Wednesday, 7 October 2020

Vlad the Impaler

Personal Profile

Vlad III Dracul, 'The Impaler' 

Born: 1428-31, known as Vlad III, Vlad the Impaler or Vlad III Dracula

 

Died: December 1476 – January 1477

 

Reign: October – November 1448; 15 April 1456 – July 1462; December 1476 – January 1477

 

Marriages: Unknown first wife; Jusztina Szilágyi

 

Children: Mihnea (b. 1462), unnamed second son (killed 1486); Vlad Drakwyla

 

Dynasty: Drâculesti, House of Basarab

 


***NOTE***

 

Throughout this post, I will refer to Vlad the Impaler as either ‘Vlad’ or ‘Vlad the Impaler’. Any other characters called Vlad (and there are a few!) will be referred to in full, such as ‘Vlad II Dracul’ (Vlad’s father), or ‘Vladislav II’ (Voivode of Wallachia), so as to avoid any confusion. There is also a list of characters at the bottom of this post, and the characters are listed in bold.

 

Early Life

 

Vlad III, better known as Vlad Dracula or Vlad the Impaler, was born in Sighisoara, a part of Transylvania, modern-day Romania. He was the second illegitimate son of Vlad II Dracul – hence the name Dracula. His father was the Voivode (ruler) of Wallachia from 1436-42, and again from 1443-47. The nickname ‘Dracul’ came from Vlad II’s membership in the Order of the Dragon, a military fraternity founded by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, in 1408. It was dedicated to stopping the Ottoman Turks’ advance into Europe from the East.

Vlad’s date of birth is often contended, and there are no definitive sources as to when he was actually born. The dates are often presumed to be between 1428-31; he was old enough to be a candidate to the throne of Wallachia* in 1448, meaning his birth would have been between 20-23 years old at the time. What we do know, though, is that he was born in Sighisoara, where his father lived in a three-storey stone house from 1431-35.

As an adolescent boy, during the Crusade Varna (1443-44), Vlad was sent as a hostage to the court of the Ottoman Sultan Murad II

The present-day countries in and around
what was Wallachia
 (r. 1421-44, 1446-51). Vlad was exploited as a child sex slave, and the buggery to which he was subjected to can be considered the likely psychiatric source of his later obsessions.

 

*Wallachia was a historical region of what is modern-day Romania. It was situated north of the Lower Danube River and south of the Southern Carpathian Mountains.

 

Reigns

Vlad was not just on the Wallachian throne once, but on three separate occasions. Although his first and third rules were significantly shorter than his second rule, they are still relevant in any discussion about Vlad the Impaler.


First Reign, October-November 1448

Upon the death of his father and elder brother in 1447, Vlad became a potential claimant to the Wallachian throne. However, the current ruler, Vladislav II, had taken the throne before Vlad had chance to publicly put his claim forward. It is often believed that Vladislav II assassinated Vlad II Dracul (Vlad the Impaler’s father) in order to seize the throne. Vladislav II was assisted by John Hunyadi, a leading military figurehead in Wallachia, and part of a noble Transylvanian family. However, in September 1448, John Hunyadi launched a campaign against the Ottoman Empire. Vlad took advantage of Hunyadi’s absence, and broke into Wallachia in early October.

The Ottoman forces defeated Hunyadi’s army in the Battle of Kosovo between 17-18 October 1448. Hunyadi’s deputy, Nicholas Vizaknai, urged Vlad to meet him in Transylvania, but Vlad refused. Vladislav II returned to Wallachia with the remnants of his defeated army – but it was still enough to scare Vlad off. Vlad fled to the Ottoman Empire, and arrived in Edime on 7 December 1448, putting an end to his first reign as Voivode of Wallachia.

 

Second Reign, 15 April 1456 – July 1462

Vlad moved from Edime to Moldavia (which forms part of modern-day Moldova, Romania and Ukraine), where his uncle Bogdan II had taken the throne with John Hunyadi’s support in Autumn 1449. Vlad allegedly wanted to settle in Brasov (a city in Transylvania), but Hunyadi forbade the burghers (privileged citizens of medieval European towns) to let him settle there in a letter he wrote to them on 6 February 1452. Vlad instead returned to Moldavia.

Unfortunately – and not for the last time – there is a gap in the history of Vlad’s life here. We do know that he returned to Hungary sometime before 3 July 1456, because on that day Hunyadi informed the citizens of Brasov that he had tasked Vlad with the defence of the Transylvanian border from the Ottomans.

 

Once again, Vlad invaded Wallachia in Spring 1456, but instead of garnering support from the Ottomans, he instead tried with Hungarian support. He was successful this time in two ways: firstly, Vladislav II ‘the imposter’ in Vlad’s view, was killed in the invasion; and secondly, he was proclaimed Voivode of Wallachia. This was evident in a letter addressed to the burghers of Brasov on 10 September 1456. In this letter, he promised to protect them from an Ottoman invasion of Transylvania, but he also sought their support if the Ottomans occupied Wallachia. Perhaps the most important element of this letter, though, was when he stated: 

 

“When a man is strong and powerful, he can make peace as he wants to; but when he is weak, a stronger one will come and do what he wants to him.”

 

This quote is often the first bit of evidence many historians see as Vlad’s completely authoritarian personality coming out. Shortly after this infamous letter, Vlad began his purge. The contemporary Byzantine historian, Laonikos Chalkokondyles, recorded in his chronicle that “hundreds or thousands” of people were impaled (with the aid of a needle-thin greased staken which was rammed up the victim’s rectum and out through their mouth in such a way that the death throes could last for days) at Vlad’s order at the beginning of his Second Reign. He initially targeted the boyars (aristocrats) who had participated in the murder of his father and brother, or whom he suspected had conspired against him. Interestingly, Chalkokondyles also wrote that Vlad helped the Wallachian economy somewhat, by using the “money, property, and other goods” of his victims to help pay off any debts he had accumulated from his previous invasions, and to pay soldiers in his retinue.

 

The next major event in Vlad’s Second Reign also occurred early on. John Hunyadi died on 11 August 1456, and his son, Ladislaus Hunyadi, became the captain-general of Hungary. Ladislaus accused Vlad of having “no intention of remaining faithful” to the Kingdom of Hungary in a letter to the burghers of Brasov and ordered them to support Dan III (Vladislav II’s brother) against Vlad.

However, the King of Hungary, Ladislaus V, had Ladislaus Hunyadi executed on 16 March 1457. Hunyadi’s mother, Erzsébet Szilágyi, and her brother, Michael, stirred up a rebellion against the king. Taking advantage of the civil war in Hungary, Vlad assisted his cousin Stephen (son of Bogdan II of Moldavia) in his move to seize Moldavia in June 1457. Vlad also broke into Transylvania and plundered the villages around Brasov and Sibiu. Some early German stories from the early 1460s describe Vlad as carrying “men, women and children” from a Transylvanian Saxon village to Wallachia and having them impaled. Since the Transylvanian Saxons remained loyal to Ladislaus V, Vlad’s attack against them strengthened the position of the Szilágyis.

Vlad’s representatives participated in the peace negotiations between Michael Szilágyi and the Saxons. The burghers of Brasov agreed that they would expel Dan III from their town. Delighted, Vlad described Michael as his “lord and elder brother” in a letter dated 1 December 1457.

 

However, Ladislaus Hunyadi’s younger brother, Matthias Corvinus, was elected King of Hungary on 24 January 1458 upon Ladislaus V’s death. He ordered the burghers of Sibiu to keep the peace with Vlad on 3 March. In May 1458, Vlad ordered the burghers of Brasov to send craftsmen to Wallachia – he disregarded the Transylvanian Saxons in this respect, because he forbade the Saxons to enter Wallachia, forcing them to sell their goods to Wallachian merchants at border fairs. One Saxon merchant confiscated the steel that a Wallachian merchant had brought to him, and upon hearing about this, Vlad “ransacked and tortured” Saxon merchants in early 1459, according to a letter written by Basarab Laiota (a son of Dan II of Wallachia):

 

“…the officials and councillors of Brasov cried to us with broken hearts about the things which Dracula, our enemy did…[he] captured all the merchants of Brasov who had gone in peace to Wallachia and took all their wealth; but he was not satisfied with only the wealth of these people…he imprisoned them and impaled them, 41 in all…he became even more evil and gathered 300 boys from Brasov that he found in Wallachia. Of these, he impaled some and burned others.”

 

In response, Dan III broke into Wallachia, but Vlad defeated him and had him executed on 20 April 1460. Vlad then invaded southern Transylvania and destroyed the suburbs of Brasov, ordering the impalement of all men and women who had been captured. Peace was restored – simply through the people of Brasov fearing Vlad – by 26 July 1460, when Vlad addressed the burghers as his “brothers and friends”. Yet Vlad was not all about brotherly love and friendship – he had war on his hands.

 

The Ottoman Wars

 

The Ottoman Wars were a major part of Vlad’s Second Rule, and perhaps the most famous of these skirmishes was what was stylised as The Night Attack at Târgoviste.

This battle was fought between Vlad’s Wallachian forces and Sultan Mehmed II’s Ottoman forces overnight on Thursday 17 June 1462. It initially started when Vlad refused to pay the jizya, a tax on non-Muslim subjects, to the Sultan, and intensified when Vlad invaded Bulgaria in early 1462. In response, Mehmed raised an army of approximately 250,000 men (100,000 regular troops and 150,000 conscript engineers) with the aim to conquer Wallachia and annex it to the Ottoman Empire. Vlad raised an army of 30,000 men (22,000 of whom were light infantry and volunteers) and with a band of these soldiers, attacked the Ottoman camp overnight, in an attempt to kill Mehmed himself. The assassination attempt failed, and Mehmed marched to the Wallachian capital of Târgoviste where he discovered it had been almost utterly destroyed. Upon leaving the capital, and heading back to Constantinople, Mehmed and his men were horrified to discover a “forest of the impaled” – thousands of impaled Turks who had been killed during Vlad’s invasion of Bulgaria. The number 23,844 carcasses impaled is mentioned by Vlad himself in a letter to Matthias Corvinus in the same year. The historian Chalkokondyles wrote that:

 

“There were large stakes on which, it was said, about twenty thousand men, women and children had been spitted, quite a sight for the Turks and the Sultan himself…There were infants too, affixed to their mothers on the stakes and birds had made their nests in their entrails.” It was not hard to see why – even with an army eight times larger than Vlad’s – the Sultan retreated back to Constantinople.

 

Vlad’s Imprisonment (1462-75)

 

Stephen III of Moldavia


Shortly after receiving Vlad’s letter describing the gory details of the thousands of impaled Turks, Matthias Corvinus (or Matthias I of Hungary as he was titled) came to Transylvania in November 1462 upon Vlad’s request. Vlad was insistent on waging war against the Ottoman Empire, but Matthias was hesitant, despite the negotiations lasting for weeks. In the end, Matthias contacted a Czech mercenary, John Jiskra of Brandys, and he captured Vlad near Rucar in Wallachia, in order to imprison him.
Vlad was imprisoned in Hungary at Matthias’ request. In order to explain Vlad’s sudden imprisonment to Pope Pius II (r. 1458-64), Matthias presented three letters to him, allegedly written by Vlad on 7 November 1462, to Mehmed II, Mahmud Pasha (Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, 1456-66, 1472-74) and Stephen III of Moldavia. In these letters, it was stated that Vlad had offered to join his forces with the Sultan’s army against Hungary if the Sultan restored him to his throne. Many historians agree that these letters were forged to give grounds for Vlad’s imprisonment.
Pope Pius II obviously bought the story of Vlad’s three letters and made sure he stayed imprisoned. He was first imprisoned in what Chalkokondyles refers to as “the city of Belgrade”, which strangely was not the modern-day capital of Serbia, but what is now Alba Iulia in Romania. He was then taken to Visegrád (Hungary), where he was held for thirteen years.                                                                                         As I mentioned earlier, there is unfortunately another gap in Vlad’s biography here. Absolutely no documents (that we know of yet!) have been preserved which refer to Vlad between 1462 and 1475.
What we do know, though, is that in Summer 1475, Stephen III of Moldavia sent his envoys to Matthias Corvinus, asking him to send Vlad to Wallachia, against Basarab Laitoa, who had submitted himself to the Ottomans. Stephen wanted to secure Wallachia for a ruler who had been an enemy of the Ottoman Empire, because “the Wallachians [were] like the Turks” to the Moldavians, according to his letter. Matthias accepted Stephen’s request, and he released Vlad from prison.

 

Third Rule and Death (1475-77)

 

Matthias recognised Vlad as the lawful prince of Wallachia, but he did not provide him military assistance to regain his principality. Vlad moved from Hungary to Transylvania in June 1475, before briefly returning to Pécs in Hungary to purchase a house. His house became known as Drakula Háza (Dracula’s House).

Mehmed II invaded Moldavia and defeated Stephen III of Moldavia in the Battle of Valea Alba on 26 July 1476. Meanwhile, Vlad stayed in Brasov, and confirmed the commercial privileges of the local burghers in Wallachia on 7 October 1476. Stephen of Moldavia and Vlad ceremoniously confirmed their alliance, and together they occupied Budapest, forcing Basarab Laiota to seek refuge in the Ottoman Empire on 16 November. Vlad informed the merchants of Brasov about his victory in a speech and urged them to come with him to Wallachia. He was crowned Voivode of Wallachia on 25 November 1476.

Mehmed II

However, Basarab Laiota returned to Wallachia with Ottoman support, and completely overwhelmed the Wallachian forces, taking them by surprise. Vlad was killed in fighting them sometime in either late December 1476 or early January 1477. He was aged between 45-49. In a letter written on 10 January 1477, Stephen III of Moldavia related that Vlad’s Moldavian retinue had been massacred. According to Leonardo Botta, the Milanese ambassador to Buda, the Ottomans cut Vlad’s corpses into pieces, and that his head had been sent to Mehmed II.

The site of Vlad’s burial is unknown – further adding elements of mystery to his life. According to popular tradition in the nineteenth century, pieces of Vlad’s body were reportedly buried in the Monastery of Snagov (Romania). However, when it was excavated in 1933, nothing was found – only adding to the horror stories and myths which surrounded the real-life Dracula!

 

Legacy

 

Works containing stories about Vlad’s cruelty emerged as early as the 1480s in the Holy Roman Empire. The invention of movable print in the 1450s thanks to Johannes Gutenberg meant that these stories and woodcuts could be published on mass and distributed across Europe – these stories made Vlad’s reputation become one of the earliest examples of a bestselling book. To enhance sales, many of the books were published with woodcuts on their title pages which depicted horrific scenes. Notable examples include the editions published in Nuremberg in 1499 and Strasbourg in 1500.

But where did the Dracula connection come from? We know he was called Vlad Dracul, but what about the vampiric element? Interestingly, Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula is the first time a connection was made between Vlad and vampirism. Yet it is not just the blood-sucking element which makes it so vastly different to Vlad’s life – numerous other similarities can be drawn. For instance, the fact that Stoker’s Count Dracula lives in a Transylvanian castle (as did Vlad), the stakes which can be used to kill vampires (such as Vlad impaling his enemies on stakes), and rumours of his body being buried in a church (which was popular in the nineteenth century regarding Vlad).

Historian Norman Davies contends that stories about Vlad’s cruelties serve to remind us about religious fanaticism and inherent evil which persisted in Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe. He draws upon examples of Mary I of England (“Bloody Mary”) and her persecution of protestants, as related in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1563) as belonging to the same “sickening genre as the horrors of the Wallachian vampire-prince.”

 

I hope you enjoyed this one, and make sure you’ve got plenty of garlic in the house to keep those vampires away! Happy Halloween, everyone!

 

List of Characters

 

Basarab Laiota: a son of Dan II of Wallachia, and had five stints as Prince of Wallachia (November-December 1473, Spring 1474, September-October 1474, January 1475-November 1476, December 1476-November 1477)

Bogdan II: Prince of Moldavia (r. 1449-51), and uncle of Vlad the Impaler.

Dan III: Sometimes referred to as ‘Dan the Younger’. A pretender to the throne of Wallachia from 1456-60. Brother of Vladislav II.

John Hunyadi: Leading Hungarian military and political figure, descended from a noble Romanian family. Father of Ladislaus Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus.

Ladislaus V: King of Hungary and Croatia (r. 1440-57), King of Bohemia (r. 1453-57).

Ladislaus Hunyadi: Eldest son of John Hunyadi, and a Hungarian nobleman. Older brother of Matthias Corvinus.

Matthias Corvinus: Also known as Matthias I. King of Hungary and Croatia (r. 1458-90), King of Bohemia (r. 1469-90), Duke of Austria (r. 1487-90). Youngest son of John Hunyadi and younger brother of Ladislaus Hunyadi.

Mehmed II: Also known as Mehmed the Conqueror, he was Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1444-46, then again from 1451-81.

Murad II: Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1421-44 and then again from 1446-51. Vlad the Impaler was sent to his court and abused there as an adolescent.

Stephen III of Moldavia: Also known as Stephen the Great and later canonised as a Romanian Saint, he was the Voivode (Prince) of Moldavia from 1457-1504. He was a cousin of Vlad the Impaler. He was the son of Bogdan II.

Vlad II Dracul: Vlad the Impaler’s father. Also known as Vlad the Dragon. He was Voivode of Wallachia from 1436-42, and again from 1443-47.

Vlad the Impaler: Our main man! Also known more officially as Vlad III, or Vlad Dracula, he was the son of Vlad II and Voivode of Wallachia. The inspiration behind Dracula for his abhorrent cruelty to citizens and strangers alike.

Vladislav II: Voivode of Wallachia (r. 1447-48, 1448-56). Rumoured assassin of Vlad II Dracul and placed on the throne by John Hunyadi. Killed by Vlad the Impaler. Brother of Dan III.

 

Further Research

 

Bram Stoker, Dracula (1897)

Norman Davies, Europe: A History (2014)

John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History (2011)

Dictators Podcast (Spotify): Vlad the Impaler Pt. 1, Pt. 2

We Are History Podcast (Spotify): Vlad the Impaler, the original ‘Dracula’

Curious Characters Podcast (Spotify): Vlad the Impaler “Dracula”




Sunday, 2 August 2020

Attila the Hun


Personal Profile

Born: c. 406

Reigned: 434-53

Died: c. March 453 (aged 46-47)

Title: King and Chieftain of the Hunnic Empire

Marriages: Kreka and Ildico (amongst others)

Children: Ellac, Dengizich, Ernak (amongst others)


Early Life and background context on the Huns (c. 406 – c. 440)

A depiction of Attila the Hun
As is often the case with historical characters who are not viewed as European or Eurocentric in the context of their lifetimes, we often know very little about their early childhood. I say this about Attila the Hun because simply his name denotes that: ‘the Hun’ – a foreigner, a barbarian, someone who was deemed as an outsider in contemporary Roman society. For many Romans, the ideology was very much ‘us vs them’.

What we do know is that Attila was born roughly around the year 406. The fifth century was a tumultuous period for the Western Roman Empire – only four years after Attila’s birth, Rome would be sacked by the Goths. Yet Attila was not the first of his name, like Genghis Khan was almost a thousand years later. The Huns had emerged as a major force in the 370s, but surprisingly, they had more often assisted the Roman Empire than assailed it – they were typically seen as the defenders of the borders (the Huns lived in the Balkans, almost half way between the Western and Eastern Empires’ borders).

Both Attila and his brother Bleda became joint rulers of the Huns in 434. Attila was described by contemporaries as ‘born into the world to shake nations, the scourge of all lands.’ Attila was the more powerful of the two brothers, and his appearance has been described as ‘short, swarthy, and snub-nosed, with a thin straggling beard, and beady little eyes’ as well as the fact that ‘his rolling eyes and alarming appearance terrified all who crossed his path.’ However, despite this, as a leader, a Hun contemporary denoted that Attila was also said to be ‘restrained in action, mighty in counsel, gracious to suppliants, and lenient to those who were received into his protection.’ Yet one Roman writer referred to the Huns as the ‘seedbed of evil, and exceedingly savage.’

A pretty interesting guy to say the least!

Leadership and Early Conflicts (c. 440 – c. 451)

The Hunnic Empire, c. 450
In 440, with their leadership united under Attila and Bleda, the Hunnic Empire stretched from the Black Sea to the Baltic, and from Germany to the Central Asian steppes – and the Huns were only just getting started on moving west. The following year, in 441, Attila invaded the Eastern Roman Empire and made a mockery of their resistance. An interesting fact to look at is that the Huns were actually the first ‘barbarian’ force to work out how to storm well-defended fortress towns, like those of the Eastern Roman Empire. The secret behind it was by using siege engines, battering rams and scaling ladders – techniques which they had directly copied from the Romans. Regardless, it worked, and the Huns succeeded. The effects of these attacks can still be seen in the massive destruction layers evident at various archaeological sites in Central Europe to this day.

Two years later, in 443, Attila brought his forces to the walls of Constantinople, but the Emperor Theodosius behind the walls of Constantinople managed to bribe the Huns (a tactic which was used throughout the Hunnic invasions) to withdraw from the walls with huge sums of cash. By either 444 or 445, Attila had his brother and co-ruler Bleda murdered. Very few sources exist regarding this, and it is not surprising – who would dare to enrage Attila by writing about him murdering his brother, and who would want to get on the wrong side of this fearsome leader?

Following the death of his brother, Attila took the leadership into his reins: he expanded his territory further east, starting with a second sweep through the Balkans and onto Constantinople. Again, he tried to conquer Constantinople, but was bribed to withdraw once more. This bribery from Theodosius soon came to an end with his militaristic successor, Marcian (r. 450-57), who refused to pay further bribes and drove the Huns from his territory altogether.

Upon his banishment from the walls of Constantinople in winter 450/51 – the one that got away in Attila’s case – he made his way west across Europe to Gaul (modern day France), and this is where the fun really begins.

Final Battles and Death (c. 451-53)

A depiction of the Battle of the
Catalaunian Plains
The major events in Attila’s life came in the years immediately preceding his death. As I mentioned earlier, he crossed Europe into Gaul. It was here that he met the largest European force amounted up to that date. Working together, the Western Roman Emperor, Aetius, a Roman general, Flavius, and a Visigoth King, Theodoric I, amassed an army of Romans, Franks, Goths, Burgundians and Celts to confront the Huns – what they all saw as a collective threat to the Roman Empire. Historian Simon Jenkins states that “It was the first time a coalition of Roman and Barbarian armies had combined to take the field against an external foe, a first ‘European army’.” 

The ensuing battle on 20 June 451 took place on the Catalaunian Plains (hence the name of the battle: The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains), near modern-day Châlons and Orleans. At the battlefield, the coalition of forces was decisively victorious against Attila’s forces. Interestingly, this was also the last great set-piece battle which the Western Roman army would fight, and it was the Visigoths who played the decisive role in the fighting (although this was according to an admittedly pro-Gothic contemporary), and ultimately secured a Roman victory. However, it was not all good news. The Visigoth king, Theodoric I, was killed in the battle – either by a spear or by being trampled to death.

Attila had never before suffered such serious defeat in his lifetime up until this point. He realised that if he was to maintain control of his empire, staying put at home and licking his wounds was not an option. So, in 452, he began his next campaign. Aetius was still in Gaul, so Atilla returned from his base in the Balkans and made his way straight for Italy: he wanted Rome.

The city of Aquileia was destroyed after a terrible siege, and then Milan was taken. The inhabitants of the north-eastern Veneto region of Italy feared what Atilla’s army would do to them, so they sought refuge from the Huns in the sporadically occupied islands of the coastal lagoon, and as a result, Venice was born. “Europe has Atilla to thank for its most glorious possession.”, in Jenkins’ words.

The reason why Attila never managed to take Rome is often credited to Pope Leo I, also known as Leo the Great (r. 440-61). The most popular version of the story states that Leo joined a deputation and met Attila on the banks of the Mincio River near Lake Garda, to persuade him to retreat to the Danube River, and the Huns consolidated their settlement in what is now Hungary. This version is likely to be true, but I personally prefer another version – which actually questions why this fearsome and determined pagan leader like Attila would simply obey the Pope – a man who had no meaning to him.

There are various theories surrounding this when we pose the question of why Attila would obey the Pope. A substantial amount of money (like Theodosius offered him in the 440s in Constantinople) is a likely theory, but also Attila (like the majority of the Huns) was incredibly superstitious, and Leo may well have reminded him of how the Gothic leader Alaric died almost immediately after his sack of Rome in 410, and how a similar fate was known to occur to every invader who dared raise their hand against the city of Rome. Another – and probably the likeliest theory – is that his subjects themselves persuaded him to retire: for instance, after all the devastation they caused to the countryside in their campaigns, they were beginning to suffer from a serious shortage of food, and that disease had broken out in the ranks, too. By the time this was all deliberated, news arrived to Attila that troops from the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople were beginning to arrive to supplement the imperial forces in the West: a march on Rome, it soon appeared, might not have been quite as straightforward as Attila initially thought.

Either way, Attila’s forces retreated. The following year, in 453, Attila was celebrating his marriage to a Gothic princess named Ildico. The Roman contemporary Priscus described the events of Attila’s wedding feast: “Celebrating excessively, [Attila] lay down on his back sodden with wine and sleep,” and in the process, is believed to have suffered a brain haemorrhage, and died in his sleep. “Thus,” continues Priscus, “drunkenness brought a shameful end to a king who had won glory in war.”

Atilla’s Legacy and the Future of the Huns (c. 453 – c. 475)

As Attila’s lifeblood flowed away, Europe breathed a sigh of relief. For his funeral, a specially selected group of captives placed his body in three coffins: one made of gold, one of silver and one of iron. The Roman historian Jordanes states why: “Gold and silver because he received the honours of both [the Eastern and Western Roman] empires…iron because he subdued the nations.”. Once Attila’s body had been lowered into the ground and covered over – first with the rich spoils of war and then with earth until the ground above the grave was level – all of those involved in the burial ceremonies were put to death. This was so that Attila’s last resting place would remain secret and inviolate forever.

Pope Leo I 'The Great'
(r. 440-61)
The Hunnic Empire, almost as quickly as it sprung up, disintegrated in the aftermath of Attila’s death. The Huns were dependent upon Attila’s authority, according to historian David Potter, and upon his death, the Hunnic Empire collapsed in civil war in 454. This was because the many Germanic peoples who Attila had once held in thrall rose up against their masters and defeated them in another huge battle in the central Balkans (the site of which is now unfortunately lost). The Huns withdrew to the north and then resumed their role as occasional mercenaries in Roman service.

Yet despite Attila’s defeat, the Hun invasion reinforced what Alaric’s invasion forty years prior to Attila’s had shown: that the new Europe was vulnerable to forces sweeping west across its central plains. Another legacy of this ideology is that many Roman citizens instead sought refuge in fortified towns (rather than the distant hope of imperial armies), where they gave allegiance to any leader who would offer them security. As a result, Empire gave way to Kingdoms. 

Still, nothing could bring peace to battered Italy. In 475, a Roman official named Orestes – who had served in Atilla’s retinue – seized power in Ravenna and appointed his fifteen-year-old son Romulus as Emperor. The following year, in 476, Romulus was ousted by a Roman soldier of Germanic origin, called Flavius Odoacer, who did not bother with emperorship, but instead took the title of King of Italy, with his capital situated in Ravenna. Accordingly, the year 476 is generally seen as the date of the formal demise of the “Roman Empire”, although the Eastern Roman Empire survived for almost another millennium in the form of Byzantium. 

To sum up Attila the Hun, I will turn to the words of the late, great historian John Julius Norwich “He was not a great ruler, or even a particularly able general; but so overmastering were his ambition, his pride and his lust for power that within the space of a few years he had made himself feared throughout the length and breadth of Europe: more feared, perhaps, than any other single man – with the possible exception of Napoleon – before or since.”

Hope you enjoyed reading this, feel free to share it with your friends and family!

Bibliography

Simon Baker, Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire (2006)

Peter Frankopan, The Silk Roads: A New History of the World (2015)

Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History (2005)

Simon Jenkins, A Short History of Europe: From Pericles to Putin (2018)

John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History (2011)

David Potter, The Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor (2007)

Wednesday, 1 July 2020

The Thirty Years War (1618-48)

Fact File

Date: 23 May 1618 – 15 May 1648

Location: Europe

Death Toll: 8 million people, including 20% of the German population

A seventeenth century depiction
of the Thirty Years War.
“Reason”: Conflict between the European Catholic and Protestant states. A religious war which developed into a case of a continental power-struggle between most of the states and rulers of Europe

Notable People: Ferdinand II; Frederick V; Philip III; Louis XIII; Cardinal Richelieu; Gustavus Adolphus; Philip IV; Duc d’Enghien; Louis XIV

Notable Battles: Battle of White Mountain (1620); Battle of Breitenfeld (1631); Battle of Lützen (1632); Battle of Rocroi (1643)

Notable Events: Defenestration of Prague (1618); Deposition of Ferdinand II as King of Bohemia (1619); the Edict of Restitution (1629); the Treaty of Lübeck (1629); the Treaty of Barwälde (1631); the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

***NOTE*** I have put a ‘Glossary’ at the end of the post, in case there are any terms you are unfamiliar with. These terms are highlighted in bold throughout.

Introduction

As with most major historical conflicts, it is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact moment when – or why – a war started. For example, did Franz Ferdinand’s assassination kickstart the First World War? Or was it more a case of increasing imperialism throughout European nations in the early twentieth century which ultimately led to increased ideas and rhetoric of nationalism?

We can also ask the same questions about the Thirty Years War. Was it the succession of the Habsburg Ferdinand II as King of Bohemia in 1617, or was it the Defenestration of Prague the following year, or was it because of Frederick V’s response in 1619? Either way, pinpointing the very start of the Thirty Years War is difficult, but I will try and do my best regardless!

On the Road to Ruin: The Beginning(s) of the Thirty Years War

Ferdinand II (r. 1617-37)
In 1617, thanks to King Matthias of Bohemia’s actions against religious revolt, Augsburg fell apart. The Bohemian Crown was handed to a Jesuit-trained member of the infamous Habsburg family: Ferdinand II (r. 1617-37), who also became Holy Roman Emperor in 1619. Historian Simon Jenkins states that “no succession could have been more disastrous for Europe.”

Ferdinand undoubtedly shared the military enthusiasm of his cousin, Philip III of Spain (r. 1598-1621), but whereas the majority of Philip’s subjects were Catholic, the majority of Ferdinand’s Bohemian subjects were Protestant. In Spring 1618, news reached Prague (then the capital of Bohemia) that Ferdinand intended to replace Bohemia’s Protestant governors with Catholics: this resulted in immediate revolt, and most famously, the Defenestration of Prague on 23 May 1618.

The Defenestration of Prague

The Defenestration of Prague,
23 May 1618
Upon hearing the news about Ferdinand replacing Bohemia’s Protestant governors with Catholic ones, a delegation of Protestant Bohemian nobles entered the Hradčany Castle in Prague on 23 May 1618 and threw two Habsburg governors (Jaroslav von Martinitz and Wilhem von Salvata) out of a sixth-storey window and into a dung heap – which actually broke their fall. Ironically, both von Martinitz and von Salvata were protesting against recent attacks on Protestant churches, against Ferdinand’s assumption of the Bohemian throne, and against his alleged violations of the Royal Charter of Toleration (the Majestätsbrief) of 1609. This Defenstration of Prague was a deliberate imitation of an incident almost two centuries before, when seven members of the Prague city council were killed by a crowd of Czech Hussites in 1419, which lit the spark for the Hussite Wars to ignite.

The Bohemian Response and Frederick V

Frederick V (r. 1610-23)
At the time of the Defenestration of Prague, Ferdinand was campaigning for the imperial election (the election for Holy Roman Emperor), and religious peace in Germany was faltering. The Lutheran princes were awkwardly watching as the newly formed Protestant Union led by Frederick, Elector Palatine, squared up to the Catholic League, led by Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria. Eventually the religious tension cord snapped, and the Bohemian rebels invaded Vienna, prompting a revolt in Austria. In 1619, upon Ferdinand’s successful succession to the imperial throne, the Bohemians formally deposed him as King of Bohemia, instead electing the Calvinist Frederick in his place. This, in simple terms, meant open war.

Frederick, the Elector Palatine of a small Rhineland state became Frederick V of Bohemia, in Ferdinand’s place. As I mentioned earlier, Frederick was a Calvinist, and he was married to Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of King James I of England. Dubbed the ‘jewel of Europe’, she was soon to become a lasting object of Protestant adoration.

In response, Ferdinand summoned Catholic monarchs and mercenaries from across Europe to wage a war of faith on what he viewed as his Protestant subjects. Spain (under Philip III), Poland (under Sigismund III), and the Papacy (under Pope Paul V), all joined Ferdinand in a Catholic League, which Jenkins refers to as ‘an intra-European crusader force.’

On the other hand, Frederick was backed by Dutch Protestants, Scandinavians, the French (deviously, under Louis XIII) and the English (half-heartedly, under James I). The ensuing conflict retracted the values of the Peace of Augsburg* and showed how far one man’s faith could dictate the fate of nations.

*The Peace of Augsburg was signed by the then Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and the Schmalkaldic League in September 1555. It officially ended the religious struggle between the two aforementioned groups and made the legal division of Christianity permanent within the Holy Roman Empire, allowing rulers to choose either Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism as the official confession of their state.

Open War: The Battle of White Mountain (1620)

The Battle of White Mountain (7
November 1620). The first pitched
battle of the Thirty Years War.
On 7 November 1620, just outside Prague, Ferdinand’s Catholic forces and Frederick’s Protestant forces met on the battlefield for what was to become the first open fielded battle of the Thirty Years War.

Frederick’s Protestant forces were soundly defeated by Ferdinand’s Catholic forces, and the consequences were huge. Ferdinand reacted to his victory with brutality and had 27 Bohemian leaders executed in Prague’s Old Town Square. All of Bohemia’s Non-Catholic nobles had their lands confiscated, and all Protestants were evicted, the majority of whom fled west into Germany. The Catholicisation and Germanisation of Bohemia had begun. This religious cleansing in Bohemia was so successful that to this day, Bohemia remains largely Catholic.

Frederick fled, and along with his wife Elizabeth, they both became refugees in The Hague, known for the shortness of their one-year reign as the “Winter King and Queen”. After Frederick and Elizabeth fled, their lands in the Palatine were invaded by the Spanish Netherlands and seized by the Bavarians. The General of the Catholic Forces, Count Tilly (1559-1632), stormed Heidelberg in 1622 and traversed northern Germany in pursuit of the Protestant forces held by Count von Mansfeld (1580-1626).

Pressure from the North: Scandinavian Involvement (c.1620 – c.1635)

Denmark

While Count Tilly was ravaging northern Germany, Ferdinand discovered a major problem about using mercenaries in his army: he found that he could not pay them enough, as he had run out of money. The fighting became almost like banditry, and as a result, all of Europe was dragged into it: including Denmark and Sweden.

By the early 1620s, after the Battle of White Mountain, Christian IV of Denmark, Superior of the Imperial Circle of Lower Saxony, entered the conflict in defence of his hard-pressed Protestant confreres. He had to contend with a new imperialist army raised by a Bohemian Catholic nobleman: Albrecht von Waldstein, or more commonly known as, Albrecht von Wallenstein (1584-1634).

The Protestant forces (which included forces from England, France and the Netherlands) were defeated again at the Bridge of Dessau on the River Elbe in 1626, and Count von Mansfeld’s Protestant forces (whom Count Tilly had pursued since 1622) were defeated at Neuhausel, near Bratislava (capital of modern-day Slovakia). Count Tilly then attacked the Protestant Netherlands with help from the Spanish under Philip III.

Meanwhile, Wallenstein overran the majority of the lands on the Baltic Coast: Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg, Schleswig, Holstein, Jutland and the Baltic Coast to the outskirts of Stralsund, declaring himself ‘Generalissimo of the Baltic and the Ocean Seas’.

By the Edict of Restitution (6 March 1629), Ferdinand ordered the Protestants to surrender all the former Ecclesiastical lands acquired since the Peace of Augsburg. Interestingly, Wallenstein objected, because his army contained many non-Catholics. He was then dismissed. Finally, the Treaty of Lübeck (22 May 1629), was signed by Wallenstein, Christian IV and Ferdinand II, which ended Danish involvement in the Thirty Years War by persuading them to retire on the return of their lost possessions. The deal was a winner for everyone involved in the signing of the treaty. However, the war was far from over yet.

Sweden

Gustavus Adolphus
(r. 1611-32)
Sweden entered the fray shortly after Denmark had signed the Treaty of Lübeck. Gustavus Adolphus, also known as Gustav II of Sweden (r. 1611-32), sent a contingent to hold Stralsund in northern Germany. Fortified by the Treaty of Bärwalde (signed on 23 January 1631, which was an agreement by France to provide Sweden with financial support following its intervention in the Thirty Years War), Gustavus landed in Germany with the main Swedish army and proceeded to vigorously restore Protestant fortunes. The reason behind this treaty was largely thanks to the Catholic King Louis XIII of France and his adviser Cardinal Richelieu, as they followed French policy in siding with any foe of a Habsburg (essentially, their philosophy was my enemy’s enemy is my friend), even a Protestant one. Hence King James I of England, a Protestant, even sent a small army of soldiers to the continent to support Louis XIII and Gustavus’ treaty.
The Sack of Magdeburg (20 May 1631)
is often regarded as the worst massacre
of the Thirty Years War. It is sometimes
referred to as the 'Rape of Germany'.

However, the campaign did not get off to a strong start. Gustavus failed to relieve Magdeburg before it was mercilessly sacked by the imperialists, but at the Battle of Breitenfeld (17 September 1631), he crushed Tilly, and moved into the Palatinate. In 1632, Gustavus entered Bavaria, and Munich and Nuremberg opened their gates to his forces. The Swedish army planned to move on to Vienna later in the year, so Ferdinand was forced to recall Wallenstein, after he had previously dismissed him after his objection towards the Edict of Restitution three years before.

The next major battle was the Battle of Lützen, just over a year after Breitenfeld, on 16 November 1632. It was a furious battle, and although the Swedish forces prevailed, Gustavus fell. He was found under a heap of dead bodies, with bullet holes in his head and a dagger thrust into his side. Similarly, following an infection from a wound, Frederick V died on 29 November. These two catastrophes, less than a fortnight apart, dashed any hopes the Protestants had of an early end to the conflict.

The Western Sphere: French Involvement (c. 1635 – c.1648)

Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)
Concerned that Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621-65), would use the war to reunite Charles V’s Spanish and Austrian Habsburg Empires, in 1635 Louis XIII and Richelieu officially declared war on Spain. At this point, it was not just Catholic versus Protestant, but Catholic Bourbon versus Catholic Habsburg. France once more took the Swedish forces into their pay, and invaded Alsace.

In 1636, Spanish forces reached the outskirts of Paris, but they soon understood how it could be a disadvantage having territory stationed throughout Europe, when the French threatened Spanish Flanders, and sent reinforcements to the Swedes in the north. The Protestants even invited the Ottoman Turks to attack Austria from the East. “Europe was in turmoil.”

A year later, in 1637, Ferdinand II died, which initially raised hopes for an eventual peace. However, by this point, the war already had a momentum of its own. The war was no longer religious back in Germany – as mentioned earlier, undisciplined mercenary troops tore principalities apart and created conflict where there previously was none before. 


However, by 1638, French fortunes were mounting: the rise of the youthful Duc d’Enghein (Louis II, Prince de Condé, 1621-86), who was referred to by contemporary chroniclers as ‘the finest general in Europe’, helped improve morale in the French forces.

The Battle of Rocroi (19 May 1643).
The final pitched battle of the Thirty
Years War. Yet it was to be another five
years before the war officially ended.
Aged just 21, the Duc d’Enghein took to the battlefield at Rocroi in the Ardennes against a Flemish army on 19 May 1643, and roundly crushed the tercios (a Spanish infantry unit) and ended Spanish participation in the war, as well as Spanish military supremacy in Pavia, which had lasted since 1525. Rocroi was also the final pitched battle of the Thirty Years War. This dynastic conflict between France and Spain from 1635 resulted in Louis XIV of France (r. 1643-1715) making peace in 1648, coming about as a belief that the Habsburgs were too powerful.

The End in Sight: The Peace of Westphalia (1648)

In 1643, in the immediate aftermath of Rocroi, diplomats from all parties represented (109 diplomats in total) met in two separate towns in Westphalia: Osnabrück and Münster. Emissaries scuttled back and forth between the sides, reaching not just one treaty, but also a series of local deals designed to roll into a collective peace. The agreement took five years, and was eventually signed on 15 May 1648, finally bringing about a formal end to the Thirty Years War.
A painting of the Peace of Westphalia,
the treaty which formally ended the
Thirty Years War on 15 May 1648.

But how did this particular treaty manage this, and what were the main details of it?

It was, essentially, a reversion to Augsburg – a principle of national self-determination in politics and faith. Westphalia restored the autonomy of the German states and denied authority over them to the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, some historians even argue that Westphalia is credited with fathering the concept of the nation state. In addition, Westphalia formally accepted the reality of a Europe that had fought itself to exhaustion.

On the religious issue – which is what the war started out as in the first place – it granted the same rights to Calvinists as it did to Lutherans and Catholics, in Germany. On the constitutional issue – which the war had evolved into throughout the 1630s – it greatly strengthened the European Princes, by granting them the right to sign foreign treaties by making all imperial legislation conditional on the Diet’s approval.

Consequences

German manufacturing and trade collapsed, while sowing and harvesting ceased. Estimates from a third to a half of 20 million German speakers died. A notable example is in Magdeburg, which had 20,000 inhabitants in 1620, and 450 in 1649. France gained land deep into Germany, in Alsace and the Rhine basin. Germany itself was left ruined, and it took over a century for it to recover.

Further north, Sweden arose as a northern European powerhouse, gaining some north German territories along the way.

In South-West Europe, Spain was also left a shattered realm, decoupled forever from the Holy Roman Empire.

In Bohemia, a Swedish general wrote home saying that ‘I did not expect to find the kingdom so lean, wasted and spoiled, for between Prague and Vienna, everything has been razed to the ground and hardly a living soul can be seen on the land.’

One of the few prosperous countries to emerge was Protestant Prussia. Under the leadership of the Hohenzollern family of the ‘Great Elector’ Friedrich Wilhem (r. 1640-88).

The thoughts of Pope Innocent X (r. 1644-55) sum up the Papacy’s thoughts on Westphalia (although this is possibly because the Papacy was unrepresented, for obvious reasons), as he denounced it as ‘null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane and devoid of meaning.’

Afterthoughts

A map of battles and territories won
and lost during the Thirty Years War
The Thirty Years War has been called by some historians a ‘European Civil War’. This is not far from the truth, as almost all of the European states – at some point from 1618-48, were involved, although clearly some were involved more than others. Another reason why this conflict is so significant, and widely remembered on the continent, is because of Johannes Gutenberg’s invention in the fifteenth century: the printing press. Images of tortured civilians were widespread, and thanks to the printing press, actual depictions of the levels and scale of torture could be witnessed by civilians, not just those soldiers actively taking part in the conflict.

Historian Norman Davies argues that the Thirty Years War can be seen as an age-old German conflict between Emperors and princes, but that it can also be seen as “an extension of the international wars of religion between Catholic and Protestant, as an important stage in a Continental power struggle involving most of the states and rulers of Europe.” Personally, I am inclined to agree with this: that it initially started out as a war of religion, and eventually developed into the aforementioned power struggle.

Thus, a suitable conclusion would be to turn to the words of acclaimed historian of the Thirty Years War, Veronica Wedgwood, who summarised thirty years of conflict in two sentences: “[The combatants] wanted peace and they fought for thirty years to be sure of it. They did not learn then, and have not learned since, that war only breeds war.”

Thanks for reading!

Glossary

I thought that a sort-of ‘glossary’ might help to consolidate some of the terms/families used within this post.

Bavaria: During the Thirty Years War, the Electorate of Bavaria was an independent electorate of the Holy Roman Empire.
Bohemia: A kingdom in the Holy Roman Empire which covered the majority of the modern-day Czech Republic.
Calvinist: A major branch of Protestantism which follows the teachings of a French preacher, John Calvin (1509-64).
Defenestration: the act of, literally, throwing someone out of a window.
Diet: The General Assembly of the Imperial Estates of the Holy Roman Empire.
Elector Palatine/Palatinate: A territory in the Holy Roman Empire whose rulers served as prince-electors of the Empire.
Habsburg: One of the major European royal houses, who continuously occupied the throne of the Holy Roman Empire from 1440 until 1740, and again from 1765 until its dissolution in 1806.
Holy Roman Empire: A multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western and Central Europe which was considered by the Catholic Church as the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period.
Jesuit: A religious division of evangelical missionary Christianity, founded on the approval of Pope Paul III in 1540.
Lutheran: Another major branch of Protestantism, which follows the teachings of the Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546).

Bibliography

Norman Davies, Europe: A History (2014)
Simon Jenkins, A Short History of Europe (2018)
John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History (2011)
Eduard Wagner, European Weapons and Warfare 1618 – 1648 (2014)

Please feel free to share this blog with your friends and family!