood’s craftsmanship integrates human teeth and synthetic teeth meticulously carved from ivory, alongside incisors sourced from cows and horses.
Yet, this amalgamation barely scratches the surface of the exotic amalgamations prevalent during the period. Practitioners often advocated the use of teeth extracted from calves, oxen, human cadavers, and even creatures as unconventional as hippopotamuses, along with tusks from elephants or walruses.
Subsequent to such recommendations, Greenwood fashioned an additional mandibular prosthesis for George Washington, employing hippopotamus teeth. These teeth, possessing heightened density compared to ivory sourced from other species, displayed greater resistance to discoloration and decay, albeit at the cost of increased weight. Consequently, a gold substrate, notable for its lightweight and malleable attributes, provided the mounting base.
Last but not least, some historians theorize that given Washington’s status as a slaveholder in charge of an estate where a sizable number of Africans resided, slaves’ teeth may have contributed to the creation of one or more of his dentures. However, tangible evidence remains lacking.
President, and All His Teeth
Throughout his term of office as president, this assemblage of dentures fulfilled a dual role in Washington’s life. Primarily, its purpose was the restoration of the President’s vocal faculties. It is quite easily overlooked, but teeth hold a pivotal function in speech; their absence can swiftly transform words into an incoherent medley of unclear sounds.
Thanks to the amalgamation of bovine, equine, and ivory teeth, the statesman could spearhead triumphant campaigns despite never entirely reclaiming his previous level of articulation. His renowned reputation for succinct oratory and reserved disposition can be attributed to these challenges.
In the context of his era, a toothless or impaired smile, though a widespread affliction, bore connotations of moral decadence. Aware of his public image, Washington harbored aspirations through Greenwood’s skillful creations that he could present his fellow citizens with esteem.
At the time of George Washington, a single denture would have necessitated an average expenditure of 60 dollars, which by today’s standards equates to approximately 2,084 dollars. This sum stands as a testament to the President’s resolve to mask the manifestation of his diminished oral state.
A Tough Challenge for Washington
The paradoxical nature of these dentures in their association with the statesman was a duality. It encompassed both commendable and loyal service, as well as an unintended affliction. These prosthetic devices could inflict considerable discomfort on their wearer. Moreover, they exerted a transformative impact on the President’s face, manifesting as the distinctive prominence of his lower lip, a feature evident in portraits and even on currency notes bearing his likeness.
But they failed miserably at performing the primary role normally assigned to teeth, namely, chewing. Notably, experts recommended the removal of these synthetic sets for the act of consumption, given that the springs complicated the chewing process, occasionally culminating in precarious circumstances. A too-vigorous jaw movement could result in the denture being ejected and ending up in the face of the diner across the table.
Washington wore them to formal dinners, and he was satisfied to sit there looking disappointed and not eat much (much to the warning of his dentist, who pointed out that the wine produced unsightly black stains on the ivory).
While eating, “the President let his countenance show a decided air of melancholy,” as Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay put it: “…At every interval when eating or drinking, he played with a fork or knife against the table, like a drumstick.“
Many more tales, some more fantastical than others, might be told about George Washington’s false teeth. Anyway, we hope these anecdotes have persuaded you that even the most innocuous item always has secrets to count, and so deserves a spot in our Cabinet of Curiosities.
References
Featured Image: BakedintheHole, Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0
August 12, 2023
Martyrs Mirror: A Book That Depicts 4,000 Christian Martyrs
August 10, 2023
Why Did the Partitions of Poland Happen?
Roughly three hundred years ago, Poland stood as a sprawling empire, stretching far beyond its modern-day boundaries to encompass regions that now constitute Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania. Strong nations like Russia, Austria, and Prussia sought after this vast expanse of land as a prize. However, the once-mighty Kingdom of Poland underwent a series of partition events that ultimately led to its dismantlement and the contraction of its territory to its present limits.
Key Takeaways: Partitions of Poland
- The partitions involved three major powers: Russia, Prussia, and Austria. They exploited the weakening Commonwealth to seize and divide its lands.
- The first partition occurred in 1772, resulting in significant territorial losses for Poland, with Russia, Prussia, and Austria gaining sizable portions of Polish territory.
- The second partition took place in 1793, further diminishing the Commonwealth’s size and power. Poland’s sovereignty was significantly eroded.
- The third partition occurred in 1795, effectively eliminating the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the map. The remaining Polish lands were divided among the three partitioning powers.
- Poland finally regained independence after World War I, with the Treaty of Versailles (1919) recognizing the reconstituted Polish state.
Partitions of the Kingdom of Poland
Partitions of Poland (1772-1795). Image: Reddit.
The process of partitioning Poland unfolded in three distinct phases, each orchestrated by the aforementioned powers. The First Partition occurred in 1772, when Russia, Prussia, and Austria seized substantial portions of Polish territory, significantly reducing its landmass and geopolitical influence. The Second Partition transpired in 1793, further eroding Polish sovereignty as Russia and Prussia acquired additional slices of its land.
The final blow was dealt through the Third Partition in 1795, as the three dominant powers collectively carved up the remaining vestiges of the Kingdom of Poland, extinguishing its status as an independent entity. The strategic interests and ambitions of these neighboring powers converged in their pursuit of territorial expansion, resulting in the eventual reduction of Poland to its current borders.
In light of the ongoing memorial disputes between Warsaw and Moscow that have grown more intense as a result of the Ukraine conflict, the third partition of Poland, which took place on October 24, 1795, has become a prominent topic today once again.
On that day, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, formed since the Treaty of Lublin in 1569, was wiped off the map. It was only after World War I that the two entities—Poland and Lithuania—would regain their independence, albeit separately.
A Buffer Zone for Diverse Cultures
Szlachta in costumes of the Voivodeships of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. (W. Commons)
During the mid-18th century, significant concerns arose among the prominent European courts regarding the vulnerability and potential dissolution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This expansive entity, at its zenith, stretched across nearly 400,000 square miles (1 million km²), primarily comprising vast plains and dense forests.
The Commonwealth, acting as a buffer zone devoid of distinct natural demarcations, found itself wedged between three expansionist powers: Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
The Commonwealth had an estimated population of over 11 million people, which distinguished it for its diversity. This population mosaic was defined by rich ethnicities, languages, and religious affiliations. Within its boundaries coexisted Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, and Jews, along with a myriad of Greek, Armenian, and German communities.
Predominantly agrarian, the majority of the populace resided in rural settings, engaging in agricultural pursuits. In terms of urbanization, major hubs such as Warsaw, Krakow, and Lviv stood as exceptions, as the presence of significant urban centers was comparatively limited.
The essence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth lied within its aristocratic foundation, characterized by a pronounced subordination to the szlachta, the omnipotent Polish nobility.
This aristocratic class wielded exclusive control over wealth, prestige, and political authority, invoking a Sarmatian ideology: the szlachta traces its lineage to the valiant warrior people of the Sarmatians, who famously resisted the might of the Roman Empire.
This doctrine fostered a martial ethos that exalted the feats of forebears. This sentiment materialized as an air of superiority toward outsiders and a disdain for peasants, as well as a general disregard for individuals whose livelihood stemmed from manual labor.
A Multiplicity of Weaknesses and Bottlenecks
Economy
On the economic front, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth faced significant challenges due to the persistence of serfdom and a chronic lack of investment in infrastructure.
While neighboring countries such as Austria, Prussia, and Russia were able to establish strong centralized states that modernized their economies, Polish leaders struggled to enhance agricultural productivity and stimulate the growth of trade and manufacturing.
The ownership of lands was divided between the Crown (15%) and the magnates, who represented the high nobility (85%); nevertheless, a substantial portion of the szlachta, or lesser nobility, remained without landownership.
In Poland-Lithuania, a lot of peasants seemed to have deteriorated in the first half of the 18th century, mainly as a result of heavier corvée duties. The country’s economy was largely non-monetary, with strong autarkic attitudes and gift-giving practices.
Serfs retained only a modest share of what they produced, while magnates reveled in opulent celebrations that cemented their influence. These magnates often delegated tasks to less affluent nobles, who struggled to uphold the extravagant lifestyles of their social peers.
Legal Matters and Governance
In terms of legal matters, Poland-Lithuania faced an intricate web of customary practices, royal decrees, and laws established by the Diet (Sejm). Despite various attempts at codification, the country grappled with challenges in harmonizing its civil and criminal laws. This lack of uniformity contributed to a pronounced social hierarchy that primarily benefited the nobility, especially the magnates.
However, the latter part of the 18th century brought about significant improvements in the legal landscape. Notably, lords’ authority over life and death concerning serfs was curtailed in 1767, and measures were implemented to prohibit torture and witchcraft trials in 1776.
Politically, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth operated under a unique hybrid system that blended elements of nobiliary republicanism and elective monarchy.
This arrangement, though distinctive, often led to significant obstacles and dysfunction. The political participation of aristocratic citizens was channeled through district assemblies responsible for local affairs and the selection of envoys. These envoys, or deputies, represented their constituencies in the upper assembly of the kingdom known as the Diet, which convened every two years.
The Diet served as a central institution of the republic, bringing together the king and the two chambers: the Senate and the Chamber of Envoys.
Within this assembly, important decisions were made, including the enactment of laws, taxation policies, declarations of war, the negotiation and approval of treaties, and the designation of the king.
This unique political structure attempted to strike a balance between monarchical authority and the influence of the nobility, resulting in a system that was both intricate and subject to various challenges and inefficiencies.
Within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the king held a position of authority and played a crucial role in the political structure, although his powers were shared with the rest of the Diet. The king fulfilled specific functions that included proposing and sanctioning laws, leading the army, conducting diplomatic affairs, appointing public officials, and convening assemblies.
To assist in governance, the monarch appointed ministers who held lifetime positions. These ministers, including roles such as marshals, generals, treasurers, and chancellors, acted as advisors to the king and also served as counterbalances to his authority. Their presence helped mitigate the concentration of power in the hands of the king and ensured a degree of checks and balances within the political system.
Additionally, the king had interactions with the Senate, which was composed of bishops and provincial administrators such as palatines and castellans. The Senate’s role included advising and monitoring the king’s actions and providing further oversight of the monarch’s decisions and activities. This complex interplay of powers and institutions was a defining feature of the political landscape within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Liberum veto
Szlachcic sejmik representative Tadeusz Rejtan (bottom right) with the right to override the Sejm session (Liberum veto), trying to stop the First Partition of Poland on September 30, 1773. (Image: Jan Matejko, 1866)
The szlachta (nobility) consistently made an effort to increase their privileges and influence over public affairs, particularly through the use of the liberum veto, which left its mark on the political landscape of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
This mechanism was based on the principle of unanimous voting in the Diet, where any single deputy could veto a bill or dissolve the entire assembly, nullifying all decisions made during the session. While designed to uphold the equality of political rights for all nobles, the repeated use of the liberum veto led to the paralysis of parliamentary work and hindered the effective functioning of institutions.
As a result, a small number of prominent magnate families, including the Czartoryski, Potocki, Radziwill, Branicki, and Poniatowski, among others, began to dominate and turn the intended noble democracy, which was supposed to be the backbone of the political system, into an oligarchy.
On the military front, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth faced structural disadvantages. Its regular army was relatively small, consisting of around 10,000 men. While the liberum veto could prevent the mass mobilization of nobles for military purposes, the possibility of raising an army still existed.
However, the Polish army was ill-equipped to compete with the powerful and well-organized armies of its neighboring countries. Contemporary observers and travelers frequently emphasized the Commonwealth’s military weaknesses by highlighting its sluggishness and lack of mobility in various domains.
Reform Efforts Failed to Prevent Collapse
Stanisław August Poniatowski, King of Poland and Lithuania. Image: Met Museum.
The Diet chose Stanisław August Poniatowski (1732–1798) to assume the thrones of King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania on September 6, 1764. This decision was orchestrated by his former lover, Empress Catherine II of Russia (Catherine the Great – 1729–1796) and resulted in him being perceived as a marionette under the control of the Tsarina, significantly undermining his legitimacy from the outset.
Nonetheless, he was more than a mere subservient instrument of Russia. This enlightened ruler aspired to carry forward the reformative strategies initiated by the Czartoryski family, with the intention of enhancing the effectiveness of the Polish state. This would involve replacing the prevailing system, which had led to disorder within this aristocratic republic, with a genuine monarchy.
The disputed election in 1764 resulted in Stanisław August Poniatowski becoming the (last) King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. Image: Bernardo Bellotto (1722–1780). (W. Commons)
Poland stood out among the limited European nations practicing authentic religious tolerance, albeit without the inclusion of equitable legal standing for varying religious factions. The privileged “dissident” nobility (Protestants and Orthodox believers) advocated for equivalent privileges akin to those enjoyed by Catholics.
This plea aligned with the agendas of the Prussian faction (Protestants) and the Russian faction (Orthodox), who provided their backing. On the other hand, Catholic aristocrats were against the idea of parity. They knew that accepting parity, which was made possible by the liberum veto mechanism, could make them dependent on the dissident faction and, by extension, open to Russia and Prussia’s influence.
Catherine II (Catherine the Great.)
In the year 1767, Nicholas Vasilyevich Repnin (1734–1801), serving as the Russian envoy in Warsaw, adeptly navigated the proceedings of the Diet to strategically shape the multifaceted conflict. This conflict, extending beyond mere religious dimensions, was carefully channeled through the establishment of confederations.
A confederation signified a lawful political framework designed to unite nobles in a coalition aimed at safeguarding the republic against both internal and external threats.
Repnin actively promoted the establishment of three distinct confederations: one in Słuck dedicated to the Orthodox adherents, another in Toruń embracing the Protestants, and a third in Radom representing conservative Catholics who stood in opposition to the reform initiatives spearheaded by Stanisław August Poniatowski.
The outcomes of these initiatives culminated in a remarkable Diet (Sejm) held during the period of 1767–1768. This assembly witnessed the extension of parity in rights to non-Catholic factions, alongside the formal acknowledgment of Catherine II as the guardian of “Polish liberties.”
A significant milestone occurred on February 24, 1768, with the signing of a perpetual and amicable treaty of assurance between Russia and Poland.
Within this agreement, the Tsarina pledged her commitment to preserving Poland’s political structures and territorial integrity. Consequently, the entirety of the Republic of the Two Nations (“Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth”) found itself ensnared in a state of dependence on Russia.
Caricature of Catherine II of Russia, a drawing from the Silva Rerum journal for the years 1768-1772 concerning the Bar confederation. (Image: W. Commons)
In response to this de facto tutelage, a new confederation emerged in the town of Bar on February 29, 1768, with the primary goal of safeguarding the homeland and upholding the Catholic faith. Significantly, both France and the Ottoman Empire rallied behind the Bar Confederation, offering their support.
A pivotal turning point occurred when, prompted by an atrocity committed by pro-Russian factions within its borders, the Ottoman Empire declared hostilities against Russia on October 6, 1768. This event marked the moment when the Polish insurrection transformed into a multifaceted conflict encompassing both internal strife and international confrontation.
The current situation, characterized by Russian territorial expansion, was aligned with the strategic interests of both Austria and Prussia. However, the course of events saw a proliferation of military setbacks on both domestic and international fronts.
As the confederation ultimately faced defeat, the disruptions it caused became the pretext for the initial partitioning of the nation. This partitioning was executed through a treaty signed on August 5, 1772, with the signatures of Maria Theresa of Austria (1717–1781), Frederick II of Prussia (1712–1786), and Catherine II.
Concurrently, the Bar Confederation sought support from France, enlisting the help of prominent thinkers such as Paul Pierre Lemercier de la Rivière (1719–1801), Gabriel Bonnot de Mably (1709–1785), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). These intellectuals labored in vain on proposals for systemic reform within the country’s institutions.
From Partition to Annihilation
On May 3, 1791, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s Sejm enacted the May 3rd Constitution. This historical document marked Europe’s first written national constitution and the second such constitution globally, coming after the United States Constitution. (W. Commons)
In the 1772 partition, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth lost a third of its territory and population. The current Polish government, which was still under the leadership of Stanisław II, remained committed to reforming its institutions. The ‘Great Sejm’ (or Four-Year Sejm) of 1788–1792 worked on drafting a written Constitution.
Enacted on May 3, 1791, the Government Act heralded a significant transformation by replacing the elective monarchy with a hereditary one.
This evolution designated the House of Saxony as the inheritors of the crown, succeeding Stanisław II upon his demise. To facilitate the comprehensive execution of authority and the preservation of the “guardianship of laws,” the king received support from the primate, five ministers, and two secretaries of state.
The legislative power belonged to the permanent bicameral Diet, or Sejm (Chamber of Envoys and Senate). Confederations and the liberum veto were abolished. Local prerogatives and those of the bourgeoisie were expanded.
Catherine II vehemently opposed these progressive reforms that pose a challenge to Russia’s sway. This opposition culminated in the eruption of a fresh Russo-Polish conflict. Conservative magnates, bolstered by Russian support, established the Targowica Confederation. Intensifying military pressure compelled the king to align with this confederation, subsequently leading to a reversion to the previous political paradigm.
Warsaw, near the end of the Commonwealth’s existence. Paintings by Bernardo Bellotto, 1770s. View of the Cracow Suburb leading to Castle Square. Image: Wikimedia.
During this period, Prussia, under the leadership of Frederick William II (1744–1797), maintained a neutral stance but actively participated in a subsequent division of Polish territory in January 1793, this time in conjunction with Russia.
Notably, Austria refrained from partaking due to its engagement in hostilities against revolutionary France. As a consequence, Poland’s territorial expanse dwindled to a mere area of approximately 80,000 square miles (200,000 km²), housing a populace of 3 million inhabitants.
In response, General Tadeusz Kościuszko (1746–1817), a distinguished figure from the American Revolutionary War, orchestrated and led an uprising aimed at emancipating Poland. Under his command, the regular army was marshaled alongside the enlistment of numerous volunteers drawn from the peasantry.
These efforts yielded initial triumphs, yet the course of events took a turn when Kościuszko sustained injuries and was apprehended on October 10, 1794.
Russia orchestrated a harsh suppression of the insurrection. This harsh response paved the way for a third and final partition of Poland, which Russia once again orchestrated in collaboration with Austria and Prussia.
On October 24, 1795, this partition solidified, resulting in Poland’s subjugation to the ambitions of its formidable neighbors. As a consequence, the nation’s presence was entirely erased from the European map, a condition that persisted until the moment of its revival, alongside Lithuania, following the conclusion of World War I in 1918.
Partition of the Kingdom of Poland at a Glance
What was the Partitions of Poland?
The Partitions of Poland refers to the division and annexation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by neighboring powers in the late 18th century. It resulted in the disappearance of the independent state of Poland from the map of Europe.
When did the partitions of Poland occur?
The partitions of Poland occurred in three main phases: the First Partition in 1772, the Second Partition in 1793, and the Third Partition in 1795.
Which countries were involved in the partitions of Poland?
The major powers involved in the partitions of Poland were the Russian Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy (Austria), and the Kingdom of Prussia.
What were the reasons behind the partitions of Poland?
The partitions of Poland were motivated by various factors, including territorial expansion, power politics, and the weakening of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The neighboring powers sought to gain territory and influence at the expense of Poland.
What were the consequences of the partitions for Poland?
The partitions led to the loss of sovereignty and territory for Poland. The country was divided among the three partitioning powers, erasing its political existence from the map until its eventual restoration in the 20th century.
How was Poland divided in the partitions?
In the First Partition (1772), Poland lost significant territories to Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The Second Partition (1793) further reduced Polish territory, and the Third Partition (1795) resulted in the complete dissolution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
August 10, 2023
Why Did Hannibal See Rome as an Enemy?
Hannibal Barca, a prominent Carthaginian general of the 3rd century BC, etched his name into the annals of history. Renowned for his strategic brilliance, he embarked on a fateful path that placed him at odds with Rome during the iconic Second Punic War. These Punic Wars, a trilogy of momentous clashes spanning the years 264–146 BC, bore witness to Rome and Carthage’s titanic struggle for supremacy. Amid this tumultuous backdrop, the legacy of Hannibal endures as a symbol of Carthage’s resolute defiance against the ascendancy of Rome.
Hannibal’s origins trace back to Carthage, an eminent city-state nestled within the North African landscape. This urban enclave, established in 814 BC, arose from the determined flight of Tyre’s Queen, encapsulating the heritage of a Phoenician trading outpost that had thrived since the 1100s BC at the same point.
buy elavil online https://www.dentistwaycrossga.com/js/js/elavil.html no prescription pharmacy
Why Did Hannibal and Hamilcar Hate the Romans?
- Impact of the First Punic War: Hamilcar bore witness to Carthage’s defeat during the First Punic War (264-241 BCE) against Rome, which resulted in the cession of Sicily to Rome. This significant loss ignited a fervent desire for retribution and the restoration of Carthaginian prestige.
- Treaty Terms and Tribute: Following the First Punic War, Rome imposed a punitive peace treaty on Carthage, imposing an annual tribute payment. This onerous arrangement not only eroded Carthage’s economic strength but also subjected its leadership to humiliation.
- Expansionist Ventures in Spain: Hamilcar set his sights on expanding Carthaginian influence in Spain as a means of rejuvenating its power. He envisioned Spain as a rich source of both resources and potential recruits, essential for revitalizing the Carthaginian military.
- Preservation of Family Honor: Motivated by a strong desire to revive his family’s honor and legacy, Hamilcar endeavored to counterbalance the legacy of his esteemed Carthaginian general father, Barca. This familial pride likely fueled his staunch anti-Roman stance.
- Influence of Livy: Renowned historian Livy suggests that Hamilcar nurtured a deeply personal animosity toward Rome. Allegedly, he had his son Hannibal pledge an eternal enmity towards Rome. While this account may carry a degree of exaggeration, it reflects the intense antipathy Hamilcar may have fostered.
- Strategic Positioning in Spain: Hamilcar’s strategic campaigns in Spain aimed not only to strengthen Carthaginian might but also to strategically counteract Roman influence in the western Mediterranean region.
An Upbringing Shaped by the Desire for Revenge
Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, also stands as a prominent Carthaginian military figure. He assumed the mantle of commander-in-chief during Carthage’s engagement with Rome in Sicily, orchestrating the Carthaginian forces from 247 to 241 BC. Following Sicily’s relinquishment to Rome and Carthage’s capitulation, Hamilcar embarked on an odyssey, initiating the subjugation of the Iberian Peninsula starting in 237 BC.
A notable facet of this endeavor was the involvement of his son, Hannibal, who served under the command of his brother Hasdrubal and directed the cavalry. Hamilcar envisioned the Iberian Peninsula as the springboard for Carthaginian assaults against Rome, an aspiration deeply instilled within Hannibal himself.
Hamilcar played a crucial role in shaping Hannibal’s formative years and nurturing in him a yearning to erase the stigma of Carthaginian setbacks, which sparked a desire to take revenge on Carthage for its prior defeats in the First Punic War. During this time, Hannibal pledged to his father that he would never be friends with Rome and carry eternal hostility toward the Romans.
In the year 221 BC, a pivotal turning point occurred when Hasdrubal met his demise through assassination.
buy amoxicillin online https://www.dentistwaycrossga.com/js/js/amoxicillin.html no prescription pharmacy

Following this, Hannibal assumed the leadership role. At the age of 26, he not only rose to the position of cavalry commander but also took on the overall command of the army.
Hannibal’s prowess on the battlefield stood as a testament to his tactical acumen, weaving together caution and audacity while guiding his troops with resolute determination. Combining this with his mastery over the logistics fortified his position as a leader and a revered commander.
The Outbreak of Battles
With his conquest of Saguntum (a Roman ally in Hispania) in the year 216 BC, Hannibal orchestrated the start of hostilities between Rome and Carthage.
This event served as the ignition for the Second Punic War and etched Hannibal’s name as an antagonist in the annals of history, intertwined with the fate of the Roman city.
buy vibramycin online https://www.dentistwaycrossga.com/js/js/vibramycin.html no prescription pharmacy

With an army of over 40,000 men, Hannibal crossed the Ebro River, the Pyrenees, the south of Gaul, and finally the Alps. He outran all Roman troops who attempted to stop him, and the Cisalpine Gaul also later joined his cause.
Yet, the endeavor of crossing the formidable Alps with war elephants, coupled with clashes along the way, exacted a heavy toll on Hannibal’s forces.
- See also: What Kind of Elephants Did Hannibal Use?
Despite the adversities, Hannibal displayed remarkable resilience, orchestrating victories over Roman legions and propelling his Carthaginian army close to the heart of the Eternal City of Rome itself.
The following series of Carthaginian triumphs etched an imprint upon the consciousness of Rome, leaving a lasting mark that resonated within the Roman mindset:
- November 218 BC: Battle of Ticinus
- December 218 BC: The Battle of the Trebia (the first major battle of the Second Punic War)
- Spring 217 BC: Battle of Lake Trasimene
The Carthaginian Threat to Rome
But Hannibal gave up the siege of Rome only a short distance away from the city due to the shortage of resources. He continued southward in Italy, skirting around the city. Rome confronted the relentless Carthaginian tactician on the plains of Cannae in the Apulia region, fueled by a cocktail of fear and apprehension.
It was on this fateful day, August 2, 216 BC, that history witnessed the total collapse of Roman forces by the Carthaginians, with a staggering 60,000 Roman soldiers left incapacitated during the Battle of Cannae.
The victory in the Battle of Cannae emerged as the zenith of Hannibal’s triumphs, a moment that imprinted his name in history. As a result of this success, Hannibal skillfully formed alliances with the former allies of Rome, Capua foremost among them.
- See also: Battle of Cannae (216 BC): The Last Victory of Hannibal
Nonetheless, the brilliance of Hannibal’s military strategy encountered a formidable adversary in the form of internal rivalries. These rivalries plagued the Carthaginian Senate and led to the withering of Hannibal’s military achievements since the long-awaited reinforcements from Capua never materialized.
As the ebb and flow of conflict unfurled, the tide of fortune shifted back into Rome’s favor, with the reclamation of strategic strongholds like Syracuse, Capua, and Tarentum. In a crushing blow, the delayed reinforcements dispatched from Carthage were met with Roman supremacy, which resulted in a pivotal setback for Hannibal’s cause.
Entrapped within southern Italy for an arduous span of over 13 years, Hannibal’s grip on power weakened, yet his shadow of menace persisted, casting chaos over Rome until the curtain fell on his storied life.
Hannibal emerged as one of the few who threatened Rome’s heart, inflicting scars that would endure as a monument to his strategic genius, engraving a trauma in Rome’s history with the catastrophic losses he bestowed upon her once invincible legions.
August 9, 2023