In 1906, a Danish math historian and philologist named Johan Ludvig Heiberg was able to get his hands on a library catalog. In it was observed a prayer book made of parchment – which was inscribed twice. The book’s synopsis and a transcription of an earlier, overwritten part were both included in the catalog. The earlier text must have originated with Archimedes, a fact that was instantly apparent to Heiberg, one of the foremost experts on ancient Greek mathematics.
This means that the Danish scholar has uncovered the earliest surviving copy of Archimedes‘ works written in Greek. There are no other known copies of the mathematician’s writings that are older than this one by around 400 years. Ancient originals no longer exist since the papyrus scrolls on which Archimedes penned his treatises in the 3rd century BC have long since been destroyed. Texts from antiquity were only carried down if someone copied them at regular intervals.
The Archimedes Palimpsest is consisting of 174 parchment folios.
Page-turning, not page-scrolling, has been the norm since late antiquity
Imaging a palimpsest page reveals the original Archimedes text underneath.
Papyrus was the medium of choice for Archimedes’ writings, most of which were letters to colleagues. All capital letters, no punctuation, and no spaces between words characterize his writing style. The Library of Alexandria, the biggest library of its day, currently has some of his correspondence.
However, even it wasn’t enough to keep Archimedes’ works hidden for long. Papyrus scrolls were no longer used after the 4th century. Books, or codexes, were the format of choice. Any ancient writings that were not in codex form were then forgotten. Authors who were well-liked by their contemporaries in the literary and reading communities could count themselves fortunate, since their works were often reproduced.
That was not the case with Archimedes. We are aware of this because of Eutokios. The mathematician offered commentary on Archimedes’ treatises from the 5th century and highlighted the great challenges Archimedes had in acquiring his writings. In addition to the commentary, Eutokios also transcribed the writings of Archimedes himself, ensuring that many of his writings would endure through the generations.
Only three complete works of Archimedes have survived
Eutokios had avoided the biggest threat, but the ancient book culture still faced more challenges in the near future. Because most libraries went the way of the dinosaurs along with the rest of antiquity. The best scribes and copyists were now located in Christian monasteries, where they showed little enthusiasm for Archimedes’ work.
Since then, only three codices containing Archimedes’ writings have been discovered. All three were originally from Constantinople, which is now Istanbul, and were reproduced in the 9th and 10th centuries. Later, researchers came up with the very original titles Codex A, B, and C for these three versions.
The original text has been translated into other languages. The Latin and then the Arabic versions of Archimedes were still available. Three novels only made it into the Middle Ages from copies of the original Greek manuscripts. Codex B was first recorded as part of a papal library in 1311, and after that it disappeared. So, Codex A was the primary source for Archimedes for centuries, until its disappearance in 1564.
Then came the codex C. At first, nobody could find the book. Codex C was written on parchment and included seven of Archimedes’ treatises. It was made of prepped animal skin. This allowed for easy text extraction and subsequent page reuse. And in 1229, this was precisely what happened with the book.
The most well-known palimpsest ever discovered, Codex C
A page of Archimedes Palimpsest. The prayer book text is read from top to bottom, while the original Archimedes manuscript is read from left to right in a fainter font underneath it. (Credit: The Walters Museum- CC BY 3.0)
It is uncertain how Codex C made its way from Constantinople to Jerusalem, but once there, a local monk dismantled the book, wiped the pages with acid, and then scraped the text off with a stone. After that, he folded the papers in half lengthwise, flipped them through a full 90 degrees, and re-inscribed the text with Christian prayers. The original Codex C was now a palimpsest. But if you squinted, you could make out sketches and words from Archimedes’ treatises.
A monastery close to Bethlehem was where we would find the palimpsest, but a few decades later it turned up in Constantinople. There are no myths or legends surrounding the object’s origin or its subsequent placement. An 1840s citation, however, places it in the Constantinople library of the Jerusalem Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or Metochion. After Heiberg uncovered the palimpsest, he decoded the majority of Archimedes’ Greek text and quickly publicized his findings. Heiberg also photographed the palimpsest, which proved to be crucial since not long thereafter the book was lost forever.
Archimedes is now protected by the World Wide Web forever
Finally making its way to Paris, the piece spent decades collecting dust in a dark, damp basement. In October of 1998, an auction company in New York auctioned a palimpsest that was in such terrible shape that it could hardly be read.
The Greek Ministry of Culture was one of two desperate bids, but in the end, an unnamed American paid $2,000,000 for the book. As it turned out, he cared about keeping the book safe for future generations. This prompted him to make it accessible for study by donating it to Baltimore’s Walters Art Museum not long after he bought it.
It took 10 years for specialists there, led by William Noel, to fix it, remove mold and adhesive, and then scan it using complex imaging techniques. This allowed for the majority of the text to be reconstructed and made legible again. William Noel chronicled the exciting tale of the palimpsest with the help of Reviel Netz in their book, “The Archimedes Codex.”
In this way, the removal of Archimedes’ writing in 1229 helped ensure its continued existence. Indeed, the Internet has made it possible to see what may be the most well-known palimpsest ever in stunningly crisp detail. A remarkable illustration of the string of luck that has to be strung together for ancient wisdom to survive the test of time.
In northern Italy, on September 13 and 14, 1515, Francis I achieved a notable victory by defeating a contingent of Swiss mercenaries in the Battle of Marignano. This triumph bestowed upon the young king of France not only great favor but also a heroic reputation. He was even knighted by the Lord of Bayard on the battlefield. The year 1515 frequently emerges in French historical conversations, sometimes with the inclusion of Marignano. However, it is crucial to better recall and contextualize this conflict within its larger framework: the Italian wars. This event stands as a monumental chapter that introduced France to the captivating beauty of the Italian Renaissance.
Key Takeaways: Battle of Marignano
The battle was fought between the French forces, led by King Francis I, and the combined forces of the Old Swiss Confederacy and the Duchy of Milan, commanded by Swiss mercenaries.
The battle was a part of the ongoing conflict between the French Kingdom and the Swiss Confederacy over control of the Duchy of Milan and broader Italian territories.
The battle is notable for its use of innovative tactics, including artillery and firearms, by the French forces. The French artillery played a significant role in breaking Swiss infantry formations.
The French emerged victorious in the battle, which was a hard-fought and bloody conflict. The Swiss and Milanese forces suffered heavy casualties, and the Swiss retreated from the field.
The victory led to negotiations, culminating in the Treaty of Fribourg in 1516, which recognized French control over Milan while easing tensions between France and the Swiss Confederacy.
Battle of Marignano in the Context of the Italian Wars
Francis I (King of France).
Enriched in the early days of the Renaissance, the Italian peninsula was coveted by various European nations, particularly the rulers of France. Despite its economic prowess and cultural prominence, political stability remained fragile due to the presence of numerous competing principalities. Among these, the Papal States, the Kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, and the Republics of Venice and Florence held significant importance. Consequently, the Italian Wars became a focal point of European conflict in the early sixteenth century, serving as the stage for territorial ambitions.
Without going back as far as the dynasty of the Angevin kings of Naples, we can say that the Italian wars involving France began with Charles VIII, himself a short-lived king of Naples for a few months in 1495. It was with Louis XII that the kingdom of France really began to gain a foothold in Italy. As early as 1499, the king took Milan, then Genoa, and attacked the Regno in 1501. But while he quickly managed to oust Ludovico Maria Sforza (Ludovico il Moro), he had to rely on important princes in the peninsula, such as Caesar Borgia, as well as the Pope and the Aragonese. For several years, Louis XII managed to play off his alliances, relying on Florence and the Duchy of Milan and entering the battle against Venice. However, his influence began to bother the Italian princes, starting with Pope Julius II, who turned the alliances against France.
A temporary resolution emerged in 1504: France relinquished Naples to the King of Aragon while retaining control over Milan. This, however, proved short-lived, as Pope Julius II sought to consolidate his influence across Italy. He formed a new “Holy League” to counter France, enlisting the support of Venice, Aragon, Switzerland, and England. Following another defeat in 1513 at Ravenna, Louis XII withdrew from Italy and did not return. Despite being just twenty years old at the time of Louis XII’s demise in 1515, Francis I was widely acknowledged as his heir by European courts, especially in Italy. King Francis I, as he is often referred to, shared the Italian aspirations of his predecessors. To aid in reclaiming what he deemed rightfully his, Louis XII had assembled a fresh army.
Swiss mercenaries were a significant part of the Holy League’s forces. They were renowned for their prowess in combat, particularly as pikemen. At Marignano, they played a key role in the battle.
Francis I Was on His Way to Milan
Battle of Marignan, September 14, 1515, Francis I at Marignano.
The newly crowned monarch wasted no time seeking revenge for France’s recent military setbacks. His goal was to retake Milan. Francis I gathered a sizable force for the time—roughly 10,000 horses, 30,000 infantrymen, and 70 cannons. Notable participants in the mission included Bayard, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon (also known as the Constable of Bourbon), the Duke of Lorraine, the Count of Guise, and Marshal Trivulce. The nobility’s duty was to “preserve the state via guns” in exchange for special rights and benefits.
Anticipating the Swiss defense, the crossing of the Alps posed a greater challenge than expected. However, François I displayed his courage by opting for the treacherous pass of Larche, drawing parallels to Hannibal. After successfully traversing the Alps, the French set up camp in Turin.
Francis I’s strategy involved negotiation, using his strike force as leverage. The Swiss agreed to return Milan to Maximilian Sforza in exchange for a million crowns (ecus, French coins) and the duchy of Nemours. After accepting the conditions, Francis I continued his journey. On September 10, he established his camp near Milan, at Marignano, as he had doubts about the reliability of the Swiss and sympathized with the Duke of Milan’s financial troubles. This led him to believe his opponents were weaker and less organized than before.
The king’s concerns materialized when the Swiss camp came under the control of the bishop of Sion, Matthäus Schiner. Around 20,000 Swiss left Milan on September 13, 1515, and headed for Marignano.
The Battle of Marignano, etching by Urs Graf, Swiss mercenary.
Within the French army, the vanguard was under the command of the Constable of Bourbon, leading the artillery with its 72-guns. Personally, Francis I led the main body of the army, while his brother-in-law, Charles IV, Duke of Alençon, commanded the rearguard, which consisted of the cavalry.
Around 4 p.m., the Swiss mercenaries and the French initially clashed, with the Swiss advancing in three squares of pikemen, totaling 7,000 men. Charles III, Duke of Bourbon (also known as the Constable of Bourbon), faced challenges, but the King of France came to his aid by leading a charge. The two sides engaged in intense combat that continued late into the night. French artillery played a significant role in the enemy’s predicament, forcing the Swiss to yield ground on three occasions. Renowned for sleeping in his armor, Francis I was building a growing reputation. During the night, the King of France reorganized his forces, arranging his troops in a wider and more formidable formation. Positioned in the center, Francis I had the Duke of Alençon to his left and the Constable of Bourbon to his right.
On September 14, 1515, the Swiss rallied and launched another assault. They targeted the center of the French position, under the command of the king. The French pikemen and arquebusiers, supported by artillery, nevertheless defeated their force of 5,000 men. The Swiss attempted to flank the French and reach the artillery, but their efforts were thwarted.
By afternoon, an army led by Bartolomeo d’Alviano, captain of Venice, arrived to reinforce Francis I and turn the tide against the Swiss. As the Swiss began to retreat, the French unleashed artillery fire. The cavalry ambushed the retreating Swiss, resulting in significant casualties. Faced with overwhelming odds, the Swiss had no choice but to withdraw. The exhausted French decided not to pursue the defeated enemy further. According to the veteran marshal Trivulce, who had participated in 18 major battles, it was “a fight of giants.”
The Swiss suffered over 10,000 casualties, while the French incurred approximately 5,000. Despite the losses, the victory was decisive. At just twenty years old, the young King of France had achieved a remarkable triumph that earned him immense renown among his compatriots and foreign leaders. On the evening of the battle, Francis I was knighted by Pierre Terrail (seigneur de Bayard), who was highly esteemed for his valor, earning the praise that he was “who was worth an army of his own.”
Results of the Battle of Marignano
Access to Milan was finally attained. Francis I, who was well-known for his virtue as a prince, expertly negotiated Maximilian Sforza’s surrender, and Pope Leo X later pardoned him. With a sense of solemnity, Francis I entered Milan on October 11th. Just a year later, on August 18, 1516, a significant agreement was reached between King Francis I and Pope Leo X—the Concordat of Bologna. This accord delineated distinct boundaries for the respective roles of the king, the clergy, and the populace in the governance of the French Church. It empowered the monarch to make pivotal appointments and determine the recipients of the church’s most prestigious honors.
Thus, the young king’s significant inaugural triumph took place at Marignano. This victory was not merely transformative for the Italian scenario; it also greatly enhanced his reputation across the Italian peninsula and Europe. In the Treaty of Fribourg, Francis I succeeded in securing France a “perpetual alliance” with the Swiss. This arrangement granted the Crown the privilege to enlist Swiss mercenary fighters, yet it stipulated that the Swiss were barred from supporting any nation at odds with France due to this nonaggression pact. Remarkably, since 1792, the Swiss cantons have upheld this “perpetual peace.”
However, the Battle of Marignano was, at its core, a battlefield; despite its ferocity, it was among the last clashes deemed “chivalrous,” particularly as portrayed in royal propaganda. The true victor of Marignano was the French artillery, demonstrating its prowess for the first time in pitched combat as well as in sieges (such as Constantinople or Granada). Despite his triumph, the king’s revelry was curtailed. He was required to return to France with none other than Leonardo da Vinci. A decade after Marignano, in 1525, Charles V and his allies ignited a fierce conflict, culminating in the fall of Pavia. The capture of the monarch led to France’s withdrawal from Italy. Subsequently, with the signing of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis between Henry II and Charles V in 1559, all French territorial claims in Italy were formally renounced.
Francesco Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia, Lib. XII, cap. 12
Dean, S. (2012). A blow to Swiss ambitions: The Battle of Marignano, 13-14 September 1515. Medieval Warfare, 2(5), 26-32. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48578039, pg. 28
Black Friday is not the same as Black Thursday of 1929. Black Friday has a unique and somewhat complicated history. Every November, we are inundated with commercials for “World Consumer Day,” a veritable birth of the modern capitalist society. It’s tough to avoid Black Friday advertisements these days, what with all the emails, online billboards, and banners. Amazon stated in 2020 that it had surpassed the $4.8 billion sales milestone on this famous weekend, despite the fact that the weekend is responsible for feverish spending and, by extension, severe pollution and abuse in its logistic hubs. But what is the origin of Black Friday? This phenomenon seems to have several causes.
The modern tradition of Black Friday began in the 1960s
One of the knock-on effects of Thanksgiving is Black Friday. Americans meet on the fourth Thursday of November to give thanks to God for the year’s gifts. It was in the 1950s that American manufacturing managers saw a record absence rate on the day following Thanksgiving as workers called in sick to enjoy a longer holiday. The direct results of this event became known as “Black Friday“.
In the 1960s, the idea of Black Friday as a “day of sales” began to emerge. The phrase was adopted and popularized by the police, who dubbed the day’s traffic a “black day,” and by shops, which saw a spike in sales on the day since many workers stayed home. Then, the major players in mass distribution reclaimed the concept for profit, generating widespread publicity and ad fervor as a result.
It was Philadelphia police officers who coined this slang word to characterize the day that is notorious for traffic congestion and crowd movements due to the big discounts that many stores give over the long weekend before Christmas.
The city’s business owners sought to rebrand the day as “Big Friday” to distance themselves from the negative connotations of the original moniker, but the term failed to catch on. So Black Friday is still around.
By the end of the 1990s, not only had the name and idea of Black Friday expanded throughout the United States, but by way of American juggernauts Amazon and eBay, it had also taken hold in Canada, South Africa, Mexico, and the European Union.
However, there is another origin of the phrase “Black Friday” as well.
The First Black Friday, 1869
American financiers George Jay Gould and James Fisk.
“Black” days have been used to describe days when bad things happened, for ages. And there have been several “Black Friday” occurrences.
The day of Black Friday being set aside for sacred consumerism is actually a rewriting of history. On September 24, 1869, the price of gold dropped precipitously, triggering a stock market collapse that severely affected the American economy. This “gold panic of 1869” was the first significant “Black Friday” in history.
The year 1869 marks the debut of the phrase. Gold’s value was boosted by the investments of Jay Gould and James Fisk. The result was a massive drop in stock prices and widespread economic chaos in the United States.
Retailers utilized this day to clear their shelves in an effort to get “out of the red.” They highlighted the excellent sales by writing in red ink, with the exception of the Friday following Thanksgiving, which was noted in black to emphasize the fact that they were finally profitable. Thus, the term “Black Friday” was born. Because this day would enable them to finally have a profitable turnover. The remainder of the year, they were regularly in deficit again.
1910 Black Friday
Daily Mirror, front page on November 19, 1910. Violent skirmishes in Westminster, during which numerous “suffragette” protesters were detained for attempting to enter Parliament by force.
Friday, November 18, 1910, is another significant date in the history of Black Friday. The Women’s Social and Political Union was first established in the UK seven years earlier to fight for equal rights for women, including the vote. Beginning in 1905, members of the movement took direct action, such as disrupting political meetings, to make their voices heard.
This group of women were dubbed “suffragists” or “suffragettes” by the media at the time. The group expanded and tried other strategies, eventually choosing to attack the British government in Westminster. Three hundred suffragettes attempted to storm the building on November 18, 1910. There were 119 arrests made, 29 sexual assaults reported, and two suffragettes died as a result of the police reaction.
The action was covered extensively the next day by major media, such as the Daily Mirror’s front page, which depicted a suffragette on the ground being thrashed by a police officer. Since this “Black Friday” incident caused such a stir, Winston Churchill decided to dismiss charges against the demonstrators.
Black Friday as it is celebrated in our modern consumerist cultures is not only different from its origins from year to year, but it also comes with its own set of injustices.
Ecological and Social Impact of Black Friday
Most online retailer workers work between twelve and sixteen hours a day on Black Friday. While this is great news for those on a tight budget, it also promotes wasteful spending and compels many to purchase things they don’t really need.
Customers are less likely to raise concerns about, say, Amazon’s dreadful working conditions at its fulfillment facilities if they perceive that the company is offering them a discount. Management may say they care about their employees, but in reality, they treat them like replaceable commodities, including ignoring workplace injuries.
Worse, Black Friday symbolizes a more systemic societal problem: the idea that a person’s worth is not determined by their talents, like compassion or interaction with others, but rather by the commodities they amass. In other words, shopping has made us who we are. These mind-boggling numbers illustrate that the insatiable need for expansion on which capitalism thrives is damaging not merely to individuals but to the whole world.
The Next Steps
Knowledge of the problem’s scope is necessary but insufficient. There are answers out there, thankfully. Despite the fact that we live in a consumer-driven world, this does not imply that we must fall for the persuasive appeals of marketing.
Black Friday and the culture of excess consumerism it promotes might be seen as at odds with the minimalist lifestyle. This line of thinking encompasses a wide range of practices, including reducing one’s consumption without compromising one’s morals, keeping rather than discarding, shopping secondhand, etc. According to Ryan Nicodemus, the founder of The Minimalist movement, minimalism is not about getting rid of your belongings but about taking back control of your life, stopping doing what you’re told, and actually determining what you want to do.
Additionally, new projects are springing up. Many businesses choose to stay closed as a protest against this consumerist trend. In 2019, the Climate Strike, and the Feminist Strike groups hosted an anti-consumerist festival, the Black Free Day, in Lausanne, Switzerland. The event was devoted to barter and trade, and included free concerts and improvised competitions.
On the same day, hundreds of activists around the world participated in the Extinction Rebellion collective’s Block Friday by blocking the major entrances to retail malls. The Green Friday has been celebrated annually in several countries since 2018 as a consumer awareness day with the mission of encouraging moderate spending and putting the decision-making power back in the hands of the customer.
Economic crises and political conflicts are not an invention of modern times. In ancient Egypt, too, there were repeated phases of economic and social problems. One of these occurred around 3,100 years ago at the end of the 20th Dynasty. Supply bottlenecks, a lack of grain deliveries, and a shortage of labor—these problems seem very familiar to us today, but they also affected the Egyptians around 1100 BC. Evidence of this ancient Egyptian crisis can be found not only in papyrus texts and other inscriptions but also in the necropolis of Dra’ Abu el-Naga, west of Thebes.
Scarcity and conflicts at the end of the New Kingdom
There is hardly any other period of ancient Egypt from which we have so many textual sources as the period of the 20th Dynasty, which lasted from 1185 to 1070 BC. During this time, Ramesses III, who is thought to be the last great pharaoh in Egyptian history, was king.
Supply and food shortages
The written evidence from this period includes monumental, primarily religious inscriptions from temples and tombs, as well as numerous papyri and inscribed pottery shards or limestone cuttings with administrative and economic texts. From them, it is clear that this period at the end of the New Kingdom was marked by political, social, and economic problems, which finally led to a severe crisis under the rulers Ramesses IX, X, and XI.
Already in the reign of Ramesses III, food shortages and supply bottlenecks became tangible. A telling document is the famous “Turin Strike Papyrus” from the 29th year of this king’s reign: Because the monthly grain deliveries to the Theban necropolis workers did not arrive, they stopped working at the construction site in the Valley of the Kings. Other strikes over unpaid food rations are also documented under Ramesses IX and X.
Too few workers and enemy attacks
In the late New Kingdom, the number of workers at the royal tombs also continued to decrease. Only 32 workers were involved in the construction of the tomb of Ramesses X, not even half as many as at the tomb of his predecessor. At the time of Ramesses XI, the last pharaoh of this dynasty, only 23 workers were documented.
Around 3,100 years ago, ancient Egypt experienced an economic and political crisis.
Despite the continuing crisis and reduced work crews, however, Ramesses X and Ramesses XI still had their tombs built in the Valley of the Kings. However, both sites were abandoned, presumably due to the uncertain situation in Thebes. The mummified bodies of Ramesses VIII, X, and XI may have been interred instead in the Ramesside residence city of Pi-Ramesses in the eastern Nile Delta, but their graves have not yet been found there.
Another constant challenge to the Egyptian empire at this time was the invasion of external enemies, especially from areas west of Egypt, which further destabilized the country. These attacks had already led to the cessation of work on the royal tomb at the end of Ramesses III’s reign and subsequently under Ramesses VI, IX, and X. The progressive shortage situation and growing security problems at Thebes are particularly well documented by the so-called “Tomb Robbery Papyrus,” in which necropolis inspections and trials of looters are recorded in writing.
Clear indications of a crisis
Together with other documents of the late Ramesside period, they reflect not only political instability and resource scarcity but also the growing impoverishment of the population. Thus, it is clear from various passages in the text that stolen burial goods and temple goods were exchanged for food.
The picture of economic decline and an increasingly dysfunctional central state conveyed by these sources is also confirmed by archaeological observations. As a result of a steadily increasing shortage of raw materials, older funerary inventories, especially wooden coffins, were increasingly reworked and reused at the end of the 20th and especially in the 21st dynasty. The prevailing lack of resources is also evident from the found material recovered from the tomb of the high priest Amenhotep at Dra’ Abu el-Naga.
What the tomb of the high priest Amenhotep reveals
The high priest of Amun, Amenhotep, had assumed his office in the first half of the reign of Ramesses IX and was one of the major players at the end of the 20th Dynasty. As the first worshipper in the Karnak temple and head of the Amun domain, whose economic power had grown steadily in the New Kingdom, Amenhotep was the highest political authority and holder of the greatest amount of power in Thebes.
Double tomb of high importance
His funerary temple and that of his father and predecessor in office, Ramessesnakht, are still being researched. In this ancient Egyptian necropolis west of Thebes, officials and high dignitaries from the New Kingdom—among them Amenhotep and his father—were buried alongside pharaohs and dignitaries from the 17th Dynasty.
The funerary temples of these two Amun high priests are located in the double tomb complex K93.11/K93.12. With a courtyard terrace of over 1,600 square meters, it is one of the largest rock-cut tomb complexes of the New Kingdom in Thebes-West.
Ceramic shard with the names of workers involved in the construction of the funerary temple of the high priest Amenhotep.
Archaeologists have been researching this double tomb complex since at least 1993. Among other things, they have discovered that the complex is integrated in a special way into the religious topography of the necropolis. From K93.11/K93.12, there is a direct line of sight to the main temple of Karnak on the east side of the Nile. In addition, the precisely measured main axis of the nearby temple of the royal couple Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari, called “Men-Set,” is apparently aligned with the double tomb complex.
Insight into the time of Ramesses XI
Early in the project, archaeologists came across relics of the ruined tomb temple of Ramessesnakht, which was decorated during the reign of Ramesses VI, in the open atria of K93.11. Among the finds were thousands of fragments of the relief-decorated wall covering, parts of columns, capitals, and friezes made of sandstone, and the remains of a monumental mud-brick architecture. However, the burial of Ramessesnakht was not found. For more than 16 years, researchers have been investigating the tomb temple of Amenhotep in the area to the south, K93.12. There, too, thousands of relief and architectural fragments made of sandstone were recovered.
The finds and features documented in the tombs of Amenhotep and Ramessesnakht have not only expanded our knowledge of the architecture and religious function of the monumental tomb of the late Ramesside period, but they also provide insights into the political and economic situation of the period from Ramesses IX to Ramesses XI. For example, the looted tomb furnishings of Amenhotep, recovered in his remains, contained reused inventory, even though the high priest was the highest representative of the local elite.
Priestly tomb with savings
Also conspicuous is the absence of a stone sarcophagus, which had been an integral part of elite burials in previous decades. Amenhotep was buried in a wooden coffin that imitates a sarcophagus made of rose granite in its design, from the color scheme to the style of its decoration and lettering—an indication that logistically costly quarry expeditions were no longer taking place in his time.
And something else is striking: If one compares the construction work and the wall relief in the complexes of Ramessesnakht and Amenhotep, a clear drop in the quality of the stonework is recognizable. There is a period of at least 25 years between the construction of the tomb temples of Ramessesnakht and Amenhotep. During this time, the availability of specialized and skilled labor, especially in stone carving, has apparently been drastically reduced. The “first guard” of the few remaining stone specialists was probably tied up at the construction site of the royal tomb in the Valley of the Kings.
Political conflict in the material findings
This wall fragment from the funerary temple shows Amenhotep, the text above mentions his names and titles as well as those of his father Ramessesnakht.
During the investigation of the high priest burial temples in the necropolis Dra’ Abu el-Naga, archaeologists came across another sign of political-religious upheaval: The burial temples of the Amun high priests Ramessesnakht and Amenhotep were deliberately destroyed at the end of the New Kingdom.
This is evidenced by the layer of sandstone debris that covers almost the entire area of both complexes and lies on the floor of the court at that time. It consists of thousands of fragments of shattered wall cladding and architectural elements, many of which show clear secondary chisel marks.
Evidence of the “war against the High Priest”
This finding can be linked to a historical sequence of events that at the same time marks the end of the New Kingdom, namely the so-called “war” or “transgression against the High Priest” around 1085 BC. This involved a violent conflict between Amenhotep and Panehsi, the commander of the troops and administrator of the Nubian provinces, during the 17th and 18th years of Ramesses XI’s reign. Exactly when this happened and how this conflict unfolded is unclear because this event is mentioned in only a few written sources.
With the material findings in tombs K93.11/K93.12, meaningful archaeological data could now be fed into the extensive discussion about the events during the transition from the 20th to the 21st dynasty. They form an important contribution to a better understanding of the historical situation that led to the complete dissolution of the local power structure with the death of Amenhotep and the end of the influential Ramessesnakht family.
A programmatic “rebirth” and the end of a dynasty
This deep break was the starting point of a new political beginning, which was also programmatically identified as such at the time: In year 19 of his reign, Pharaoh Ramesses XI let begin a new yearly count, the “repetition of birth.” This counting, in which the 19th year of Ramesses’ reign was counted as year one, was supposed to stand for the overcoming of the unstable state of emergency. It ended with the death of the king in his 29th year of reign.
The installation of a new dynasty of high priests under Ramesses XI also laid the foundations for the subsequent nationwide reorganization of the balance of power. Under his successor, Smendes, Egypt was divided into two political and administrative units: The southern part was ruled by the Theban high priest; in the northern part of the country, the Libyan-born kings of the 21st Dynasty ruled, who resided in Tanis.
The Late Bronze Age Collapse
Egypt was not the only empire affected. From archaeological finds and written evidence, it is clear that Egypt was affected by a widespread crisis around 1100 BCE. However, this must be viewed in the larger context of a development that affected the entire eastern Mediterranean and western Asia—the Late Bronze Age Collapse.
Comprehensive decline
Triggered by a range of stressors, many states and urban centers of the Aegean and Near East collapsed and lost power and economic influence over a period of about 200 years at that time. These included the advanced civilization of Mycenae, the empire of the Hittites, and also the city-states of Canaan in the Levant. The causes of this decline are unclear, but in addition to natural disasters and migration movements, a change in climate is suspected.
As part of the economic and diplomatic network, Egypt was also affected by this large-scale collapse. The flows of goods and raw materials that had been firmly established through trade dried up. As a result, a material decline could also be observed in Egypt due to the changed socio-economic and political conditions, recognizable, among other things, by the cessation of extensive tomb and temple construction or the material and spatial reduction of the burial effort in often unmarked collective tombs.
Adapted new beginning
Nevertheless, there can be no question of a cultural standstill in the 21st Dynasty. If one considers the minimized, newly configured burial inventories alone as indicators, they testify to a special cultural dynamism and intellectual productivity. In this context, the coffins with their condensed religious iconography have taken over the ritual or transformative function of the earlier decorated rock tomb. With them, an existing tradition of afterlife provision is continued, which was translated into a new material form of expression in response to changed external circumstances.
Pepin the Short, son of Charles Martel, was able to depose the last Merovingian monarch and establish a new dynasty at the head of the Frankish realm because of his position as mayor of the palace and the renown of his family. However, his son, the illustrious Charlemagne, whom the Pope crowned Emperor of the West in 800 after a string of military triumphs in favor of Christianity, was the one who gave this dynasty its name. The Carolingian Empire was short-lived, however, collapsing in 843 with the partition of Verdun between Charlemagne’s three grandchildren. The imperial title lasted until 924, and when Louis V of France passed away in 987, the Carolingian dynasty came to an end.
When and How Did the Carolingian Dynasty Begin?
Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, depicted in the Grandes Chroniques de France.
The Frankish aristocracy of the Merovingian period suffered the same fate as the other barbarian kingdoms established after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 7th century. As time went on, the legitimate Merovingian kings, who were called “lazy kings” (Roi fainéant), lost power and were replaced by the noble mayors of palaces.
Even though they were originally just the kings’ stewards, they eventually grew so powerful that they could actually remove and replace the kings themselves.
Childeric III, the last representative of the Merovingians, was deposed in 751 by Pepin the Short, mayor of the palace of Neustria and son of the famous military leader Charles Martel who had stopped the Muslim expansion in Poitiers in 732 (See: The Battle of Tours and The Reconquista).
Pepin the Short, also known as Pepin III, founded the Carolingian dynasty after Pope Zachary officially crowned him king of the Franks. He left the kingdom to his son Charlemagne, also known as Charlemagne, who expanded it into an empire after his death in 768. Between 751 and 771, Charlemagne and his brother Carloman I ruled jointly.
Key Dates in the Carolingian Empire
Charlemagne at dinner; detail of a miniature from BL Royal MS 15 E vi, f. 155r (the “Talbot Shrewsbury Book”)
During the first three decades of his reign, Charlemagne expanded the Frankish empire through a series of military victories, mainly against the Saxons and the Lombards, with the assistance of the pope. In 800, he was anointed emperor in Rome under the name Charlemagne after rescuing Pope Leo III from an assassination attempt. He then set about reconstructing the Western Empire.
After the death of Charlemagne in 840, the so-called Carolingian Empire (a name derived from Charles Martel and Charlemagne) was split into three parts. Louis I, also known as Louis the Pious, inherited it from his father in 814. The three surviving sons of Louis (Charles the Bald, Lothair I, and Louis II) negotiated a violent division of the Carolingian Empire and signed the Treaty of Verdun in 843.
The Carolingian Empire collapsed when it was divided into three separate kingdoms. Nevertheless, the Emperor of the West title survived until Berengar I’s death in 924, at which point it was no longer used.
Territories Conquered by Charlemagne
When his father, Pepin the Short, passed away in 768, Charlemagne had already completely incorporated the duchies of Aquitaine and Gascony into the realm.
Charlemagne, at the invitation of the pope, launched an offensive against the Lombards in 773 and soon prevailed, eventually annexing the northern part of Italy up to Rome. He used this victory to launch an all-out assault on the Saxons in 776, the last indigenous pagan group in the area.
To finally defeat them in 785, several military campaigns were necessary, one of which Widukind led. Charlemagne’s 778 campaign against the Saracens resulted in a crushing loss at the hands of the Christians in the Battle of Roncesvalles Pass.
Later conquests, however, created what is now known as the “Spanish March,” and efforts against the Frisians, Bretons, Bavarians, and Avars in the years 780–800 pushed the Carolingian Empire even farther west.
When Charlemagne passed away in 814, the area of the imperial dominion was about 385.000 square miles (1 million sq km), having doubled during his period.
How Was the Territory of the Carolingian Empire Ruled?
Vita Sancti Martini by Sulpicius Severus; manuscript of the 8th century, composed in Carolingian minuscule. (Source: Paris BnF).
Charlemagne was not only a conqueror and military genius, but also a reformer and highly productive king. 300 provinces made up the Carolingian Empire. Charlemagne’s religious and secular commands were carried out over his vast realm by “missi dominici” (Latin for “envoy[s] of the lord [ruler]”) which were institutions with two heads (a count and a bishop).
Mathematics and grammar were taught in schools set up in each bishopric, and a uniform form of medieval Latin script was introduced.
The Carolingian minuscule, a new kind of writing, was developed to make books easier to read. Additionally, a monetary reform was implemented to switch from gold to silver as the metal of choice for coinage. The goal was to make it simpler for business deals to be done, allowing commerce to flourish.
Roads were kept in good shape, and farmers’ markets were given the green light, among other things. Libraries, artworks, and monuments flourished under Charlemagne’s reign, ushering in a period known as the “Carolingian Renaissance.”
What Language was Spoken in the Carolingian Empire?
Karl von Blass (1815–1894) painted a scene in which Charlemagne warns several careless students.
The Salian Frankish nobles, initially from the Rhine River but later moving southwest, established the Carolingian Empire after establishing a foothold in Gaul after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Franks, under Clovis’ rule, soon adopted aspects of Gallo-Roman culture and eventually abandoned their pagan religion in favor of Christianity.
Even though the Merovingians spoke Old Frankish, the Carolingians under Charlemagne adopted a close dialect called Rhenish Frankish, which became the official language of the capital of the Holy Roman Empire at Aachen.
What Was the Place of Religion in the Carolingian Empire?
The Coronation of Charlemagne by Friedrich Kaulbach (1822–1903).
The covenant struck between the Carolingian monarchs and the pope to support each other was a defining feature of the Carolingian Empire and its long partnership between politics and religion.
Charlemagne ordered the baptism of all infants under the age of one in the bishoprics, instituted the payment of tithes across the kingdom as early as 779, and founded several monasteries.
Paganism was outlawed, and Christian conversion was mandated in the conquered areas, particularly in Saxony. Charlemagne, against Rome’s opposition, commanded the addition of the Filioque (a Latin term meaning “and from the Son”) to the Nicene Creed during the ensuing dispute between the Roman and Greek churches over the doctrine of the Trinity. Theology developed strongly during the period of Charlemagne.
How Did the Carolingian Empire End?
When Charlemagne’s heir, Louis the Pious, died, his sons fought over who would succeed him. The sons intended to split up the Carolingian Empire, while the clergy wanted to keep it as one.
Louis’ oldest son, Lothair, believed he would rule on his own. Charles the Bald received West Francia, Lothair I received Middle Francia, and Louis II received East Francia according to the Treaty of Verdun signed in 843, which ended years of civil strife.
There was a de facto dissolution of the state their grandfather Charlemagne had established. These three realms were not self-sustaining due to external factors like the untimely assaults of the Vikings and the Arabs, the squabbles between brothers and their offspring, and the frequent and unexpected deaths of rulers. The Carolingian dynasty and its royal line ended in the middle of the 10th century.
What Do the Byzantine Empire and the Carolingian Empire Have in Common?
Both the Byzantine and Carolingian empires were Christian and ruled from Constantinople and Aachen, respectively. In both instances, the emperor led the armed forces and ensured the country’s religious harmony by means of military conquest. The governors, sometimes known as missi dominici, were responsible for implementing policies in several regions. The two dynasties had similar priorities when it came to the advancement of culture and learning.
KEY DATES OF THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE
October 22, 741 – Death of Charles Martel
Charles Martel was a notable person in the 8th century, serving as mayor of the palaces of Neustria and Austrasia and also as a prominent statesman and military commander. After defeating Umayyad forces attempting to take over Francia at the Battle of Tours (also called the Battle of Poitiers) in 732, he gained international renown and the papacy’s attention. When he passed away, he was given the honor of being buried in the royal church of Saint-Denis.
November 751 – Pepin the Short, King of the Franks
Pepin the Short, Charles Martel’s son, ousted Childeric III, king of the Merovingians, and assumed the throne following his father’s death. This was ten years after Martel’s own death. The pope, Zachariah, supported his claim to the throne, and he became king of the Franks in 751. The Merovingian Dynasty came to an end with this event, ushering in the new Frankish bloodline known as the Carolingians.
July 28, 754 – Pepin the Short was Once Again Crowned
Pepin the Short, at the behest of Pope Stephen II (who succeeded Zachary in 752), launched a victorious military expedition in Lombardy. Land was donated by Pepin, and the Papal States were officially established when the Treaty of Quierzy was signed in 754. The pope recognized his loyalty by reinstating his position as king of the Franks and bestowing upon him the title of Patrice of the Romans. During this time, the ties between the pope and the new monarchy were tightened even further.
September 25, 768 – Death of Pepin the Short
Pepin the Short, who died at the age of 54 due to sickness, spent the last years of his reign consolidating the kingdom in the South through the conquests of Septimania in 759 and Aquitaine in 768. He was laid to rest at Saint-Denis, much like his father. Carloman and Charlemagne, his sons, argued over how to divide the realm when he died.
December 4, 771 – Charlemagne Took Power
Charlemagne took full control of the realm after Carloman’s sudden death in 771, and taking the opportunity to oust his infant nephews, who were eventually imprisoned for life in a monastery. The Archbishop of Sens, Wilcharius, recognized him as the only ruler of the Franks.
774 – Charlemagne Confirmed the Papal States
Charlemagne formally acknowledged Pepin’s contribution to the Roman Catholic Church before the newly installed Pope Adrian I in Rome. The papacy’s temporal rule over the Papal States was recognized. The latter will continue to grow via further gifts and invasions.
August 15, 778 – Death of Roland at the Pass of Roncesvalles
It was in 778 when the famous warrior Roland, who had been guarding the Frankish border with Brittany, was tasked with leading an expedition against the emirate of Cordoba in Spain. At the Battle of Roncesvalles, this close friend and rumored nephew of Charlemagne was killed by an unexpected assault by the Vascons (Basques).
In 781, while visiting Rome, the English philosopher and theologian Alcuin met Charlemagne, who asked him to live in Aachen, the imperial capital. He rose rapidly to become the most trusted counselor to the Emperor and the leader of the Palatine School, which Charlemagne had created to educate his top officials. As a result, many episcopal schools and libraries were established across the enormous realm, ushering in the “Carolingian renaissance.”
799 – Charlemagne Annexed Dalmatia
Dalmatia was a crucial province of Croatia because of its location between the Byzantine and Carolingian empires. Charlemagne invades in 799 and firmly conquers the region by 803. This invasion by the Franks leads to a naval conflict with Constantinople that is only resolved with the signing of the Pax Nicephori in 812.
December 25, 800 – Coronation of Charlemagne
As a result of Charlemagne’s repeated victories, the Carolingian empire came to cover almost the whole Christian West. Political and religious leaders began to consider the possibility of an empire as a result of the ruler’s absolute authority. Charlemagne was proclaimed Emperor of the West in 800 after a failed coup against Pope Leo III in 799. The Byzantine Empire did not acknowledge this coronation because it saw it as illegitimate.
January 28, 814 – Death of Charlemagne
The Western Roman Emperor Charlemagne passed away at the age of 72 in the city of Aachen from what was likely a case of severe pneumonia. His son Louis the Pious took the imperial title after him, but that only sparked a battle of succession for power.
June 22, 841 – The Division of Charlemagne’s Empire
The Auxerrois area was the site of the war between Charlemagne’s grandchildren for control of the Empire. The true successor, Lothair, was defeated by his brothers, Louis the German and Charles the Bald. In 843, he was forced to sign the Treaty of Verdun, which gave the French-speaking half to Charles and the German-speaking part to Louis. It was during this war that the seeds for Germany, France, and Italy were planted.
February 14, 842 – Oaths of Strasbourg
Charles the Bald and Louis the German, Charlemagne’s grandsons, exchanged “Oaths of Strasbourg.” They joined forces to take on their elder sibling, Lothair, Emperor of the West, and they did so with this covenant of mutual help. This is the first official document to be written in a vernacular other than Latin.
Both Louis the German and Charles the Bald take the oath, but Louis does it in Romance while Charles does it in Tudesque, the ancestor of German. Lothair was defeated on June 25, 842, by the two allied brothers at Fontenay-en-Puisaye in modern-day Burgundy.
843 – The Belgian Territory Divided by the Treaty of Verdun
It was officially split between France and Lotharingia the day after the treaty was signed. Northern Flanders fell to Charles the Bald, while southern Wallonia was added to Lothar I’s realm. However, a few years later, the Holy Roman Empire would be given credit for the latter.
November 22, 845 – Independence of Brittany
Near Redon, the Breton Nominoe triumphed in a ball battle against Charles the Bald’s Carolingian army. This loss meant the end of the king’s attempt to conquer Brittany. Brittany broke away from the monarchy and established its own government. It would remain so for nearly 7 centuries.
April 10, 879 – Death of Louis the Stammerer
After a long illness, the 33-year-old monarch of West Francia passed away at Compiègne. King of France for only 16 short months, Louis the Stammerer was also known as King Louis II the Lazy. Louis III and Carloman, two of his sons, would go on to rule as monarchs of Neustria and Aquitaine, respectively.
November 28, 885 – Beginning of the Siege of Paris by the Normans
Parisians had been fending off the Vikings since the mid-9th century, who were not afraid to ravage the city as they did in 856. The Normans tried something new this time around and laid siege to the city. Because of Eudes, Paris was able to hold out for over two years. It wasn’t until Charles the Fat paid a huge ransom that fighting stopped.
January 13, 888 – Death of Charles the Fat
As a result, Charles the Fat, King of the Franks and Emperor of the West, passed away at Neidingen without a direct successor. As a reward for his bravery in repelling the Norman invasion of West Francia, Robert the Strong named his son Eudes as his heir. On February 29, he was anointed king of the West Franks, and he ruled until 898.
July 20, 911 – Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte
A century after racking up victories and establishing a foothold in Neustria, the Normans were beaten at Chartres by Charles the Simple. The latter was able to exert his authority and initiate talks with the “invaders” as a result of the changing circumstances. The end result was the establishment of the duchy of Normandy. In return for the King of France’s acknowledgment, the Norman Rollon gained control of this area. Additionally, he said that he would become a Catholic. The Normans quickly expanded their area after becoming French, which at the time included roughly what is now Upper Normandy.
October 7, 929 – Death of Charles the Simple
The French monarch passed away while in Herbert of Vermandois’ captivity at Peronne. Although he had reigned as king since 893, the Robertians had ousted him and thrown him in jail in 922. Robert I took over after him.
March 2, 986 – Death of Lothar III
Following a fulgurating pandemic, the Frankish king died at the age of 45. The cathedral of Saint-Rémy in Reims served as the site of his burial. Louis V, his son, took over after him. There was just one year under his rule.
References
Davis, Jennifer (2015). Charlemagne’s Practice of Empire. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-1316368596.
Joanna Story, Charlemagne: Empire and Society, Manchester University Press, 2005 ISBN 978-0-7190-7089-1
King, P. D. (1987). Charlemagne Translated Sources. p. 124. ISBN 978-0951150306.
Kramer, Rutger (2019). Rethinking Authority in the Carolingian Empire: Ideals and Expectations During the Reign of Louis the Pious (813-828). pp. 31–34. ISBN 9789048532681.
The Reconquista of southern Spain by the Christian kingdoms was mostly successful because of the pivotal Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, which took place on July 16, 1212. The Reconquista was halted in 1086 when the Almoravid counterattack ended a first phase that concluded with the seizure of Toledo in 1085.
Beginning in the middle of the 12th century, the Christian kingdoms began their advance, only to run across yet another Berber dynasty in the form of the Almohads. After their loss at Las Navas de Tolosa, the Almohad Empire disintegrated into a series of brief dynasties known as the Taifas, allowing the Christian monarchs to gain control of most of southern Spain.
The Almohads Before Las Navas de Tolosa
The latter took over after the Almoravids, whom they had previously vanquished in the Maghreb and with whom they shared a common ancestry and driving forces. However, they had a unique political and theological doctrine that was founded on the ideas of a Mahdi named Ibn Tumart and had a global calling. His successors, who also declared themselves caliphs, were much more ambitious than the Almoravids. This concept, however, was incompatible with Malikite Sunnism, contributing to the inability to rally Andalusian citizens.
The Almohads eagerly regained control of Al Andalus from the Almoravids, retaking Cordoba in 1148, Granada in 1154, and, most notably, Almeria from the Christians in 1157. Like the Almoravids, they attempted to impose a doctrine of Holy War, and it paid off with the decisive victory at Alarcos in 1195. These successes, however, mask more serious challenges, especially in the face of Christians’ growing unity. This would lead to the defeat of Las Navas de Tolosa.
Christians Unite Around the Kings of Aragon and Castile
There have been several efforts to bring the Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula together since the conquest of Toledo in 1085. Without a male heir, King Alfonso VI of Castile and Leon gave the reins of government to his daughter Urraca, whom he had married off to King Alfonso I of Aragon in 1109. As a consequence, a civil war broke out, and Alfonso I withdrew after having his marriage annulled by the pope, making way for Alfonso VII, the son of Urraca and Raymond of Burgundy (who died in 1126), to ascend to the throne of Castile. His grandfather’s imperial aspirations were passed down to him, and he followed in his footsteps by becoming Alfonso I of Aragon. Upon his death in 1134, there was an immediate crisis in both Navarre and Aragon.
Due to the support of the counts of Barcelona, Toulouse, and Navarre, Alfonso VII was able to consolidate his imperial authority during the next twenty years. That doesn’t last long, though, because the Pope steps in and says he’s applying Alfonso I’s will (his States were to be yielded to the military religious orders to continue the crusade!). The situation was further complicated by the appearance at the same time of a new kingdom, that of Portugal, recognized by Alfonso VII. In 1139, Alfonso Henriquez was recognized as King of Portugal by the Pope.
Alfonso VII’s death in 1157 shifted the boundaries, but not toward unification; his kingdom was split between Sancho and Ferdinand, with Sancho inheriting Castile and Ferdinand taking Leon. Nonetheless, it seems that the rival sovereigns have not abandoned the concept of the Reconquista despite the disintegration of the Spanish empire.
A “Crusade”?
Even while the Reconquista represented an abstract goal for the several Spanish monarchs, it didn’t always imply they were in agreement with one another or with regard to their respective territories. As a matter of fact, they fought amongst themselves over territory: Leon and Portugal fought over southern Galicia and the Algarve; Aragon (united with Catalonia in 1150) and Castile fought over the left bank of the Ebro and the kingdom of Murcia; and Castile and Navarre fought over the Rioja, Alava, and Guipuzcoa. After Alfonso VIII married the daughter of Henry II Plantagenet, Castile looked north, hoping to reach Biscay. King Ferdinand II of Castile married Louis, the son of King Philip Augustus of France, to his daughter Blanche in the early thirteenth century in an effort to strengthen his relationship with the latter and secure recognition of his claim to these territories (the future mother of a certain Saint Louis). Finally, Leon and Castile pose a danger to Portugal by attempting to divide it between them.
Castile and Aragon were a lot closer in terms of pursuing the Reconquista, therefore it was a plus. Beginning in 1170, after the turmoil in Spain subsides a little, this one picks back up where the last one left off, with the Almohads struggling to establish themselves in a region where the Andalusians are resistant to foreign rule for the same reasons they were resistant to the Almoravids. Without any significant conflicts, the war was fought mostly on the Tagus plateaus via the besieging of towns and fortresses.
Some foreign religious military organizations took part, such as the Templars and the Hospitallers, but the Spanish also established their own, such as the Order of Calatrava, which was officially recognized by Pope Alexander III in 1164. At this juncture in the 12th century, the sovereigns no longer have a monopoly on the struggle; they are “competing” with religious orders, clerics as important as Bernard of Clairvaux and his successors at Cîteaux, and the popes. This is how the Reconquista can be compared to the crusade in the East. The Reconquista is no longer only temporal but also spiritual.
The Almohads; A New Threat
But this wasn’t sufficient! A new Almohad caliph landed in Tarifa in 1195 and defeated Alfonso VIII’s forces at the Battle of Alarcos, a setback similar to the one at Zallaqa in 1086 that slowed the Reconquista. The Christians eventually capitulated when Sancho VII of Navarre and Alfonso IX of Leon agreed to pay tribute to the Almohads and when Alfonso VIII of Castile signed a truce with the Caliph al-Nasir. The fighting between Castile and Navarre persisted.
Although the Christians were saved, this was only because the Caliph wanted to break the truce and go on the offensive in Al Andalus after his successes in Ifriqiya and the Balearic Islands (the capture of Majorca in 1203). In 1208, the Spanish kingdoms finally made peace with one another thanks to the efforts of Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada, the Archbishop of Toledo. More than fifty days were lost in the defense of Salvatierra by the warrior monks of the Order of Calatrava against the Almohad armies.
For this reason, on the feast of Pentecost in 1212, King Alfonso VIII assembled an enormous crusading army consisting not only of Castilians but also of troops from other Spanish kingdoms and French knights. It wasn’t just a desire to protect territory that motivated the fighters; religion played a role as well. Though, after the 30th of June’s reconquest of Calatrava, the French contingents reproached Alfonso VIII for being too lenient with the Muslim prisoners, and so they decided to leave the army. Eventually, more Spanish troops join them, and they all set out for Las Navas de Tolosa.
Aftermath of the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa
Finally, the king of Castile was able to rally the kingdoms of Aragon and Navarre to his side. They resolved to attack the Almohads from behind on July 16, 1212, by going through the La Llosa Pass mountains. There was an imbalance in the number of soldiers present, with some reports claiming there were only 30,000 Almohads and 70,000 Christian troops. It is generally accepted that there were a disproportionately large number of male participants in the conflict, even though it is true that numbers in medieval sources should be treated with caution.
Peter II of Aragon’s army is on the left, Sancho VII of Navarre’s army is on the right, and Alfonso VIII of Castile’s army is in the middle. The Christians had a rough start to the conflict, taking fire from enemy arrows and then being charged by Berber and Andalusian light cavalry. The battle’s momentum must be turned around, and the Moslem army must be sent packing with the help of Alphonse VIII’s cavalry. Total and lasting success was achieved.
Not everyone in the West felt the effects of the Christian triumph at Las Navas de Tolosa right away, but it had far-reaching consequences. The Spanish under Alfonso VIII came out on top, while the Almohads saw the beginning of the end of their reign. In later years, the Caliphs even begged Christian sultans to aid them in their struggle against their rivals in the Maghreb.
After a lengthy pause, the Reconquista began again when it was time for the Christian kingdoms to restructure. Due to issues in the Maghreb (with the Marinids, for example), the Almohads were forced to leave Al Andalus, while the Christians were met with resistance by the Taifa emirs. However, the most significant Andalusian towns eventually fell: Cordoba in 1236, Seville in 1248, and Cadiz in 1263. The Emirate of Granada, where the Nasrid dynasty was created in the 1230s, was the last remaining stronghold, and it only lasted until 1492 thanks to the creation of new conflicts between Christian powers.
Nonetheless, the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa is a significant event in Reconquista history since it effectively signals the end and maybe the reversal of Muslim expansion into Andalusian territory. And it represents the religious fervor, or crusading zeal, that characterized the Reconquista in the second half of the 12th century.
Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa at a Glance
What was the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa?
The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa was a decisive conflict that took place during the Reconquista in Spain. It was fought between the Christian coalition of Spanish kingdoms led by Alfonso VIII of Castile and the Almohad Caliphate, ruled by Caliph Muhammad al-Nasir.
When did the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa occur?
The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa occurred on July 16, 1212.
What was the significance of the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa?
The Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa was a turning point in the Reconquista. It marked a major setback for the Almohad Caliphate and strengthened the position of Christian kingdoms in their efforts to reclaim the Iberian Peninsula from Muslim rule.
Who were the key players in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa?
The Christian coalition was led by Alfonso VIII of Castile and included forces from other Spanish kingdoms. The Almohad Caliphate was ruled by Caliph Muhammad al-Nasir.
How did the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa contribute to the Reconquista?
The Christian victory at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa dealt a severe blow to the Almohad Caliphate and expanded Christian territories in the Iberian Peninsula. It bolstered the momentum of the Reconquista and increased the confidence of Christian forces.
Bibliography:
Rosado Llamas, María Dolores y Manuel Gabriel López Payer, La batalla de las Navas de Tolosa: historia y mito, Jaén, Caja Rural, 2001. ISBN 84-699-6793-2. Reeditado en 2012.
The Battle of Bouvines, fought on July 27, 1214 in northern France, pitted the army of French King Philippe Augustus II against a German-Flemish coalition led by Emperor Otto IV. The unexpected defeat of the coalition turned out to be a great victory for the Capetian, which expanded its royal domain and consolidated its power against its European rivals. Like the Battle of Hastings, it was one of the first battles in which a monarch “tempted God”, that is, risked losing his life in bloody combat. The Battle of Bouvines was also a turning point in the history of France, and the victory gave rise to a “national feeling”.
Background of the Battle of Bouvines
Philip Augustus had continued his war against the Plantagenets (Richard the Lionheart and John Lackland) even after returning from the Crusades, eventually conquering Normandy in 1204. Similarly to the monarch of England, the French king took an interest in the civil wars that were ripping the Empire apart, and he picked sides according to his interests, as he had done from the very beginning of his reign.
The scenario appeared excellent until the issues involving King John of England and Pope Innocent III were added. The pope had outlawed England in 1206 and excommunicated the son of Henry II in 1209. Philip Augustus, saw an opportunity and instructed his son Louis to plan an invasion of England. The attempt failed, and in 1213 John Lackland formed a coalition against his French adversary, gaining the backing of the Count of Boulogne, Ferrand of Portugal (who became Count of Flanders), and most importantly Otto IV, whose rival Frederick Hohenstaufen was backed by the Capetian.
By 1213, Philip Augustus had made up his mind to launch the attack in Flanders. If the English had opted to establish a new front by landing at La Rochelle, his son Louis (the future Louis VIII) would have exacted his vengeance. At La Roche-aux-Moines, the French triumphed (July 2, 1214). For the King of France, the situation in the North was increasingly precarious as the coalition troops were reunified and Otto IV invaded Flanders.
The Forces at Work
The showdown ended the conflict in more ways than one. Two major monarchs attending at once is a notable anomaly for the time period. The validity of the war is at stake, and that legitimacy is bestowed by the outcome, which is clearly determined by God.
Philip Augustus was not one to make serious promises. Several of his famous knights and vassals were standing around him. These were Duke Eudes of Burgundy, Guillaume des Barres, Gautier de Nemours, and the Count of Sancerre. Brother Guerin, a member of the Hospitaller order, also helped the monarch. About 7,000 men served in the royal army, including 1,300 knights and the same number of mounted sergeants; the infantry was made up of municipal militias with a checkered history. Symbolizing the Holy Trinity, the entire thing is structured around the flag of Saint Denis. The battlefield was meticulously demarcated, and the bridge at Bouvines was shut to prevent the French soldiers from escaping across the marshes.
The alliance lined up 1,500 knights, the same number of mounted sergeants, and somewhat more infantry made up of Flemish militias and English mercenaries to face the royal ost. Attendees included Renaud de Dammartin, Count of Boulogne, Hugues de Boves, the Count of Salisbury, the Duke of Brabant, and the Count of Flanders Ferrand, in addition to Otto IV.
Battle of Bouvines (July 27, 1214)
The conflict was ignited by Brother Guerin and the French right wing. It charged the Flemish knights and their count, breaking through their lines after many charges; it was made up of Burgundians and Champenois. “A capture! It’s Ferrand!” The middle is less resolved; it is there, around Philip Augustus and Otto IV of Brunswick, that the most significant soldiers are at odds. The infantry can’t absorb the cavalry’s shock, and thus the battle devolves into a chaotic maelstrom. The French monarch is disarmed but is rescued by intervening knights, while the emperor is forced to escape.
On the left, Robert de Dreux and Renaud de Dammartin were battling, thus their adversaries were familiar with one another. The latter put up a fierce fight, and it was only until Brother Guerin arrived to provide reinforcements that they finally capitulated. The duke of Brabant and Otton IV himself, among the gathered leaders, escaped as the royal army began its chase. Philip II, now often referred to as “Augustus” because of his unchallenged triumph, declared an end to the battle.
Aftermath and Legacy of Bouvines
The English monarchical crisis develops as John Lackland goes missing; Otto IV is significantly weakened in his war against the Hohenstaufen, the future Frederick II; and the major feudal lords (for example, in Flanders) are forced to submit to the Capetian monarchy. The latter declares its status as the world’s preeminent force and validates its territorial gains of recent years.
The domestic ramifications, however, are of far greater significance to the French monarchy. The benefit that Philippe Auguste might get from this triumph was apparent almost immediately; large celebrations were held, and the captives were paraded about. William the Breton, for example, wrote the Philippide, a 10,000-verse ode to Philip Augustus and the Capetian monarchy, between 1214 and 1224. Following this triumph, the latter sought to establish a sense of “national spirit” (an outdated word, but one that conveys the pivotal nature of the war) around himself and the victory.
In spite of the monarch and his propagandists, it is important to place Bouvines in its proper historical context during the reign of Philip Augustus. It seems to have stayed within the Loire region and was mostly unknown across the Empire. Consequently, there was not much “national resonance” at the time.
Bouvines’s legacy was cemented in the 19th century, when historians, inspired to produce a “national romance,” designated the year as a key moment in the establishment of the French state. So, Ernest Lavisse put it in writing: “Thanks to Bouvines, our nation, safe in its birthplace, now presents a stunning image to the rest of the globe. This majesty was the fitting coronation for the genuine France, the one whose tale will unfold unbroken long after we are gone.” Keeping Bouvines in the national consciousness is thus essential.
References
Jean-Louis Pelon et Alain Streck, Bouvines 2014 : Une bataille aux portes de Lille, Hazebrouck, La Voix, coll. « Secrets du Nord », 2014, 68 p. (ISBN 978-2-84393170-3), p. 39.
The Suez Canal, opened in Egypt in 1869, is a vital sea route that connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea and, by extension, the Indian Ocean. The Universal Canal Company was nationalized by Egyptian President Nasser, prompting immediate responses. The United Kingdom, France, and Israel, three allies, launched a military battle against Egypt. The United States and the Soviet Union, the world’s two superpowers at the time, stepped in quickly amid heightened tensions. Thus, the worldwide Suez crisis occurred in a very specific setting, characterized by the interplay of the Cold War, the Arab-Israeli disputes, and the end of colonialism.
The construction of the Suez Canal and British domination
Because of the Suez Canal, ships can travel from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean without having to go through Africa. (Image: W. Commons. CC BY 2.5)
Since the late 18th century, people had been planning to create a waterway that would connect the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. In the middle of the 19th century, Ferdinand de Lesseps took it up. The former Consul General of Alexandria used his personal relationship with Sa’id of Egypt, now Viceroy of Egypt, to further his agenda.
He negotiated his way into a 99-year lease. In 1858, he established the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez (Universal Company of the Maritime Canal of Suez) to finish building the canal. The United Kingdom, however, was quick to reject the operation out of concern for its economic superiority along the route to India.
Even though it halted work for three years, it ultimately failed to thwart the success of the project. On November 17, 1869, the Suez Canal opened to the public. It stretched for a total of 162 kilometers and would facilitate increased shipping activity. The economic potential of this sea route between Europe and Asia was rapidly recognized in the United Kingdom. After purchasing the Egyptian stock, it became the company’s single-largest shareholder. The United Kingdom gradually consolidated its control over the nation by planting soldiers in key locations.
The nationalization of the Suez Canal
After the Suez Canal was nationalized in 1956, a statue honoring Ferdinand de Lesseps, a Frenchman who oversaw the canal’s construction, was taken down.
Since the 1880s, Egypt had been experiencing a growing sense of nationalism that eventually led to the country’s proclamation of independence. Upon signing a treaty with Britain in 1936, the latter withdrew its occupying forces from the country, with the exception of those stationed in and around the Suez Canal. Therefore, Britain maintained its sway over the seaway by making its defense a top priority. This intrusive presence was not well received by Egyptians, and King Farouk I’s popularity plummeted. In addition, the Arab-Israeli conflict broke out in 1948, further destabilizing the region. Despite the armistice, hostilities persisted.
Gamal Abdel Nasser took control of Egypt when the monarchy was overthrown, and in 1954 he successfully negotiated the British evacuation of all of their soldiers from the country. Simultaneously, the Egyptian president planned the Aswan Dam’s construction and asked the United States for funding. After being turned down by the British and the French, he nationalized the Suez Canal’s Universal Company on July 26, 1956.
The unexpectedness hit like a brick. The United Kingdom swiftly responded. Anthony Eden, the country’s prime minister, regarded this as a danger to commerce and the economy. Very soon, he was able to win over France, whose patience with Nasser’s advocacy of Algerian nationalists had worn thin. Meanwhile, American President Dwight Eisenhower steadfastly declined to join the battle.
The Suez crisis
While Eisenhower sought a diplomatic resolution, British and French representatives, together with representatives from Israel, met in private in Sevres. The three countries then devised an offensive strategy, which called for Israel to invade Egypt, whose forces were already engaged in combat on the border.
Two others would step in, claiming to be guarding the canal. And thus, on October 29, 1956, the Israeli army entered Sinai as planned. The French and British quickly issued a demand for the warring parties to get out of the canal zones. Nasser’s refusal was anticipated and exploited as justification for involvement by France and Britain.
Eisenhower was caught off guard by this involvement and attempted to take swift action. He was quite concerned that the Arab governments, in the middle of the Cold War, might start looking to the Soviet Union for help. The US president asked the UN to approve a resolution ordering a ceasefire because of this.
Despite this, Franco-British forces massed along the canal. When the Soviet Union’s forces were still stationed in Egypt, it threatened to launch rockets at the nations involved. The “two great ones” decided to stop their battle despite the pressures that opposed them, especially in light of the happenings in Hungary.
The aftermath of the Suez crisis
With the use of economic and political penalties, the United Nations was able to get Great Britain to comply with its decision. The French government was forced to agree to the ceasefire. Both countries felt humiliated by the loss and withdrew their forces from the zone under UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force) supervision by December.
Nasser, on the other hand, was becoming more well-liked among Muslims. Brief though it was, the Suez Canal crisis was indicative of broader underlying conflicts. Relations between the United States and the Soviet Union remained tight in the midst of the Cold War, which had been ongoing since 1946. It was impossible for the European nations, who were losing ground in the Middle East, to challenge the “big two.” Finally, the incident did little except reignite tensions between Israelis and Arabs, which eventually led to the Six-Day War.
TIMELINE OF THE SUEZ CRISIS
November 30, 1854: Ferdinand de Lesseps was granted the concession for the Suez Canal
The Viceroy of Egypt, Mohamed Sa’id Pasha (Sa’id of Egypt), granted Ferdinand de Lesseps a 99-year concession to construct the Suez Canal. The French businessman’s goal was to establish a sea connection between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. When the current concession ended, Egypt would take full ownership of the canal.
Ferdinand de Lesseps established the Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez to handle the project’s finances and construction. The Suez Canal opened to much fanfare in 1869, despite difficulties with the British. This massive, 162 km-long project took 10 years to complete.
November 17, 1869: Inauguration of the Suez Canal
The opening of the Suez Canal in the 19th century and the Panama Canal in 1914 both contributed to the growth of marine traffic. Empress Eugenie, wife of Napoleon III, Prince of Prussia, Emperor of Austria Franz Joseph, and an English envoy attended the opening of the Suez Canal on November 17, 1869. Roughly forty ships made the journey via the canal’s 162 kilometer length on this particular occasion.
October 29, 1888: Internationalization of the Suez Canal
The Suez Canal became part of the international system thanks to a treaty signed in Constantinople (İstanbul) by various nations, including England. It was thus available for use by any ship, of any country, during both peace and conflict. However, this rule was not always adhered to in the years after 1875, especially during World Wars I and II, when England controlled the lion’s share of the Canal Company’s shares.
February 28, 1922: End of the English protectorate over Egypt
When the Egyptian independence movement became too strong to ignore, the British government declared that the protectorate it had created over Egypt in 1914 was officially terminated. Since 1882, Great Britain was effectively ruling the region. In spite of achieving independence, the nation still had very little control over its own affairs.
Indeed, the British monarch retained exclusive control over matters like Suez Canal security, military matters, and the safeguarding of foreign interests. Once the protectorate was abolished, Egypt became a monarchy, and Sultan Fouad I anointed himself king. However, it wasn’t really independent until an agreement was reached between France and Egypt in 1936.
August 26, 1936: Britain recognizes the independence of Egypt
In effect, as a result of the signing of an agreement between Britain and Egypt, Egypt became a sovereign nation. Egypt had become a monarchy by the time the British protectorate ended in 1922, having been formed in 1914. On the other hand, Britain maintained control over the country’s military and diplomatic affairs. As a result, its forces maintained a significant presence over most of the country. The signature of this pact required them to depart the nation, with the exception of the Suez Canal. In 1953, after the “free officers” coup d’état led by Neguib and Nasser, the Republic was declared.
23 July 1952: Overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy
The secretive group known only as “the free officers” ousted King Farouk in the middle of the night. Mohamed Neguib, a general, was named president after the proclamation of the Republic. Since the conclusion of the first Arab-Israeli war (1948–49), Egypt had been in a state of crisis. The monarch was blamed for Israel’s victory, and his capitulation to the British, who had established themselves on the Suez Canal, startled the country’s many political currents.
Young Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, who later became Deputy Prime Minister, launched the progressive movement that toppled him. On July 26, King Farouk abdicated and fled to exile in Monaco. The military leader, General Mohamed Neguib, was elected president.
18 June 1953: Proclamation of the Republic of Egypt
Egypt became a republic after the “free officers” secret society staged a coup d’état the previous year to remove King Farouk. Mohamed Neguib, a general, was elected president. However, he was fired in November 1954 when he had a conflict with Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser. After then, all authority was given to Nasser. With the treaty of departure of the Suez Canal Zone in June 1956, he ended the British occupation of Egypt (which had started in 1882).
June 1956: The British fleet leaves the Suez Canal
When the final British warship exited the Suez Canal, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was able to celebrate. Since the collapse of the monarchy in 1952, Egyptians had been calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces. The British and Egyptian governments reached an agreement to completely evacuate the territory in 1954. Nasser declared the canal to be state-owned after its liberation. That way, the Aswan Dam could be built, he hoped. A serious crisis on a global scale was precipitated by the occurrence.
July 26, 1956: Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal
When Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser visited Alexandria to mark the 5th anniversary of the revolution, he made public his plans to nationalize the Suez Canal and seize the assets of the Universal Suez Canal Company. After the United Kingdom and the United States declined to contribute to funding the Aswan Dam, he made the decision to go on with the project on his own.
France and England were charging passage fees on this waterway between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and the “Rais’” response sparked a global crisis. Israel was the first to react, attacking Egypt on October 29; the United Kingdom and France followed suit by sending soldiers. The United Nations succeeded in ending hostilities by having Western soldiers leave the canal’s perimeter. Nasser was able to emerge from the political crisis in a stronger position.
October 22, 1956: An alliance was formed against Egypt
Upon hearing of Egyptian President Nasser’s declaration that the Suez Canal be nationalized, representatives from the United Kingdom, France, and Israel gathered in a secret location in Sèvres to discuss a response. The different delegates reached a consensus on a coordinated action in Egypt to take the canal. The interests of the three countries were distinct. Britain, which had ruled and controlled Suez for decades, was worried about the impact of nationalization on the British economy.
Since Egypt’s ruler backed Algerian nationalists in their fight against French colonialism, France interfered to remove him from office. To that purpose, Israel wanted Egypt to relinquish its occupation of the Gaza Strip. Two days of planning and deliberation resulted in the launch of the strike on October 29. As planned, Israel would attack the Sinai Peninsula. France and Britain then sent soldiers under the guise of protecting strategic canal locations.
October 29, 1956: Israel attacks Egypt
Britain, France, and Israel’s covert partnership had begun its operation a few days earlier. Israeli soldiers invaded Sinai as planned. The other two nations stepped up and offered to deploy troops to guard the canal against the Egyptian president. Nasser, however, would have none of this invasion and hence refused. French and British paratroopers dropped from the sky and soon invaded Egypt thereafter. Key objectives were Port Said and Fuad.
October 31, 1956: Franco-British intervention against Egypt
Unhappy with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s plan to nationalize the canal, the British and the French invaded the Suez Canal Zone (July 26, 1956). Britain and France, therefore, attacked Egypt to ensure free passage through the Suez Canal. Beginning on October 29th, Israel had already invaded the Sinai Peninsula. On November 6, the United States and the Soviet Union applied enough pressure to bring an end to the fighting.
November 4, 1956: The UN created UNEF
The United Nations Emergency Force was formed after the Soviet Union and the United States applied pressure on the organization. Its goal was to ease tensions during the Suez Crisis by monitoring the complete evacuation of French, Israeli, and British forces. UNEF was the first UN military intervention force, and it was sent to Egypt soon after it was established. So far, only observational soldiers had been sent. Up to Nasser’s 1967 demand for its withdrawal, it stayed in the nation to maintain peace.
November 6, 1956: Cease-fire in the Suez Crisis
The United Kingdom, France, and Israel all agreed to the UN-mandated ceasefire. Since the war had drained the country’s resources, Britain had no choice but to join. The United States and the Soviet Union both urged the departure of soldiers, so the country could not rely on international help. Thus, the three nations were publicly defeated in their own fight. Slowly but surely, from October onward to December, French and British forces withdrew from the area.
March 29, 1957: Reopening of the Suez Canal
In order to restore navigation via the Suez Canal, Egypt reopened it. When the French and British initially attacked, President Nasser destroyed roughly 40 ships in the canal to prevent them from entering. After agreeing to a ceasefire in November of 1956, soldiers were able to leave the area and clearing could begin. Tensions with Israel, which had joined the Allies on the side of the French and British, persisted, though. This was already beginning to happen by the time of the Six-Day War in 1967, which ultimately resulted in the canal being closed once more, this time until 1975.
On September 19, 1356, the Battle of Poitiers took place in Nouaillé-Maupertuis. It was fought between the Kingdoms of France and England, and is a notable episode of the Hundred Years’ War. Despite the French army’s numerical superiority, the strategy of Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince, allowed him to secure a decisive victory. At the end of the battle, he captured the French King, John II (known as John the Good), who would remain in captivity until 1360, when he was released following the signing of the Treaty of Brétigny.
The Battle of Poitiers was a turning point in the Hundred Years’ War, weakening the French monarchy and strengthening the British position. It set the stage for later conflict and negotiations.
What Caused the Battle of Poitiers in 1356?
Edward, the Black Prince.
In 1356, the Battle of Poitiers occurred during the Hundred Years’ War, which began in 1337. Several factors contributed to the outbreak of the conflict, such as an economy weakened by the lords’ tax pressures and a demographic crisis, often referred to as the Great Medieval Depression. The origins of the war also stem from the contested succession to the French throne following the death of Charles IV. Additionally, the princely dynasties of the Capetians and Plantagenets fought over the possession of Guyenne (modern-day Aquitaine). Edward of Woodstock, also known as the Black Prince, was required to pledge allegiance to the King of France for this territory.
The Hundred Years’ War did not start favorably for the French. In 1346, the Battle of Crécy resulted in a significant English victory. By 1355, the Black Prince had begun a devastating campaign through Languedoc.
The following year, Charles II of Navarre was captured by the French kingdom, and his family sought help from the English. The Black Prince led his army to rescue him, crossing and pillaging many territories, including Poitou, Limousin, and Berry.
While Edward of Woodstock advanced towards Tours, King John II assembled an army of 50,000 men to pursue him. Aware of the threat, the English retreated toward Bordeaux, passing through Poitiers.
The Key Tactics and Units Used in the Battle of Poitiers
The English army at Poitiers employed a combination of longbowmen and cavalry, which proved effective against the French knights. The use of the longbow played a critical role in the English victory.
Preparations for the Battle
While King John was busy with the troubles in Normandy in April 1356, the Black Prince led an Anglo-Gascon force north from Guyenne. The king mustered his vast army (about 30,000 men) and chased after the fleeing English, hoping to cut off their escape route at Bordeaux.
Maupertuis, located just south of Poitiers, served as the gathering location. The two armies met on September 18, 1356, a Sunday. King John, confident in his triumph thanks to his superior numbers and strategic location, agreed to the Sunday ceasefire requested by the Pope’s delegates.
In an effort to make his army more unified and well-disciplined than the feudal banners, he divided his troops into four distinct “battalions.” The Constable de Brienne, the Marshals of Clermont and Audrehem, and 300 specially picked troops would form the front line and lead the attack to “open and divide the archers.”
The majority of the army fought in two separate battles on foot in the second line, under the leadership of Dauphin Charles and the Duke of Orleans. The “battle of the king,” which included the other French princes, was held in reserve. Equipment for the anticipated foot fight on the 19th was prepared on the evening of the 18th.
Key Characters of the Battle of Poitiers
The French army, consisting of around 50,000 men, was divided into three distinct battalions:
The first was commanded by Philip of Orléans, the king’s brother.
Charles of Normandy, the future Charles V, led the second battalion, accompanied by his two brothers, John of Berry and Louis of Anjou.
The third group was led by King John II himself, along with 19 knights of the Star.
On the English side, Edward of Woodstock, the Prince of Wales, led an army of 1,000 soldiers, 1,500 infantrymen, and around 2,200 archers. He arranged his troops into three lines of defense:
The Black Prince was at the forefront with John Chandos.
The second line of defense was commanded by the Earls of Suffolk and Warwick.
The last was led by the Earls of Oxford and Salisbury.
Battle of Poitiers
The Black Prince’s inner circle made the wise decision to advance ahead of the royal army while hiding in the hedges at the edge of the woods in order to escape the French trap. Captain Jean Chandos was in charge of this strategy.
It was meant to provoke a reaction from the French so that the Welsh archers stationed on the column’s flank might annihilate the aggressor with their longbows.
The fords of the neighboring Miosson would provide safe passage for King John’s army and clear the way to Bordeaux if he withheld his forces. Warwick, Suffolk, and Captain de Buch were in charge of the front-line troops. To guard and advise him, Edward and Chandos commanded the center. Salisbury and Oxford closed the march.
King John wanted the Order of the Star to continue in the spirit he envisioned, so he delivered a powerful speech to its knights. Although the French were successful in the early skirmishes and even captured some Nassau soldiers, the Battle of Poitiers’ official start on the morning of the 19th was a disaster.
The English were marching in accordance with Chandos’ plan, but the French vanguard, unable to keep itself in check, abruptly bolted in opposite directions while the rest of the men remained in camp. “You will not be so bold today that you put the muzzle of your horse to the ass of mine,” said Clermont, who was killed in the assault, to Arnoul d’Audrehem (the Marshal of France). Constable de Brienne made a valiant effort to assault the lagging English column’s rear but was ultimately unsuccessful.
The French troops, while engaged, charged headlong against the English. As a result of this initial victory, the latter group resolved to put up a fight. The archers wiped out the French on foot despite their superior numbers and weaponry.
Despite realizing that his triumph was at risk, the king sent a terrible signal of surrender when he ordered his sons to evacuate and kept just the young Philip with him. But he just couldn’t see himself making the break. Numerous knights abandoned their posts in imitation of the Crown Princes. King Chandos and the Black Prince, the last line of defense from here on out, rush to the front in their turn to launch an assault. Following a fierce hand-to-hand battle, the king surrendered with the future Duke of Burgundy at his side, having been vanquished but maintaining his knightly dignity.
Results of the Battle of Poitiers
The Battle of Poitiers in 1356 was a decisive English victory in the context of the Hundred Years’ War. King John II was taken prisoner, and the English demanded a ransom of 4 million gold écus from France. During the king’s captivity, the Dauphin Charles became the Lieutenant General of the kingdom. He had to face demands from the Estates General, which sought to reform royal power, particularly the administration.
Additionally, the bourgeoisie of Paris attempted to impose their will on the future Charles V. In 1358, he had to deal with a peasant revolt in Île-de-France, Champagne, and Picardy, known as the Grande Jacquerie. The rebellion was brutally suppressed, with over 8,500 people killed in just fifteen days. After this episode, it was not until May 1360 and the signing of the Treaty of Brétigny that King John II was released for a ransom of 3 million gold écus. France ceded a quarter of its territory to the English, including Gascony and Guyenne. In return, Edward III relinquished his claim to the French crown.
Casualties at the Battle of Poitiers
At the end of the Battle of Poitiers, the French army suffered around 8,000 casualties, including 60 barons, an archbishop, and 17 counts. Marshal Clermont and Constable Gauthier VI de Brienne were killed during their assault on the troops led by the Earl of Salisbury. The English lost 340 men, including 150 archers. The most famous prisoner of war was none other than King John II of France.
What Role Did Chivalry Play in the Battle of Poitiers?
The Battle of Poitiers occurred during the era of chivalry, and both English and French knights adhered to chivalric codes. However, the battle also demonstrated that military tactics and technology were evolving and becoming increasingly important in warfare.
Key Dates in the Battle of Poitiers
October 7, 1337 – Beginning of the Hundred Years’ War
On October 7, 1337, the Hundred Years’ War began. Edward III demanded the French crown from his cousin, Philip VI. The conflict also stemmed from a deep economic and demographic crisis.
The war would only end 116 years later, in 1453, with a French victory.
September 19, 1356 – Defeat at Poitiers
The Battle of Poitiers in 1356 was a decisive English victory. The Black Prince, Edward of Woodstock, managed to rout the French army with fewer than 5,000 men. He also captured the King of France, John II “the Good,” along with his son, Philip. After the Battle of Crécy, it was the second major confrontation of the Hundred Years’ War.
March 23, 1357 – Truce of Bordeaux
Established by the kingdoms of France and England, the Truce of Bordeaux marked the end of fighting for a period of one year. The Black Prince sought to use this event to negotiate the ransom of John II “the Good,” but Edward III firmly opposed this. In twenty years, this was the fourth truce of the Hundred Years’ War.
June 9, 1358 – Battle of Mello during the Great Jacquerie
The Great Jacquerie was a peasant revolt that occurred during the Hundred Years’ War. Charles II of Navarre violently suppressed this uprising against the nobility. On June 9, 1358, the Battle of Mello resulted in 7,000 deaths. In the span of fifteen days, more than 20,000 peasants were massacred.
May 8, 1360 – Franco-English Peace of Brétigny
In 1360, the Treaty of Brétigny was ratified by France and England. King John II “the Good” was freed in exchange for a ransom of 3 million gold écus. The Kingdom of France ceded nearly a quarter of its territories. Edward III renounced the French crown. This peace lasted nine years. Charles V broke the agreement on November 18, 1368, leading to the continuation of the Hundred Years’ War.
