Narai Of Ayutthaya: The Remarkable Story Of The King Of Thailand (1633-1688)

As previously commented on the former posts here on the blog, the focus upon eastern monarchies continue and with it, the difficulties in finding a character to examine upon. Motivated by the knowledge that, thankfully, internet has provided us, we have come across with this intriguing character named Narai, king of Ayutthaya, a region that is located in what we know today as Thailand. He too earned the nickname of being 'the Great' of his kingdom, but it appears that, even though it is debatable the means which led him to become sovereign of Ayutthaya, his deeds are quietly turned into footnotes in History, or rather mentioned as diplomatic relations as it was the case when Narai corresponded with Louis XIV of France himself. In order to attempt to change that or at least be responsible for instigating a broad discussion about this king, we are here to bring to the public eye further information based on the consulted bibliography listed in the end of this post.

So who was this 'Narai the Great' of Thailand? What were his deeds? Why most of them were so remarkable? How can we perceive the conception of kingship amongst his accomplishments? With the intention in responding these answers, mostly motivated by them, we begin this post with.

What we know of Narai is that he was likely born on 16 February 1633. His parents were King Prasatthong, allegedly the first king of the Prasatthong Dynasty who appears to have usurped the throne from a previous dynasty, and Queen Phra Rajya Devi. Narai also had a brother, Prince Chai, a sister named Si Suphan, and an uncle known as Prince Si Suthammaracha. It appears that Narai received this name upon his birth because:

"The Royal Chronicle of Ayuttaya Royal Recension Version recorded that 'in that year [1633] the princess consort gave birth to a son. When the royal family glanced at the infant, they saw the baby had four arms before having two arms as normal. Upon learning this, the king thought it was a miracle. He therefore named his son Narai'. The name Narai is from Sanskrit Narayana, a name of Hindu god Vishnu who has four arms."

Whether this story is true or not, what is important to tell next is the education he received, whose results would be seen in his reign. As "The Great Kings Of Siam", author unknown, tells us:

"King Prasatthong graciously had the topknot cutting off (Sokan) ceremony organized for his son and made him ordained as a novice at Wat Phra Sri Sanphet for him to study the technical knowledges and liberal arts in different fields until he was 16 years old. He then left the priesthood and served under the crown of his father as he was appointed to be “Phra Narai” in the position of the King's son or principality and made him stay at Wang Nok. Surrounded by the royal pages and highly knowledgeable and able court officials, he became an expert in Phra Tripitaka, liberal arts and literature, including the war strategy, elephant and horse activities and political science and more."

It appears, as told by Wikipedia, that Narai's ascension was a result of the dispute over the crown of Ayutthaya, nearly causing a Civil War, as it is stated below:

"Prince Sutharmmaracha plotted with his nephew, Prince Narai, to bring Sanpet VI [Narai's elder brother] down. After nine months of ascension, Sanpet VI was executed following a coup. Narai and his uncle marched into the palace and Si Suthammaracha crowned himself king [and] [...] appointed Narai as the Uparaja, or the Front Palace. However, Narai was also an ambitious prince and had requested Dutch support against his uncle. [...] On the Day of Ashura, the Persians, Japanese and Dutch stormed the palace. The prince engaged in single combat with his uncle, until the king fled to the Rear Palace. Si Suthammaracha was captured and was executed at Wat Khok Phraya on 26 October 1656."

On the other hand, "The Great Kings Of Siam" simply mentions that when: 

"King Prasatthong was dead in 1656 and all the King's counsellors and high ranking officials invited Phra Narai to succeed the throne as the fourth king of the Prasatthong Dynasty when he was 25 years old"

In spite of how Narai's reign actually began, it is important to point an observation of his reign as a whole. It had a profund link between astrology and history, as we will see in the next paragraphs; for how precise were the astrologues' calculations to determine certain inner events of the realm such as, for example, the king's coronation. Narai's reign was also notable for the diplomatic relations he held with Western's country to the benefit of Thailand, to the point that it made Ayutthaya a cosmopolitan city in modern concept. What is quite absorbing, however, is that he too was modern from the moment he decided to break with old traditions, something he would do until the end of his life.

"When Narai was crowned in 1656 he inherited a large and powerful kingdom in the centre of mainland South-East Asia. His realm reached south to the kingdoms of Pattani, Ligor, Phattalung and Songkhla; in the east Cambodia had ackowledged Ayutthaya's suzerainty, and in the west the port of Tenasserim on the Bay of Bengal was under Thai control. Narai's Ayutthaya was a cosmopolitan city frequented by foreigners from as far afield as northern Europe, the Islamic sultanates of west Asia, the Indonesian archipelago, India and north Asia. Some were directly employed by Narai or lived in the kingdom as missionaries and merchants. Other visitors; traders and diplomats, formed a more transient foreign population that occasionally came into contact with the royal court (leosiwong 1980: 29-36).

Aged in his mid-twenties when he became king, Narai immediately challenged tradition by refusing to move into the king's palace after his coronation. He also took the unorthodox step of spending a large part of each year in Lopburi, fifty kilometres to Ayutthaya's north, removing himself from the royal capital that was the symbolic centre of his power." (HODGES 1999: 4)

In addition, 

"Administration and the laws for better development and more up to date. No royalties were sent to rule the chiet cities but instead, they were ordered to rule the departments in the capital city. It had become the tradition inherited from then until the Rattanakosin Period. For the military and war aspects, King Narai graciously established the new department in the Capital City which was considered as his wise policy, allowing him to have more of his own troops for protecting the city without waiting for the troops from the Chief cities He also adopted the military knowledge obtained from the European countries that came in to contact with Ayutthaya to apply for use in the fighting forces, making the Thai forces become more progressive in armaments and combatants which consisted of foreign soldiers such as Portuguese and Japanese." ("The Great Kings Of Siam")

By adopting a modern concept of kingship for his days, and here it must not be mistaken with the idea of adopting Western ideals which is not in discussion nor to be applied, Narai was responsible for developing arts, music and poetry within his realm, a result that is not only consequence of his studies but that of his personal tastes. As we will see in the next paragraphs, Narai was a literate man who was passionated about literature, poems, and mostly astronomy:

"In the reign of King Narai, it was considered as the "golden era of the Thai literatures”. It was because he was a King who had remarkable ability and wisdom in the field of art and literature and his royal court consisted of many important scholars and poets who had their fames and many master pieces of their works inherited since then until present. He graciously ordered the history of the City of Ayutthaya to be collected in 1680 which later was known as “the Royal Historical Record of the Old City of Luang Prasert Aksorn Niti”. It is the only historical record that was collected in the Ayutthaya period and has been inherited until now."

In other words, 

"His life-long interest in learning, for example, provided the intellectual atmosphere [...]. Narai received an education typical of that provided to the children of Ayutthaya's elite in the seventeenth century. European visitors reported that it was common practice for Siamese boys to obtain their education in Buddhist temples, the centre of all learning. Students were taught art, law and philosophy by Buddhist monks while other subjects including astrology, mathematics and medicine were taught by lay experts (Wyatt 1969: 9, Yupho 1979: 11 ). The more gifted beneficiaries of this specialist education were then recruited by the royal court. One such person was Narai's teacher [...], the Phra Horathibodi, who came to Ayutthaya from Phichit to complete his studies before rising to the position of Chief Royal Astrologer (Schouten 1636: 15, Wyatt 1969: I 0, 17). His intelligence enabled Narai to profit from his privileged education. He made his palace a haven for poets and writers who gathered to compose works and participate in literary competitions, and he provided prominent members of Ayutthaya's literati, including the Phra Horathibodi, with food and lodgings. He became an accomplished poet himself and is recognised as one of the three authors of the Samut Khat Khamchan. Narai's reign was a time of significant literary achievement and the authors of some of the better known works of this period were his teachers."(Hodges 1999: 5)

Those intern reformations would also turn Ayutthaya a capital that attracted different foreigners, an accomplishment that came correspondingly with his curiosity in adopting technologies in vogue during those days, thus adapting them to his realm. As seen here:

"In his reign there were several European people serving under his crown such as the Portuguese, Hollanders, English and French, giving Thailand opportunity to obtain the military and engineering assistance from those countries. [...]
King Narai was very interested in the western countries’ modern technical knowledges. He ordered to have the gun turrets built and the intercity canals excavated. He also paid attention to the marine science and equipment such as compass's, clock's and map's showing the geographic conditions, continents, the sea levels, etc., including the learning of modern medicine. He graciously ordered to have an observatory built at the Chankasem Palace in Ayutthaya and in Lop Buri City as he saw that astronomy was very important for the marine navigation. In addition, the French priest presented him with the calendar invented for use in the City of Ayutthaya in place of the old one that caused the difficulties in making the agreement with the westerners. Other technical knowledges he was interested in were the ore smelting, work's of art, architecture and construction in western style as well as water supplies and many more."

As Ayutthaya, a profit example to be used for illustration of the scenario we've been presenting this far, was well developed according to the king's expectations where technologies and society (not only their morals, but also regarding their culture, which can seen subtly through Narai's deeds to improve it), welcoming the presence of many foreigners as Dutch, Portuguese, Frenchmen and others from Western and Eastern's countries, relationship with the Dutch began to deteriorate as Narai and Louis XIV of France started to correspond. In other words: in those days, in the 17th century, the Dutch and the French were not in the best terms, not to say they had been even at war. To have a better comprehension of it, here's what can be said of this political background:

"As for foreign relations, King Narai became the most renowned Thai monarch since he adopted a friendly policy towards foreigners, especially the Europeans. Ayutthaya was a metropolis where peoples from many lands congregated, including the Dutch, the British, the French, the Portuguese and the Arab. The French, who first arrived in 1662, sent missionaries and merchants to the capital. During the 1680's, splendid embassies were exchanged between King Narai and King Louis XIV. Later on, the conflict broke out when the French tried to convert King Narai to Christiniaty and also attempted to gain a foothold in the Thai kingdom by sending troops to garrison Bangkok and Mergui in 1687. However, an anti-French official seized power in 1688, drove out the French garrisons, and executed King Narai's Greek favorite Constantine Faulcon, who had been championing the French cause. After 1688, Ayutthaya had less contact with western nations."

In addition, Ian Hodges remarks that:

"Within a few years of Narai's becoming king, however, relations had soured to the point where he feared a Dutch attack on Siam. To counter the threat, he sought to establish stronger relations with other European powers. His approaches to the English having met with little success, Narai turned to the French who, hoping to both convert the Thai to Catholicism and establish Ayutthaya as a regional trading base, seized the opportunity to establish a presence in Siam. (Love 1999: 19)." (Hodges 1999: 4)

That his kingship was proeminent for the boost of astronomy and astrology, intern reforms regarding the improve of his society, the break of ancient traditions, always looking up to welcome better relations in international diplomacy, we perceive in his doings. Where astronomy and astrology were concerned, we understand that such were their impacts in implicating the foundation of cities, in propitiating times to wage war, in looking upon building the history of the realm, aside of civil functions as funerals, etc. As author Ian Hodges explains:

"Every important ceremonial or civil function, including the casting of calendars, the founding of cities, coronations, funerals and the launching of military expeditions had to begin at the most auspicious moment as determined by the astrologers. For Siam's royal court, astrology, in essence a scientifically based system of calculating the rotations of the sun, the moon and the planets, provided a means to interpret the universe (Winnichakull994: 58). (Hodges, 1999: 6)"

Those scientific methods, however our modern thoughts about them might be (specially in regard to astrology), would not be possible to be stimulated, for instance, had it the king not been an avid reader and eager to acquire knowledge. For he genuinely believed that by promoting the use of astronomy and astrology would also make it possible to comprehend the world he was part of, and to even improve the social relations he was inserted.  

On that aspect, Hodges corroborates with our argument when he says that:

"La Loubere also made note ofNarai's love of reading, describing him as "curious to the highest degree." (de La Loubere 1969: 99) Here we see a king with a love of literature and art who encouraged those gifted in these areas and it is easy to imagine why one of this group was assigned the task of writing the Kingdom's history." (Hodges, 1999: 5)

And he also states a curious event as we read the following quote below:

"Nicolas Gervaise wrote that after 4.00 pm each day the King's personal reader was called to duty. This uneviable task was described thus: 'There is no employment in the royal palace more exhausting than that of the reader. He must often spend three or four hours reading prostrate on the ground and leaning on his elbows, hardly daring to breathe and unable to adopt a more comfortable position.' (Gervaise 1989, 209)". (Hodges, 1999: 5)

A learning man and a pacific king, perhaps that is how we can describe Narai in general. His brightness as a stadist is very clear once he:

"Like his predecessors, Narai realised the value of cultivating ties with foreigners for the trade they could bring to the kingdom. He increased the Crown's participation in the maritime trade with China and Japan as well as the Indian Ocean region, and continued Thai involvement with the Indonesian archipelago. Not content to simply maintain previously established commercial relations with the Dutch and Portuguese, Narai sought also to establish trading links with other European powers (Na Pombejra 1984: 41)." (Hodges, 1999: 4)

It is impressive how he managed to conduct peaceful relations for a good while, living 56 years, rulling 32 as king of Thailand. Even more impressive is to observe his inheritance in his efforts by giving to his subjects better condictions, stimulating education for all, respecting religiosity in spite of the jesuists pressure for Narai's conversion and by extent of his realm. He managed to hold Thailand intact against possible Europeans' invasions. And also innovated intern technology which made Ayutthaya, as already mentioned here, as a cosmopolitan city.

Therefore, to emphasize all that has been said:

"Whatever its implications for Siam's foreign policy and internal political situation, Narai's contact with foreigners also contributed to his education. His reign coincided with European advances in the sciences associated with navigation, astronomy and astrology. He lived in an age when humans were first beginning to grasp the nature and extent of the cosmos and his exulted position afforded him access to both news of scientific discoveries in Europe and to some of the most modern scientific and astronomical instruments then available." (Hodges, 1999: 4)

Finally,

 "King Narai had been on the throne for 32 years before he passed away on the eleventh day of July 1688 as his lite had lasted for a total of 56 years. His period was regarded as a significant time in history for the diplomatic field, the development of the friendly relations with other countries as well as his royal activities in relation with the polities, administration, arts and literature, religion, education and modern technical knowledge." ("The Great Kings Of Siam")

Bibliography:

HODGES, Ian. "TIME IN TRANSITION: KING NARAI AND THE LUANG PRASOET CHRONICLE OF AYUTTHAYA" Journal of the Siam Society 87.1 & 2. 1999

-http://www.thailaws.com/download/thailand/thegreatkingsofsiam.pdf

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narai

-https://www.thaimain.com/eng/monarchy/ayutthaya/narai.html

-https://sejarah-nusantara.anri.go.id/hartakarun/item/23/

Cyrus the Great, King Of Anshan: The Story Of The Founder Of The Persian Empire (600-530/529 BC)

When considering giving a little more of focus towards the Eastern empires, their royal characters and the history they left behind, we are found wondering about whom should we bring to be discussed about. There is the merely difficulty about choosing the one to be brought here with all the considerations of their background, but to comprehend that, regardless of the high status attributed to the society they were part of, those royal characters represented in themselves the socialization process in which they were shaped according to the society's values, thoughts and beliefs of the time. 

With Cyrus II of Anshan this was not different. During the process of conquest from his kingdom to others, thus beginning to create an empire that would only spread in the following generations, we learn, mainly through his kingship, aspects of a military, but paradoxically peaceful culture that we also perceive in Roman Empire, that is to say in another words: by conquering another realm, you are respecting their own culture and laws at the same time the conqueror's are being slowly imposed. This process is, at first sight, complex to understand but it cannot be separated from the empire's story. It is not different when studying Cyrus's reign. 

Though he might be familiar to some, to others he might not and that purpose instigated us into giving a further look to his character. Not much is known regarding his early life and education, but what comes to us is that Cyrus's name "is a latinized form derived from the Greek Kyros, itself from the Old Persian Kurus". He was also the son of Cambyses I, being named after his grandfather, Cyrus I. Of his mother, we have not found records about her name. The year of his birth is still subject of speculations, with some pointing to the year of 600. 

That his dynasty, coming from tribes of the west of what today we know as Iran, is Achaemenes (Old Persian: Haxamanis), is discussed by D.T Potts with further details regarding the Elam elements in her article "Cyrus the Great and the kingdom of Anshan". She also tells us that:

"Prášek assumed that the original kingdom of the Achaemenids was limited to the tribal territory of the Pasargadai and that the title “king of Anshan” reflected the extension of Achaemenid rule to other areas, though he disputed that the Anshan attested in the 3rd-millennium sources was the same as that of the Achaemenid period. (Potts, 2005, p 7)"

The main point to be analyzed is, however, Cyrus kingship and how his conquests brought his dynasty to the great empire that would exist for at least 200 years. And that is when we are brought to Cyrus marriage to Cassandane. It appears they had a loving relationship that gave Cyrus at least 5 children: Cambyses II, Bardiya, Atossa, Artystone, Roxane. Where the practice of marriage, regarding the culture present in Cyrus' context those days, is concerned, author Matt Waters states that:

"The practice of polygamy among subsequent Persian kings is well-attested, and it would be no surprise to learn that Cyrus engaged in it as well.8 The traditions wherein Cyrus is linked to the Median royal house by marriage may reflect Cyrus’ own propaganda to link himself to the Median dynasty; thus Cyrus would have portrayed himself as a legitimate Median king" (Waters, 2003, p 92)

Furthemore, he also uses Herodotus' source to describe the nature of the marriage between Cyrus and Cassandane, who allegedly reported to have been unhappier in leaving Cyrus than her own life. 

"Herodotus noted that Cyrus greatly lamented Cassandane’s death and that he insisted on public mourning for her (II.1): “When Cyrus was dead, Cambyses inherited the kingdom. He was the son of Cyrus and Cassandane, the daughter of Pharnaspes, and Cassandane had died before Cyrus himself; Cyrus had mourned greatly for her and instructed all his subjects to do likewise. Cambyses, then, was a son of this woman and Cyrus.” An entry in the Nabonidus Chronicle provides an exact parallel, which lends credence to (and may have indirectly served as the source of) Herodotus’ account. The Chronicle related that Cyrus’ wife (whose name is not given) died within a few months after his conquest of Babylon and that there was an official mourning period: “In the month [x] the wife of the king died. From the twenty-seventh of the month Adar to the third of the month Nisan [there was] (an official) mourning in Akkad. All the people bared their heads. (Waters, 2003, p 92)" 

And why is it important to look at the marriage between Cyrus and his wife to comprehend the construction over his kingship? Because this was alliance whose purpose

"afforded Cyrus support from a powerful group of Persian nobles (i.e., the Achaemenids) would have gone far in Cyrus’ unification of Iran and the discrete, though culturally similar, tribes therein. (Waters, 2003, p 92)"

It also appears that it was after the death of Cyrus' death that we have entrances regarding the ascension of his empire for the early periods of his reign are obscured and most scholars seem to agree that it was in such period that he was married and had the already mentioned children. As we know,  "Cyrus was preceded as king by his father, Cambyses I. [...] [and] like his predecessors, Cyrus had to recognize Median overlordship." In addition, Waters tells us that:

"The first few years (at least five) are almost a complete blank in the historical record. It seems reasonable to place Cyrus’ marriage to Cassandane and the birth of Cambyses in this period (i.e., the 550s), if not before. Cyrus certainly spent these early years consolidating his power, presumably with an eye toward expansion. By 539, Cyrus had conquered Media (c. 550–549), Lydia (c. 540s),  and Babylon (539). Of these three, only the conquest of Babylon may be dated with any precision: Cyrus entered the city on October 29, 539. The chronology of Cyrus’ activity in the east is uncertain. No Near Eastern source provides any explicit information on the incorporation of eastern Iran into the empire. The extent of Median power and influence is also unknown, and this convolutes the issue. Xenophon (Cyro. I.1.4) implied that the Hyrcanians accepted Cyrus’ rule after he overthrew Astyages, while Ktesias claimed that they had joined Cyrus beforehand (Persika §9). After the conquest of Lydia, Herodotus (I.177) noted that Harpagus devastated “lower Asia” (kátwtñß ’Asíhv) while Cyrus himself destroyed “upper” (a¢nw) Asia, subduing all people (pân e¢qnov)." (Waters, 2005, p 93)

On that aspect, Amélie Kuh adds in her article "Cyrus the Great of Persia: images and realities" that:

"Although a Persian, Cyrus had close links to the Median king Astyages. Median power, based on Ecbatana (modern Hamadan in north-west Iran), included Fars, parts of Central Asia to the east and reached westwards as far as the Halys river in Anatolia. Cyrus led a successful Persian revolt against his Median overlord in 550, took over the larger part of his dominions, and extended them by conquering adjoining areas: the Lydian kingdom, including the Greek cities of the Aegean seaboard, in the 540s, and the Neo-Babylonian empire, which embraced the entire Fertile Crescent (from the Persian Gulf to the Egyptian frontier), in 539." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 6)

The spread of Cyrus' military forces is quite impressive as we have been told above. As his conquest go further, we inevitably wonder about the use of "King of Anshan" title, to which the explanation for it is found in the paragraph below:

"Even if the title “king of Anshan” was, originally and simply, a designation of the geographic place that Cyrus the Great and his predecessors ruled, its continued use by Cyrus himself, as the conqueror of Media, Lydia, and then Babylonia, is significant. From a historiographic perspective the title underscores the impact of the Elamite tradition on Cyrus, especially in contrast with Darius’ shift to a Persian and Iranian ideology. (...) The use of the title “king of Anshan” supplied legitimacy to a Persian dynasty that had been victorious over indigenous Elamites. (...) The use of the title “king of Anshan” by a Persian goes beyond that of a simple geographical marker; Persian domination of an Elamite area represented, by use of this title, an arrogation of an Elamite tradition. With the decline of Elam by the late 650s and 640s, the legitimately-claimed title “king of Anshan”, an Elamite centre of great antiquity, may have carried great weight in a milieu of mixed Elamite and Persian populations, wherein Persians were the relative newcomers. Only with the Cyrus Cylinder may we trace the progression from “king of Anshan” to an expanded titulary of the newly-victorious ruler of Babylonia and most of the ancient Near East. (Waters, 95)" 

As we have formerly mentioned, through the deeds of Cyrus we can perceives traits of the socialization process in which he went through. The ideal of a warrior king was, as we can observe from the previous paragraphs, present in the forming kingship, likely a seed to the next generations (as we will see when discussing the life and reign of Darius I, who was responsible for subduing Egypt) responsible for spreading the Persian empire and an important basis for the establishment, if not legitimizing, the emperors without necessarily looking upon marriages alliances for that specific goal.

Kuhrt also presents us the follwoing view regarding Cyrus' policies:

"Cyrus' progress was marked throughout by the generosity with which he treated his defeated opponents, the respect he showed to local cultures and his support for local cults. These policies laid the foundations for the empire's remarkable success. The Persians celebrated his achievements in song and story and his tomb was the object of a centrally funded cult down to the last days of the empire." (Kuhrt, 2005, p 7).

But we ought to remember that, however praising his deeds might have been, certainly colaborating for making Cyrus a great statesman as much as he was an excellent warrior, his flaws were still present there if yet we can use such word to qualify what he thought wise in his own days to presever his dynasty. The same author continues in saying: 

"His defeat of Astyages involves the torture of the latter's children and grandchildren, followed by the execution of his son-in-law, and ultimately Astyages' death (FGrH 688 F9 (1-3; 6)). In the course of the Lydian war, Cyrus executed Croesus' son, resulting in the suicide of Croesus' wife. Only after repeated attempts to chain Croesus up were divinely frustrated,xix did Cyrus relent and treat him with honour (FGrH 688 F 9 (4; 5)). The stories show a man of great ability in the field, a brilliant tactician, ready to deploy whatever measures necessary to achieve his ends. (Kuhrt, 2006, p 7)"

The conquest of Babylon, however, is, notwithstanding the several wars he waged, impressive and must not be excluded of the presenting discussion for, as we have already mentioned in the opening of this post, he showed respect for other culture and maintained it, in spite of the apparent differences. Although it does not configurate as an imutable perception applicable to others from former or after generations of Cyrus, nor to his regions, we assume that the respect he showed before Babylon conquest and, through Babylon the indirect conquest upon Assyrian kings who answered to Babylon's authority, culture, religions were likely the reflection of how Ashan's monarchy probably dealt with this difference between themselves and others.

In that order, Cyrus placed his son, Cambyses II, on the Babylon throne, dethroning thus the former dynasty in power until then, becoming "pretenders" to the throne that were now under the command of a foreigner power. In the following paragraphs, Kuhrt shows us this process of "changing kings", where, in theory, Cyrus 'usurped' the other's crown on behalf of his own dynasty. 

"[...] the new aspirant also accepted the duties that went with being a Babylonian sovereign: to respect and uphold the privileges of the urban elite, and care for divine and civic dwellings. Such work on sanctuaries and urban buildings was not something that could be undertaken at will – it required consultation with the gods (through divination) to see whether the proposed work was in line with divine plans. Approval of the plan to build - broadcast through the proclamation of positive omens - in turn demonstrated that the gods favoured the new ruler. And that favour was reconfirmed by the new king, who traditionally formed and brought the first building brick, finding the inscription of a pious earlier ruler, who had performed work similarly blessed." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 9) 

In cultural aspects, we are presented to this interpretation, already discussed:

"All references to the ‘restoration’ of shrines and their staffs are part of a familiar rhetoric deployed by conquerors and would-be kings, ready to accept the duties incumbent on them in their new position as rulers in Babylon. In fact, it reflects rather more of the pressure Babylonian citizens were able to bring to bear on the new royal claimant than casting any light on the character of the potential king-to-be." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 9)

Finally, though, she gives us a light on the king's proccession according to a Babylon's chronicle, a source she used since it was, in counterpoint to Xenophon and other Greek philosopher's accounts, more contemporary to Cyrus' days. It so says that:

"the chronicle’s account of Cyrus’ confrontation with Nabonidus. It is possible that tension between the two powers had been growing for some time – certainly there is a reference to Persia in a very broken context in the chronicle’s entry for 540. This may explain Nabonidus’ action in collecting the divine statues of several cities in Babylon for (one assumes) safety in the face of the expected Persian attack (Beaulieu 1993). In late September 539, the Babylonian army led by its king faced the Persian troops on the Tigris, near Opis. The battle was won by Cyrus, who followed up his victory by plundering the city and massacring its inhabitants. Shortly after this, Sippar, which was next in line of attack, surrendered, perhaps in order to avoid sharing the fate of Opis. From what follows, it is clear that Cyrus halted there, but sent his general (Gubaru/Gobryas) with an army ahead to invest Babylon and take the defeated Babylonian king prisoner. Only after Babylon had been secured – three weeks later – did Cyrus enter the city himself, which was now prepared to receive him as its new ruler (see Pongratz-Leisten 1993, ch.5; Kessler 2002), almost certainly as a result of negotiation with representatives of the Babylonian citizenry. Cyrus made the appropriate royal gestures i.e. initiating the ‘restoration’ of order following the disruptions of war. After making arrangements for the administration of the country, which – as we know from Babylonian documents continued to rely heavily on the existing Babylonian framework and personnel - he installed his son, Cambyses, as king of Babylon (Kuhrt, 2006, p 13)

 The festival had taken on a particular importance during Babylonia’s disturbed history in the immediately preceding centuriesxxxii and its correct celebration by Assyrian kings had been carefully noted by Babylonian chroniclers. An important phase in the festival was the point where the king led the image of the god Nabu from the 'Sceptre House' in procession into the main temple courtyard. As Cambyses had already been formally installed as king of Babylon in Nabu's cella (confirmed by the local dated documents), he would have been expected to enact this phase of the ceremony. But a recent restudy of the last lines of the chronicle (George 1996: 379-381) suggests, strongly, that it was Cyrus who took the lead in this, but robed, as the chronicle observes, in Persian ('Elamite') dress. The political message of this action, in the context of such a very traditional Babylonian ceremony, must be that there was a clear limit to how far Cyrus was prepared to fall in with Babylonian custom. Instead, the Babylonians were made to recognise, unmistakably, that they were now subjects of a foreign ruler (Kuhrt, 2006, p 13)"

The conquest of the great Cyrus II, however, provides us not only an interchange, a trade of cultures, of different peoples in touch, but an assimilitation from both parts. This did not mean necessarily that Cyrus' rule was well accepted by all. Had he been certain of it, he would not have died in campaign as Matt Waters tells us:

"That Cyrus died campaigning in the extreme north-east suggests that the regions beyond the Oxus River were not secure, or were attractive targets, even at the end of his reign" (Waters, 93)"

Unfortunately we are not told of his character, but from what we have seen this far, it is safe to assume he was charismatic and respectful. The use of blood out of the waged wars on benefit for his dynasty was used in emergencys. Naturally we must critically question ourselves: was Cyrus the great politic, statesman as he'd been portrayed? Whether we like or not, we ought to acknowledge that his kingship, shaped in military and cultural forms, certainly contributed if not left for his heirs a growing empire that, as already mentioned, was extended from Darius I and farther even by Xerxes I, this latter becoming the most infamous character of this dynasty.

What makes the ascension of the Persian Empire is that:

"Until perhaps the early seventh century, the region of Fars in south-west Iran and its main city, Anshan, formed a significant part of the old kingdom of Elam.xxxiii It is now generally accepted that, by at least the late second millennium, Iranian pastoralists (i.e. Persians) had moved into this territory and mingled with the local population.xxxiv From the late eighth century onwards, Elam experienced political problems as a result of conflict with Assyria. In the course of this, its kings had lost control of the Fars region, certainly by the middle of the seventh century, if not earlier. One outcome was the emergence of a new, small kingdom there, ruled by a Persian dynasty, whose members took the ancient and sonorous Elamite title ‘kings of Anshan’. Cyrus, whose name may itself be Elamite (Henkelman 2006: 32), proudly traces their genealogy in the Cyrus Cylinder: ‘Son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anshan, great-grandson of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan’ (Appendix, no. 1 (iv)). The historical reality of this claim is confirmed by the Elamite legend on an heirloom seal impressed on five of the published Persepolis Fortification tablets, which reads: ‘Cyrus, the Anshanite, son of Teispes’, i.e. Cyrus’ grandfather." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 14)"

Furthemore, we can tell that Cyrus' legacy is not only perceptible in the political and cultural aspects in Eastern history but as well within the region of Anshan and those by him conquered:

 "It is only with him that the landscape of Fars was transformed by the creation of the great royal residence at Pasargadae – the name taken from Cyrus’ tribe (Hdt. 1.125). It contained a series of substantial stone buildings, using novel architectural forms and lay-outs. (Kuhrt, 2006, p 14)"

To close this article, we understand that:

"In order to establish and consolidate control as firmly as possible, he needed to woo the support of local elites, something best done through accommodating himself to local norms whenever possible. But this was preceded by victory in battle and a definitive show of force, followed by no uncertain reminders to new subjects of their subservient position. (...) Cyrus was a quite remarkable soldier and politically pragmatic. The explosion in size of the tiny Persian kingdom in his reign remains astonishing.xliv His rapid conquests of vastly dispersed territories, not previously united under one political umbrella, are easily comparable, possibly greater, in their breath-taking scope and scale with Alexander of Macedon's epic achievements. This, together with the widely diffused messages of his piety and statesmanship derived from Ezra, Isaiah and Xenophon, combined with heroic stories of his rise to power, help to explain the continued persistence of his reputation as a uniquely able and merciful ruler." (Kuhrt, 2006, p 17)

Bibliography:

WATERS, Matt. "Cyrus and the Achaemenids." University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. 2003.

KUHRT, Amélie. "Cyrus the Great of Persia: images and realities." History Department, UCL. 2006.

POTTS, D.T. "Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan". University of Sidney. 2005.

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cyrus-the-Great

-http://www.cyrusthegreat.net

-http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php

Jimmu-Tennō, First Emperor Of Japan (711 BC-585 BC): A Legendary Ruler, Descendant Of Gods

However interesting it might be in bringing to the public eye royal figures that not rarely are barely remembered in History in general, those were specially Western. In an attempt to balance these discussions on this blog, and remembering that there'd been only one post this far in regard of the royals that too made history in Eastern (that being of Chinese Empress Wu), we will be now bringing figures of the monarchy from different times that made their names (or not) in different countries.

Today, we begin with the story of a legendary ruler of Japan, an almost mythical figure that has been often credited to be the first Emperor of Japan. His name is Jinmu-Tenno, and here's what we know about him.

Jimmu's original name appears to have been Kow-yamato-iware-hiko No Mikoto, although other bibliographies here consulted differ in Kamuyamato Iwaberiko and Wakamikenu no Mikotoor Sano no Mikoto. Japanese chronicles as Kojiki, he was born on 13 February 711 BC and died, apparently on 9 April 585 BC. Where this name issue we have pointed is concerned, we might have an explanation for this in the following quote:

"According to the Kojiki, Jimmu died when he was 126 years old. This emperor's posthumous name literally means 'divine might' or 'god-warrior'. It is undisputed that his identification is Chinese in form and Buddhist in implication, which suggests that the name must have been regularized centuries after the lifetime ascribed to Jimmu. It is generally thought that Jimmu's name and character evolved into their present shape just before the time in which legends about the origins of the Yamato dynasty were chronicled in the Kojik."

There is no further indication about his life as a whole, except a mythical story as told in the next paragraph:

"Jimmu figures as a direct descendant of the sun goddess, Amaterasu via the side of his father, Ugayafukiaezu. Amaterasu had a son called Ame no Oshihomimi no Mikoto and through him a grandson named Ninigi-no-Mikoto. She sent her grandson to the Japanese islands where he eventually married Konohana-Sakuya-hime. Among their three sons was Hikohohodemi no Mikoto (...) who married Toyotama-hime. She was the daughter of Ryüjin, the Japanese sea god. They had a single son called Hikonagisa Takeugaya Fukiaezu no Mikoto. The boy was abandoned by his parents at birth and consequently raised by (...) his mother's younger sister. They eventually married and had four sons. The last of these, Kamu-yamato, Iware-biko no mikoto became Emperor Jimmu."

Furthermore,

"At this point, Jimmu is said to have ascended to the throne of Japan. Upon scalling a Nara mountain to survey the Seto Inland Sea he now controlled, Jimmu remarked that it was shaped like the 'heart' rings made by mating dragonflies, archaically akitsu. A mosquito then tried to steal Jimmu's royal blood but since Jimmu was a god incarnate emperor, akitsumikami, a dragonfly killed the mosquito. Japan thus received its classical name the Dragonfly Islands, akitsushima." 

Taking a look from a more practical view, as the likely warrior he was rather than his divine connections, we comprehend that:

"Japanese chronicles record Jimmu's expedition eastward from Hyuga in 607 BC along Japan's Inland Sea, subduing tribes as he went and ending in Yamato, where he established his centre of power. Although modern historians do not accept such details as a 7th century BC date, preferring a date in the Early Christian era, they affirm the tradition of an aggressive movement of peoples from the west."

Unfortunately, informations as those we were able to share concerning the Emperor's life are difficult to find, specially if one is not able to read in Japanese language to have access to the sources that have been mentioned here. However, this does not prevent us in writing about this formidable character and raise possibilities of interpretations that lead us to interesting discussions.

One of these interpretations we were able to raise is the place the figure of Jimmu is found between religion and war figures. This might reflect that Japan's society was very close to pre-Christianity's belief and this would remain even to our current days. Though Jimmu was not praised as his divine ancestors were, after all he was not only related to the god of the sea but also to the goddess of sun, he was very important to all of his sucessors nonetheless. Not only the Imperial House of Japan would base their claim to the Japanese throne on Jimmu's figure, but would continue to assist with respect the figure of emperor, thus making Jimmu the key for Japan's monarchy. In addition, we might think that perhaps it was more his bonds to the divine rather than his skills as a warrior that shaped Japan's monarchy, a reflection, if we dare to wonder, of a religiosity that was very immersed within the social thought of Japan's society in contast to Western's ideal of a warrior-like king that was perpetuated to most Middle Ages.

"Despite Jimmu's importance as a link between the ruling family of Japan and the divine ancestors, he has never had much of a cult following in Japan. A Shinto shrine was erected by the Japanese government in 1890 at the site of what is believed to be his burial place at Unebi."

And finally, it is interesting to take notice that:

"[...] the myt of origin has also had a stabilizing effect, ensuring that ancient traditions such as respect for ancestors, for the land itself, and loyalty to the people of the nation, have survived through into modern times." And "Jimmu has an honored place in Japanese tradition. The idea of a special bond between ruler, land and people helped to make governance more stable."

Whether he was, indeed, a powerful warrior whose deeds made him a legend throughout the centuries, holding an importance for Japan even in the present days, or he was but an mythical character, we might only speculate; yet, we would be missing the point of this discussion by limiting it to the question of his nature. Instead, Jimmu-Tenno not only contributed to Japan's empire but was also the reflect of a very religious society proving the point that sociologist Durkheim would say in his studies of religion: that a society's morality is shaped by religion, an institution without which no society survives. This much is appliable to Jimmu and the inheritance he left for the posteriority.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Jimmu

-https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jimmu

-http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jimmu,_Emperor_of_Japan

Louis IX Of France: The Saint King, Patron Of Kings. [1214-1270]

We have formerly discussed about two important royal characters during France's middle ages who left remarkable precedences on the art of kingship and also queenship for their successors over the centuries. To this particular Louis, subject of our post today, this could not be any different with him being the son of Queen Blanche. As we have noticed, he was particularly close to his mother and her influence over him was very perceptible in his deeds and policies, a path which we intend to explore as well as to enlighten for our readers the process in which Louis, as a man and then as a king, was turned into Saint Louis, the holy monarch who was the patron for another generations for the kings of France.

Louis was born on 25 April 1214 at Poissy, near Paris. He was the son and heir of King Louis VIII, then Prince Louis, the Lion of France, and his Queen, then Princess of France, Blanche de Castille. His baptism occurred in La Collégiale Notre-Dame church. His birth was followed by the birth of two brothers: Charles, King of Sicily and Count of Anjou, Robert, Count of Poitiers and Alphonse, Count of Toulouse. He had also a sister, Isabelle, who was, like him, later canonized as Saint Isabelle.

Where his education is concerned, Blanche herself chose the tutors for her son and heir to the French crown. He was thus instructed in Latin, public speaking, writing, military arts, government and we assume he must have received a religious education as well. He was nine years of age when his grandfather, Philip Augustus, had died and only twelve years old when his father, Louis VIII, died. As we have formerly said on the post concerning Queen Blanche, she was quick in making her son crowned at Reims Cathedral, within three weeks of the death of Louis's father and predecessor. It was a political and tactic move that helped consolidate her power as Queen regent, a position she would hold during her son's minority.

There is not much to discuss about Louis IX's youth, and the next important event of his life is his marriage to Marguerite de Provence, whose sisters were all to be, as herself, queens consorts: Eleanor, the sister with whom she was close the most, became Queen of England; Sanchia was married to Eleanor's husband (King Henry III) younger brother, Richard of Conrwall, and by this marriage she was Queen of Germany; and there's Beatrice, Queen of Sicily. Marguerite was only 13 years of age and she was chosen not only because of her beauty and wit, but due to her religious nature, which would please the king very much.

The match, as it turned out, despite being a politically one, became a loving one. And, as we have also mentioned in Blanche's post, a rivalry between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law grew as the attentions of the court were drawn to Marguerite's beauty and courtly manners. However, in spite of Blanche's great influence over her son, the pair managed to  have their moments together and Marguerite would give birth to 11 children to her loving husband as seen here:

"The new queen's religious zeal made her a well suited partner for the king. He enjoyed her company, and was pleased to show her the many public works he was making in Paris, both for its defense and for its health. They enjoyed riding together, reading and listening to music. This attention raised a certain amount of jealousy in his mother, who tried to keep them apart as much as she could."

Louis' piety nature would be seen in the next great political achievements that marked his reign, one of which being the first crusade that he was part of, as we shall see in the next paragraph:

"Louis and his followers landed in Egypt on 5 June 1249 and began his first crusade with the rapid capture of the port of Damietta. This attack caused some disruption in the Muslim Ayyubid empire, especially as the current sultan, Al-Malik as-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub, was on his deathbed. However, the march from Damietta toward Caior through the Nile River Delta swent slowly. The rising of the Nile and the summer heat made it impossible for them to advance and follow up on their sucess. During this time, the Ayyubid sultan died, and the sultan's wife Shajar al-Durr set in motion a sudden power shift that would make her Queen and eventually place the Egyptian army of the Mamluks in power. On 6 April 1250 Louis lost his army at the Battle of Al Mansurah and was captured by the Egyptians. His release was eventually negotiated in return for a ransom of 400, 000 livres tournois (...) and the surrender of the city of Damietta."

On that particular aspect of Louis IX's crusade and his capture by the Muslims, Cecilia Gaspochkin, author of an article entitled as "The Captivity of Louis IX" tells us that:

"Louis had taken the cross in 1244 following a grave illness that threatened his life. Some have thought that Louis may have been inspired to take the cross by learning that the [...] Turks had retaken Jerusalem 1244 but it is not clear that the news had reached Louis by the time he fell sick. In 1245, Pope Innocent IV gave Louis' crusade official sanction at the First Council of Lyon. In 1248, after more than three years of preparation, Louis left Paris, and set sail a few months later [...]"

Furthermore,  

"[...] Louis and his men began to see their fortunes turn clearly downward. On February 9th, Louis ordered a bridge built across the river, and the army fought skirmishes daily against the Muslim forces. After a few weeks and upon the arrival of Turan Shah and his chief advisors, the Muslims began a blockade, cutting the French off from their supplies lines from Damietta and starving them out. The king and the sultan began talks which would have returned Damietta to the Muslims in the exchange of the lost territories of the Kingdom of Jesuralem, but these negotiations - if they had been serious- broke down when the Muslims demanded that Louis himself be delivered over as surety. Conditions in the camp began to deteriorate and illness began to spread. Louis himself would report on the catastrophic loss to illness of both men and horses at this stage, describing their sad reduction in numbers from plague and lack of food, and saying that there was no one in the camp that "did not mourn those who had died or were mortally ill". The French spent Good Friday and Easter Sunday in this state of despair and uncertainty, and on 5th April [...] Louis ordered a retreat to Damietta."

At one point, where despair seemed to prevail over reason, it was the king's pious character that certainly brought some victory to reason as: 

"Louis' men urged him to board one of the galleys going down river, but Louis refused, saying he would never abandon his people. Three decades later, Charles of Anjou still recalled how Louis snapped at him when Charles insisted that Louis was endangering the army by slowing its progress. 'If you find me a burden', the king replied, 'leave me behind since I will not desert my people.'"

Negotiations occurred in the meantime Louis was trying to calm his army, but failured was quite evident. There is a situation, which Gaspochkin retells us from the perspective of the account written by Joinville (one of the closest men, not from Church, to the king).

" In Joinville's bitter recollection, Marcel cried out to the French camp, "Lord Knights! Surrender yourselves- the king commands you to do so. Do not let the king be killed!" Joinville swears that the king had given no such order; but the French, not knowing this, surrendered, and the Egyptians, pressing their advantages, promptly ended the truce talks. All of Louis' men still in the field, both on land and water, were then taken into captivity. 

[...] Of his capture, Louis himself said that he, along with Alphonse of Poitiers and Charles of Anjou, and the majority of those retreating by both land and water "were taken and put in chains, not without a very great slaughter of our men and the shedding of no little Christian blood". [...] Louis was taken by boat [...] back to Mansourah."

If the king had been previously ill during the crusade, which he had architected even against his mother's approval on the matter during the past four years with the consent of the pope, during his captivity his health deteriorated quite harshly to the point where his captor, Turah Shan, placed the king under his own doctor. Joinville recalls it bitterly that the Muslim physicians managed to make a better use of medicine than their own physicians. In captivity, however, must be reminded that he was treated well accordingly to his position, and even so this did not mean there had been no execution: some sources claim that the Muslim slaughtered over 30,000 French men.

Regarding the king's captivity, still, which is an important subject to be discussed because it reveals more about his zealous nature and pious character which would be highlighted when he was later canonized, the author tells us that:

"The captivity gave Louis time to reflect deeply about what had led there. All evidence points to a sense of personal despair or defeat. He was in a state of penintention introspection the whole time, taking count of his responsibility in the catastrophic outcome of the crusade, both with regards to his men and before God. In Europe, it was said that for three days he neither ate nor drank and longed for death. During his captivity, each time he exited his confinement he would lie in the ground on the form of a cross, and make the sign of cross all over his body."

But the captivity of the holy king also brought to internation light the shrewd nature of the queen consort, who was not only the first woman to accompany, until then, her husband the king to the crusades, but had also an important role during the negotiations to release Louis from captivity. That she did so whilst carrying one of Louis's child in her belly, Jean Tristan, makes the narrative of the story quite impressive.

"[...] In Damietta, the Queen was busy trying to raise 400,000 bezants needed to effect the transfer. She was clearly terrified. She asked that an elderly attendant vow to kill her before she could be captured if the Saracens took the city.[...]"

It also appears that an old knight acted as a midwife during the birth of Prince Jean. As a result of her role as a mediator queen during this process where her husband was captive under the hands of the muslims, upon their return to France, the Queen's shrewdness would make her sought by others of the court to mediate conflicts and others matters.

Eventually, however, the negotiations came to an end, after much intern trouble amidst Louis's enemies, and thus 

"On May 6th, Damietta was handed over to the emirs, and the king and other captives were released. The four galleys which held most of the prisoners had been anchored right outside the city the previous evening. [...] All the Christians within the walls of Damietta, led by Marguerite of Provence, were escorted out of the city and onto the ships. [...]"

Upon the death of his mother, the queen regent Blanche of Castille, which had distressed him quite much, Louis returned to France. Even though there were some critics where his crusade came to defeat, this did not diminish his popularity as king; on the contrary, his pious nature became wider known throughtout Europe and he was still seen as the model of Christian prince, for

"His empathy for the fellow captives and his sense of personal responsibility pierces through the centuries, and we might speculate about what role the experience of his own captivity had in his resolve."

As a result of this particular experience, we can tell how it reflected within his national politics, for Gasposchkin states that:

"The 'spirit of reform' which animated royal governance after 1254 and all the policies which it engendered, paired with the uncompromising moralization of his kingship, seem to have been borne from Louis' profound sense of personal responsibility for the crusade's failure and his sense of duty in legislating virtue throughout the kingdom, including the 'anti-corruption' campaigns of the 1250's and 1260's. Louis inaugurated a series of reforming measures [...] all designed to ensure as much as possible the just kingship to which Louis aspired. His desire to effect an ideal of Christian kingship born of his penitential ambition was probably also the impetus for his measures at peacemaking, both within and outside his realm. At least, his hagiographers think so."

He was also known for his patronage of arts, innovating and propagating the Gothic style in art and architecture. Louis was also responsible for commissioning the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris to 

"host the crucifixion relics he acquired after 1239". He also "ordered the establishment of several professional guilds, one of which was the 'Oyeurs' or goose roasters from which of course the Chaîne des Rôtisseurs traces its origins."

Another heritance left by Louis's deeds as king of France lies on "the foundations for the famous college of theology later known as the Sorbonne were laid in Paris about the year 1257". Consequently, 

"The prestige and respect felt in Europe for King Louis IX were due more to the attraction that his benevolent personality created rather than to military domination. For his contemporaries, he was the quintessential example of the Christian prince and embodied the whole of Christendom in his person. His reputation for saintliness and fairness was already well established while he was still alive, and on many occasions he was chosen as an arbiter in quarrels among the rulers of Europe."

Following the year of 1258, where internation affairs were concerned, Louis and James I of Aragon entered in negotiations that led to the Treaty of Corbeil, under which both parts renounced to some territories: on Louis's part, he relinquished his feudal overlordship over the County of Barcelona and Roussillon; from James', he did the same by giving back to France's crowns the counties of Provence and Languedoc, among others. In 1259, the Treaty of Paris was signed between Louis and King Henry III, improving thus relationship between England and France after a few generations of early Plantagenets and the Capétiens. This treaty, whilst confirming some English lordship over some French's territories, confirmed the French's crown soberanity over Anjou, Normandy, Poitou, Maine and Touraine. As we can see, Louis's nature tended more for peace rather than going to war in spite of his failures at crusades.

And it's on the second crusade we are discussing now. In 24 March 1267, 

"In a parliament held at Paris, [...] Louis and his three sons took the cross. On hearing the reports of the missionaries, Louis resolved to land at Tunis, and he ordered his younger brother, Charles of Anjou, to join him there. The crusaders, among whom was Prince Edward of England, landed at Carthage 17 July 1270, but disease broke out in the camp. Many died of dysentery, and on 25 August, Louis himself died."

About his death, which is leading us to Louis's sainthood, author Cecilia Gaspochkin states that:

"[...]Louis IX died in North Africa, outside the walls of Tunis, on 25 August 1270. Efforts began to immediately to canonize him. In 1272 the pope elect, Gregory X, asked Louis's confessor Geoffrey of Beaulieu to write a vita and he commissioned Simon de Brie quietly to begin inquiries into Louis's sanctity. In 1275, churchmen from northern France wrote to Gregory to request expedition of Louis's canonization. A formal inquiry into his sanctity lasting over a year was held at Saint-Denis in 1282 and 1283. But it was not until 1297, as part of the negotiations between the pope (Boniface VIII) and the French king (Philippe IV, "the Fair") that the papacy formally canonized Louis."

We have seen, as this far we've been discussing about Louis's deeds as a king and his character as man that his peacemaker tendencies, aside of his piety and how he took his duty as lieutnant of God seriously as well as being the ruler who looks after his people, that there was much to have contributed for Louis's rise from merely being the model of a Christian prince to Saint Louis, the saint who would exercise a great influence over the next generation of kings of France. 

For a starter, the already mentioned author Gaspochkin, in her article "Louis IX and Liturgical Memory", indicates the paths which constituted in Louis's memory and how it was used for the end of the canonization through liturgy. In other words, 

"[...] the liturgy defined Louis's sanctity as people participated in it on a daily basis, as part of the lived and ritualized experience of devotion. It also functioned to construct a communal memory of Louis within a particular institutional and devotional context, creating a legitimizing canon that nourished institutional identity [...]. 

The text for None spoke of Louis, in heaven, having overcome his exile on earth: 'He sings praises to God, having left his exile; translated into joy, he was not mindful of his afflictions'. Another potent image-walking in the footsteps of Christ-was also evoked. [...] The first Matins responsory said 'Louis, the noble king among king of the French, [was] desirous from the very beginning to follow in the footsteps of Christ'."

Moreover, we are, once again, taken into the depths of his religiosity as she states that:

" The only way out of exile and home to God was through learning, contemplation and, above all, bodily asceticism. Lauda celestis thus detailed Louis's learning and ascetic chastisement of the flesh. The office spoke of Louis 'restoring his spirit with the nourishment of sacred doctrine' and of his 'many fasts, the tears of his vigils and disciplines, his pallor, the bluish aspect of a dead man, his hair shirt, the hardness of his bed, [which], it said, all revealed a body consummed by meagreness, subjugated to the spirit. Louis, said the office, chastised his flesh and bore the lashes from the iron chain of his confessor. Eventually, he was 'freed from prison, freed from his chains', to enter the kingdom of heaven."

We are presented to two instruments, services of the Church, whose participating in building the image of Louis IX as a saint and using all of his lifetime through the writings of Vita, as already mentioned: those would be the Cister order, a Benedictine order reformed in the 11th century alongside the intern reforms that marked Church's history in that time, and the Franscicans, a mendicant group of religious whose aim was to follow the example of life left by Saint Francis. And how far these groups took part in expanding Louis's memory to the extention that not only took part in his canonization but also as the patron of the next French kings?

To have a better comprehension of the methods used by the Cister Order, here's an excerpt of the already mentioned article "Louis IX and Liturgical Memory":

"The Cistercian office remembered Louis using core devotional ideals at the heart of the monastic contemplative vocation, in turn reifying, in the memory of the saint king, those very ideals to the religious community as it ritually performed the liturgy each year. [...] 

The themes of asceticism, penitence and obedience of the Cistercian office for Louis contrasted sharply with the interpretation of Louis's sanctity in the ritual memoralization at the royal court. [...] the secular royal tradition drew on the language of [...] an ideal of sacral kingship."

We have to keep in mind that by the time the process in which the Cistercian Order participated in linking the Capetian monarchy to the sacred monarchy presented in the Bible through the character of Solomon, for example, Philippe III and, in posteriority, Philippe IV (whom we have also discussed on this blog) were the monarchs whose kingship were being linked if not closely to the Church and its ideals. However, 

"[...] the office modelled -memorialized- Louis according to ideals current at the royal court in 1300, thus using Louis to legitimize those ideals while at the same time allowing the image, the memory and the symbol of Louis as saint in turn to represent these ideals, to associate Capetian kingship with biblical, Old Testament and Christian kingship."

Thus, 

"In comparison to Cistercian memorialization, which sought to valorize monastic contemplative ideals, and courtly memorialization, which emphazied the sacral quality of Louis's kingship, the Franciscans framed their liturgical memory of Louis in terms of the life and sanctity Saint Francis. [...] That is to say, the liturgy for Louis was explicitly designed to recall the liturgy for Saint Francis.[...]"

On the contrary of the methods used by Cistercians in the process of canonization, which worked closely to the ideals present at the court years after Louis's death, the mendicant order of the Franciscans sought for another path for doing it so. Through comparions between the lives of St Francis and Louis IX, it's interesting to notice that the latter's skills as warrior was used to point a less mundane aspect of it, despite the apparent contradiction (in using arms for a military purpose in the name of a peaceful God). As we see below, 

"For the Franciscans, what most exemplified Louis's sanctity was the crusade -and it was crusade understood in a very Franciscan way: as renunciation, service to the church and suffering. The bulk of the office was devoted to a celebration of Louis's crusade- just as the bulk of Francis' office was devoted to his renunciation. In particular, Louis's crusade was modelled as a parallel Francis's stigmata. Crusade and stigmata were both undestood on a metaphysical level [...] as the mystical moment of compassionate unification- that is, a co-suffering [...]- with Christ."

It is no wonder why, when writing about Louis' captivity in Egipty, author Cecilia Gasposchkin concludes that:

"[...] The hagiographical traditional that flourished in the years around his canonization was largely built upon the edifice of the vita written in the early 1270 by Louis' long time confessor (and companion in Egypt), Geoffrey of Beaulieu. Louis's captivity was featured prominently [...] in both traditions. The stories that took root and were repeated are illustrative of the ways in which his captivity had come to have moral and ideological meaning. His commitment to staying with his army and ensuring certain capture rather than fleeing alone, his willingness to remain prisoner in exchange for the freedom of others, his secure faith in the face of the infidel victors, and his refusal to take an oath to deny Christ were featured in almost all later accounts."

What is even more curious is, considering Louis's defeat in both crusades, the speech beneath the words of Pope Boniface VIII when he 

"suggested that God had actually allowed Louis to fall in captivity in order to demonstrate the core value of humility and endured suffering to the infidel. The captivity was, thus, merely an instrument of God's greater design."

Whether it was for political, mundane orders that Louis was no more a man or merely a king but, above all, a saint, we ought to remember that, underneath these titles, 

"He was renowed for his charity. Beggars were fed from his table, he ate their leavings, washed their feet, ministered to the wants of the lepers, and daily fed over one hundred poor. He founded many hospitals and houses: the House of the Filles-Dieu for reformed prostitutes; the Quinze-Vingt for 300 blind men (1254), hospitals at Pontoise, Vernon, Compiégne."

As it happened to the last Anglo-Saxon king, Edward, the Confessor, who likewise became a saint following similar purposes, Louis thus became St Louis, exercisizing in practice what few kings dared to do: to follow, with no doubt, the commandments left by Christ, to love and protect the poor, to defend the feeble and innocent, to practice justice and, furthermore, to practice charity. That he had flaws as a human being, this is certain during his lifetime, but the message is beyond that: it is what he could do as someone who received "too much" from the divine and how he used it for selfless purposes. 

That is how we end this post, to make it known that being a king or a queen whether be in the past or in our present days did not necessarily mean that there lied a power to be used poorly. Saint Louis taught us otherwise, that he did what he could to improve, if not change, a reality in which a greater purpose was expected of him. 

In attempting to stick to a bibliography that is not commonly used as reference (as far as we know) in observing the discussions concerning such important character for Christianity and France's history in the duality where Louis fits as a man and as divine being, we sought to bring a proposition that is to comprehend the extention of his deeds through the works of the men whose part certainly helped in building a even more humble image, fit for a Saint. That we hope to contribute to bring others perspectives, as we have done here this day, and propose a reflection alongsipe this discussion is our goal, but nothing more important than spreading knowledge.

Bibliography:

GASPOSCHKIN, Cecilia M..Louis IX and Liturgical Memory. "Memory and Commemoration in Medieval Culture." Edited by Elma Brenner, Meredith Cohen and Mary Franklin-Brown.

GASPOCHKIN, Cecilia M. The Captivity of Louis IX. "Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae. Vol 18- 2013. Kings In Captivity; Macroeconomy: Economic Growth". Edited by Wojciech Falkowski, Marek Derwich, Tomasz Jasinski, Kryzstof Ozog, Andrzej Radziminsky, Pawel Derecki.

-http://www.enluminures.culture.fr/documentation/enlumine/fr/rechexperte_00.htm

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX_of_France

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-IX

-http://www.chainedesrotisseurs.com/news_online/story.php?ids=1473&title=

Blanche de Castille, Queen Of France (1188 – 1252): Mother Of Saints, Consort Of A King And Twice Regent Of France

If previously we have brought to discussion the life and deeds of Louis VIII of France, from the Capét dynasty, this time we intend to do the same with his wife, Queen Blanche. This formidable woman, responsible for the first effectively regency of France (we have female examples before her own days, that included of the already discussed here Adhélaide d'Aquitaine, consort of the first Capét king of France, Hugh, who had been herself a regent on behalf of her son though for some brief time) without contest, has been overshadowed by other regent queens of days after her own as the just equally formidable Queen Catherine de' Médici and the mother of Louis XIV, Queen Anne d'Autriche. But those mentioned women much owe to Blanche not only in matters of queenship but that of motherhood as an effective instrument of power as we will see next.

We ought to have in mind as we discuss queenship in the 12th and 13th centuries that this was a male dominant world, but this did not necessarily mean that women were completely excluded of power. Blanche is, naturally, the example we intend to study but before her we can mention her own grandmother, Eleanor d'Aquitaine, and even her mother, Eleanor of England, Queen of Castille. Philippe Augustus's own mother can be cited as somewhat powerful woman too, once he left her as co-regent of the realm of France as he went to crusades. Those queens certainly were a good example for Blanche in terms of queenship and we will see why. Bearing that idea in mind, we ask ourselves: who was Blanche de Castille? And what was her importance not only as Queen of France but as a Queen within a time where wars were waged and religion had its greatest expression in dominance?

We must, naturally, follow the course from the beginning. Blanche, named Blanca in Spanish language, was born in Palencia, Castille in the year of 1188. Some bibliographies here consulted claim that she was born precisely on 4 March of that year. She was the third daughter of Alfonso VIII of Castille and Eleanor of England, who was one of the daughters of King Henry II of England and his consort, Eleanor d'Aquitaine, whom she was named after. By the time she was 11 years old, Blanche was suggested as a bride for the Dauphin of France, our future Louis VIII, as part of the treaty conducted by her maternal uncle, King John of England, to make peace relations with King Philippe Augustus of France. There's a story, however, that tells us that it was not Blanche the intended bride for the future king of France, but her sister Urraca was offered as the Dauphine-to-be then and that when the 80-year-old Queen Eleanor went to Castille to pick up her granddaughter and take her to France, she decided that Blanche had a proper personality fit to be the future Queen of France. If that is true or not, we have no confirmations, but the fact is that the aging Eleanor d'Aquitaine indeed travelled to Castille to bring Blanche back to England and then to France where the marriage would occur.

As it was the case with Louis VIII, we have little information regarding Blanche's childhood and early youth until her marriage with the heir of France. Even then we speculate that she must have had an education fit for a future Queen since her sisters, who were all to be Queens of Castille, Aragon and Portugal were known for their brightness in dealing with politics of the realms they were to serve as consorts to the kings they were married to. 

On that order, as formerly mentioned: 

"Her grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen of England, traveled to Spain to take the 11-year-old Blanche to France, where a marriage treaty was concluded with Louis, the young son of King Philip II Augustus. This politically motivated marriage had been arranged by Blanche's uncle, King John of England, and was celebrated in 1200 at Portsmouth, Hampshire. It represented only a brief truce in the struggle between England and France for control over certain French territories."

Furthemore,

"From soon after the time she was married, to the time she served as regent of France, she bore twelve children, but only five made it to adulthood. She and her husband ruled France beginning in 1223 until he died in 1226, leaving Blanche regent of France and guardian of their children. The oldest male was Louis IX and within three weeks of his father's death, Blanche had Louis IX crowned in order to secure his position and her influence over French politics. Because Louis was a minor, Blanche maintained a lot of influence over his actions and studies, something that was highly recommended by contemporaries. In fact, when Louis VIII made her regent of France, he did so with little explanation because there was a widespread belief that good government was continued by the help and guidance from mothers who advise their young kingsons."

Before we proceed to her regency during the minority period of her son's rule, we must remember her deeds during her time as Dauphine of France and before rising to become Queen of France. When the truce between France and England, initially arranged from the moment Blanche was married to Louis, seemed to end, the French got involved in the First Baron's War that occurred in England during the late reign of King Philip Augustus and King John, as we have properly explained it upon discussing Louis' direct involvement on it. As for Blanche's part on the English civil war that involved the French's nobility, we can say that she used her right to the throne of England to instigate her husband in claiming it, and when her father-in-law the  king refused to aid any further his son's quest, she seemed to threat to use her own children as hostages if necessary. Following the paragraph below, a statement will give us a better perception upon the mentioned scenary:

"During the English barons' rebellion of 1215-16 against King John, it was Blanche's English ancestry as granddaughter to King Henry II that led to Louis being offered the throne of England as Louis I. However, with the death of John in October 1216, the barons changed their allegiance to John's son, the nine-year-old Henry.

Louis  continued to claim the English crown in her right, only to find a united nation against him. Philip Augustus refused to help his son, and Blanche was his sole support. Blanche raised money from her father-in-law by threatening to put up her children as hostages. She established herself at Calais and organized two fleets, one of which was commanded by Eustace the Monk, and an army under Robert I, Latin Emperor. [...] On 24 August, the English fleet destroyed the French fleet carrying those reinforcements off Sandwich and Louis was forced to sue for peace."

We can perceive from this statement what kind of spirit Blanche had and this warrior-like type would continue to be her strenght even afterwards. Unfortunately, we do not have records that tell us about the brief period in which she reigned as Queen consort, but afterwards as regent, a period that is now to be discussed.

It's important to recollect that by the time Louis IX became King of France he was a minor and not all of France's nobility was under control as it has been already discussed during the three years of Louis VIII's reign. Therefore, it's no surprise to see why the Queen Dowager was quick in making her son crowned: not only this political move was to prevent any rebellion from the French barons, but also to remind them of a dynastic continuity with his coronation, which took place three weeks after Louis VIII's death at the Reims cathedral, as well with her regency. This strenght we have mentioned earlier is perceptible here:

"[...] In his discussion of the long tradition of female regents in France, historian André Poulet indicates something of the breadth of her 'absolute power' as queen-regent when it was her turn to take up the role: she 'legislated, dealt with foreign powers, waged wars, arranged marriages'. 'In short', he concludes, she 'imposed herself as sovereign of the realm.'."

In addition to what has already been stated,

"Blanche showed herself by turns a delicate diplomat, a clever negotiator, and a strong leader. Dressed in white, on a white palfrey draped in the same colour, she rode into battle at the head of her troops. After an attempted abduction of the young king, Blanche did not hesitate to replace rebel noble associates with commoners if she thought it necessary. She also created local militias. Blanche was gradually able to subdue the revolt, establish a new truce with England, and, in 1229, pacify the south of France by signing the Treaty of Paris with Raymond VII, count of Toulouse. France then entered an era of domestic stability, which saw the construction of many cathedrals throughtout the country."

These political tacts in which, as we could see, she was quite successful has another motive which aided in the turn of such good deeds. Few medievalists consider motherhood as an political instrument as Madeline Fine successfully did when writing her article entitled as "Blanche of Castille and the role of the Queen-Regent." She tells us that:

"The reiteration of Blanche abiding by her motherly role reinforces the notion that motherhood was a source of political power for women of the royalty. This use of gender to not only produce children, but also oversee their education and upbringing, establishes an even stronger correlation between a mother and her children. In other words, the guidance of one's royal children gave mothers an outlet of political power. Blanche and other royal women made sure they gave their children the best and most informed upbringings possible so that their children could successfully lead and protect their lands.

In Blanche's role of overseeing her son's education, she can trust that he will lead a good government, but still count on her if he needs advice. [...] During her son's minority, Blanche had to deal with French baronial opposition that came about as a result of her late husband's military expedition to England. She worked endlessly to prove to them her dedication to French interests and not those abroad, while also demonstrating her ability to deal with and convince opposing barons to fulfill their responsibilities to the crown. During his minority, Louis depended very heavily on his mother for guidance."

That being said, motherhood became an instrument of power as much as her piety. She uses both to create an image that links her to Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, since she sees herself as a mother who looks after the interests of her son... and her regency proofs this. At the same time, however, we see that, like most women in power during those days, before and after, she had to masculinize herself in some degree to earn some respect. However, it was justly this motherhood that helps her to stablish herself on power and as such, as we will see, marks were left under her government.

One of these came after her son came out of age and was ready to take the reins of the govern himself, but, as he depended of his mother, it was Blanche the responsible for finding him a wife. The next Queen of France was Margaret of Provence and that marriage, despite being a political match that eventually became a love one, marked essentially the end of her regency. So Fine states that:

"In watching over her son's interests and creating political alliances, Blanche selected Marguerite of Provence to be Louis's wife. It is postulated that this marriage marked the end of her first term as regent of France, and despite the switch of power her influence over him did not change, but lasted her lifetime. Louis had her join him in council meetings, meet with foreign ambassadors, write letters to citizens of cities requesting their fidelity, and even trusted her to guide him in matters of justice, policy and piety. According to Murphy, 'Blanche was held up as a model of queenship and late medieval writers put a strong emphasis on the mediatory role she had with her son'. So much so that several councils across the kingdom referenced her in their entries as an example of the model queen for French queens to emulate in the centuries to come."

Underneath these flatteries, however, not all was perfect. Her relationship with her daughter-in-law was very terrible, to say the least. Blanche dismissed any relative or friend to the new Queen and tried to prevent her son to meet her as much as she could. In spite of this meddling, Margaret and Louis managed to have at least nine children. It also appears that another motive for their rivalry concerned the former Queen's vanity:

"The queen mother, who was growing old and beginning to miss her once-famous Castilian beauty, could not see without some sadness this young, so beautiful, so living a queen, attracting to her the poets of the new generation and ravishing their praises to her."

Whether this was true or not, what is more important is that Blanche was recalled to be regent of the country once more when her son, accompanied with his wife, Queen Margaret, departed for another crusade.

"Although she opposed his crusading venture, Blanche again assumed her role as regent of France. After her son was captured in 1250, she added the job of raising his ransom to her responsibilities as regent."

In addition, Fine explains:

 "According to Miriam Shadis' essay, 'Blanche of Castile' and Fracinger's 'Medieval Queenship: Reassessing the Argument', Blanche's proeminence in her second term as regent was shown in the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Vendome. This treaty secured tentative peace with her opponent, Pierre Mauclerc, who was known for holding the title of Duke of Brittany for his son Jean. This treaty arranged the marriage of Pierre's daughter Yolanda, with Blanche's son Jean.

She also arranged the marriages of her daughter Isabelle and son Alphonse with a son and daughter of Hugh de Lusignan and Isabelle of Angouleme. These treaties were vital in pacifying some of Blanche's strongest opponents. These marital treaties served as political strategies because it gained her important time in securing the realm for her son while he way away. [...] This goes to show how Blanche's tactical planning was recognized and respected for her dedication to her son and his realm was unwavering.[...]".

By that time, Blanche had, doubtless, established a model of queenship that would be followed by her successors to some extent. Motherhood, upon analyzing the role of the consorts of the French throne, was very positive instrument, specially when so closely linked to religion as Blanche did. Her deeds give us an image of a loving, caring but equally energetic and fearless queen who would do all that was in her power to protect the interests of her adoptive realm. Regardless of her English and Spanish relations, Blanche would prove to be a trustful queen who defended the interests of her subjects above her own and that of her relatives. She thus became French by far then merely by marrying the French king.

Collecting success and a few failures, she was, as we could see from what was left in History, a successful Queen, mother and wife who followed the footsteps of her maternal grandparents, certainly inheriting her brightness and political tact from her grandmother Eleanor d'Aquitaine and her strenght and belief in her honest conduct, if not her own temper, from her English grandfather, the first king of the Plantagenet line, Henry II.

To close this memorable woman's History, we leave you with this paragraph below:

"Although weakened by a heart ailment, Blanche did not neglect her obligations as a regent. Continuing to preside over council meetings, she signed laws and watched over the poor of Paris. When some of the poor were mistreated by the cathedral chapter, she herself rode, as formerly, to open the gates to their prison. On her way to the Abbey of the Lys, one of her favourite retreats, Blanche suffered an attack of the heart, ailment that was to take her life. She was returned to the palace of the Louvre, dressed in a nun's habit, and laid on a bed of hay. There, after begging forgiveness of all and having received the last sacraments, she died. She was buried at Maubuisson Abbey and her heart taken to the Abbey of the Lys."

In spite of all her political and religious heritances that have been told, it is mostly important to recollect that two of her children who outlived infancy were to be canonized after their deaths, one becoming the patron of the kings of France, St Louis (King Louis IX), and the other praised as saint by the franciscan order, St Isabelle (the same Isabelle who was betrothed to one of the sons of Hugh X of Luisignan, she refused so in order to remain virgin, but she never became a nun, though). Perhaps that is her greatest contribution to the spiritual world. May History remember always this formidable woman that was Blanche de Castille, Queen of France.

Bibliography:

-http://expositions.bnf.fr/francoisIer/grand/fra_058.htm

-http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/IR/00/01/03/14/00001/ReadingPowerintheSources.pdf

-https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/706.html

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_of_Castile

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Blanche-of-Castile-wife-of-Louis-VIII

-https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/blanche-of-castile/queens-regent-blanche-castile/

-https://www.monstrousregimentofwomen.com/2015/03/blanche-of-castile-following-in-her.html

-https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/woman/77.html

-https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/why-did-eleanor-go-get-blanche-castile-for-who-did-81755

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_of_France_(saint)