Cleopatra I: The Syrian Queen of Egypt (c.204 BC-176 B.C)

As we have been studying the figures of the past that have left their contribution to history and the shaping of the societies they lived in, admittedly we have been motivated by our curiosity to understand how they have worked in periods as Middle Ages, where it is very little discussed once there is a wrong concept about the said period when people mistake it to be the 'Dark Ages'. That being said, most recently we have asked ourselves of the period before Middle Ages and consequently the rise and formation of states as we know now.

So, on this day, we turn our eyes to Ancient Egypt, whose royal representations are best reminded in the figures of Cleopatra VII, Tutankhamon, aside of a few others that some readers might bear their names in mind. The dynasty of the Ptolemaic is probably the most famous of all the dynasties that reigned over the vast empire of Egypt, directly related to the infamous Alexander the Great, a Greek conqueror who claimed to be the son of God Apollo and whose legacies are still perceptible to this day in vast places of Europe. 

As we know, Cleopatra VII was his most famous descendant whose name and lifetime are still the object of discussions. However interesting she could have been, the fact she was the eight of her dynasty to bear that name led to question ourselves: who was the first Cleopatra? What can it be said regarding her history? Did she leave a significant inheritance for those who followed her reign? So many questions to be asked, indeed, but with so many few bibliographies to answer them! Nonetheless, this did not stop us in hoping to bring to life this formidable lady, whose name certainly was remarkable enough for being suceeded by the next generations.

Cleopatra the First was born around the year 204. As we have said, there are few informations about her, but we do know that she was a daughter of the King of the Syrian Empire named Antiochus III the Great. It is said she had two brothers, but we don't know their names. Another aspect of Cleopatra's life that reached us is that she was married to Ptolemy V, King of Egypt, around 193 BC when she was ten years of age. The reason for this marriage can be seen below:

"In 197 BC, Antiochus III had captured a number of cities in Asia Minor previously under the control of the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt. The Romans supported the Egyptian interests, when they negotiated with the Seleucid king in Lysimachia in 196 BC. In response, Antiochus III indicated his willingness to make peace with Ptolemy V and to have his daughter Cleopatra I marry Ptolemy V. They were betrothed in 195 BC and their marriage took place in 193 BC in Raphia. At that time Ptolemy was about 16 years and Cleopatra I about 10 years old. Later on, Egypt's Ptolemaic kings were to argue that Cleopatra I had received Coele-Syria as her dowry and, therefore, this territory again belonged to  Egypt. It is not clear if this was the case. However, in practice, Coele-Syria remained a Seleucid possession after the Battle of Panium in 198 BC."

As a result of the dowry matter, Egypt was neutral when Syria and the Romans were in a political struggle between one another.  As for Cleopatra, she received the nickname "the Syrian" due to her origins, and also, 

"As part of the Ptolemaic cult she was honoured with her husband as Theoi Epiphaneis. In line with ancient Egyptian tradition, she was also named adelphe (=sister) of Ptolemy V. A synod of priests held at Memphis in 185 BC transferred all honours that Ptolemy V had received in 196 BC (written on the Rosetta stone) to his wife."

Unfortunately for us, we have not found accounts concerning those events and the gap between them so it is difficult to even picture the sensations and thoughts of this queen. However, one can only speculate that she must have been aware of her position and thus understood the duties and responsibilities coming as a result of such by being married to the King of Egypt.

Whether was the case, Ptolemy V for some reason was preparing to go to war against his consort's brother, the new king of the Syrian empire, when he died. He left three children with Cleopatra: Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VII. As for the former, she served as his regent until her death, around 176 B.C

What we know of Cleopatra as regent is that she prevented the upcoming war with the Syrian Empire and that she apparently "ruled equitably, keeping peace with Syria while doing nothing to alienate Rome, and thereby kept Egypt free of invasion." Also,

"she was the first Ptolemaic queen to be a sole ruler of Egypt. This can be concluded from date formulas on the papyri written in the years from 179 BC to 176 BC, where Cleopatra I is called Thea Epiphanes and her name is written before that of her son. She also minted her own coins [...]."

Perhaps it is safe to say that Cleopatra I was a formidable woman, leaving thus a legacy that likely inspired the women of the next gerations. Unfortunately, her story is short and with few informations, but one may hope that someday this changes.

Bibliography:

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

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cleopatra-I-Syra

-http://emilykq.weebly.com/blog/cleopatra-i

John of Gaunt, Duke Of Lancaster: The Duke Who Fathered the Wars of Roses (1340-1399)

Today's post will be about a character that, though part of nobility, was no king nor emperor, even less a grand duke, like some of the male royals we have spoken before. He was, however, just as important as those who held the said titles. To the British History in particular, John of Gaunt left his mark in it not only as the wealthiest son of the remarkable king Edward III, but as well as the key character of the event that followed his death, the Wars of the Roses. He was not only the father of Henry Bolinbroke, who'd usurp Richard II's crown to become King Henry IV, but as well as the ancestor to the next generation of kings that played a great part in the conflict that torned the Plantagenet Dynasty in between the Houses of York and Lancaster, as well as the one whose blood would unite them afterwards through the dynasty of the Tudors. In order to propose a discussion about John's deeds during his lifetime and how he was seen in it and after his death, he is thus the topic of our blog.

John Plantagenet was the fourth son of King Edward III of England and his consort, Queen Philippa of Hainault, whom we have recently discussed. He was born on 6th March, 1340, at a city of Flandres, known as Ghent (adapted to English as Gaunt), hence why he is known as John of Gaunt. By the time of his birth, "King Edward III and his wife were in Flanders to formally receive homage from the Count of Flanders and to have Ghent, Ypres and Bruges proclaim Edward III King of France."

What we know regarding his childhood is that John "grew up in the household of his elder brother Edward, Prince of Wales [the Black Prince] where he received his knightly training." He was, during this period of his life, accepted into the Order of the Garter after the Earl of Kent Thomas Holland's death. His first experience in battlefield occurred at the age of ten, alongside Prince Edward, at the naval Battle of Winchelsea. Nine years later, John would be granted his own troops to lead during a campaign in Normandy.

When he was also nineteen, John married his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, sole heiress of her father, Henry Duke of Lancaster. She was 14 and it seemed to have been a loving relationship. Until her death, around the age of 23, she would give John eight children, of whom only three would reach adulthood: Philippa, future Queen of Portugal, Henry Bolinbroke, future Henry IV of England, and Elizabeth, Duchess of Exeter. This match brought excellent results for both sides, since King Edward expected to arrange great marriages for his children and, upon the death of Blanche's sister, the heritance would enrich John, and she, in turn, would be marrying into royalty. As a result, John became Earl of Lancaster, later created Duke, so that way he

"was the rightful lord and master of over one third of the lands of England, and employed a number of troops large enough to compose a small private army. But even his lack of formal office and his powerful status as a nobleman did not stop the public outcry about many of his policy decisions."

What we know next, however, concerns his ambitions after Blanche's death, when we are presented explicitaly towards his ambitions. To many, it surprises how a powerful and wealthy duke as John drives his powerful desires outside England and France, directing it instead to Castile and Portugal. The enterprise which he was first part of was when he joined forces with Prince Edward to aid Peter the Cruel of Castile in his struggle for power, whilst the French supported Peter's enemies. This quest would prove fruitless as Peter eventually would turn his back to his English allies only to end up murdered by his half illegitimate brother Enrique de Trastamara. As we can see below:

"[...] the ambition of the Duke -who had taken an active part in the war carred on by his brother, Black Prince, for the restoration of Peter, King of Castile & Leon- induced him to direct his views towards Constance, the elder of the two daughters of that monarch, then lately slain by his illegitimate brother, Henry of Transtamara, his successor under the title of Henry II."

As a result of these foreign policies, poorly covering the War of the 100 years that continued to go on, and partly a consequence of the disaster that this campaign turned out to be, John married the oldest daughter of the late King of Castile, Constance. On her behalf, he claimed the kingdoms of Castile and Leon, in the hopes of becoming king himself. This would prove pointless and it was later agreed, upon the birth of Catherine, John and Constance's only daughter, that she would marry John and thus become Queen herself.

"In 1372, the Duke married this princess [Constance] and thus assumed the regal style of those kingdoms. These titular honours were ascribed to him in the writs of summons to Parliament from that year until 1386, when, by an arrangement with King John I of Castile & Leon, the son and successor of Henry, Catherine, the only daughter of the Duke of Lancaster by Constance, was betrothed to Henry, Prince of Asturias, his heir-apparent, and the crown settled upon the issue of that alliance."

Consequently,

"For sixteen years the pursuit of his kingdom was the chief object of John's ambition. No doubt he hoped to achieve his end, when he commanded the great army which invaded France in 1373. But the French would not give battle, and though John marched from Calais right through Champagne, Burgundy and Auvergne, it was with disastrous results; only a shattered remnant of the host reached Bordeaux."

 So,

 "[...] The disastrous Spanish enterprise led directly to renewed war between France and England. In August 1369 John had command of an army which invaded northern France without success. In the following year he went again to Aquitaine, and was present with the Black Prince at the sack of Limoges. Edward's health was broken down, and he soon after went home, leaving John as his lieutenant."

Despite playing a distant part from English policies, this would change considerably upon the death of his brother, the Prince of Wales, in 1376. It is when "the duke of Lancaster acquired a marked ascendency in the councils of the infirm monarch, his father." On that sad occasion, King Edward, no more the young and strong man he once was, begins to ail. So John becomes the regent. It is said, however, that "his administration of public affairs is [...] to have been stained by several acts of violence."

Upon King Edward III's death in 1377, he is succeded by his grandson, Prince Richard, who becomes Richard II. In truth, John continued to be the power behind the throne. As we can see in the following paragraphs:

"From 1374 until 1377, John was effectively the head of the English government due to the illness of his father and elder brother, who were unable to exercise authority. On June 8, 1376, at the age of 45, John's eldest brother and heir to the throne, Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) died at the age of 45. The heir to the throne became Edward's only surviving child, nine-year-old Richard. A year later King Edward III died and was succeded by his ten-year-old grandson as King Richard II. At King Richard II's coronation, John acted as High Steward, carried the Sword of Mercy, and carved at the coronation banquet."

Hence, John "continued to govern the kingdom during the minority of his nephew, Richard II, by whom, in 1389, he was created Duke of Aquitaine." Here we will see that his rise of power preoccupies his enemies, and that some of his policies, as the clash with the Church upon 'supporting' the "heretic" Wycliffe, were growingly impopular. As we can better understand following the paragraph below:

"The duke's politics were opposed by the chief ecclesiastics, and in resisting them he had made use of Wycliffe. With Wycliffe's religious opinions he had no sympathy. Nevertheless when the bishops arraigned the reformer for heresy John would not abandon him. The conflict over the trial led to a violent quarrel with the Londoners, and a riot in the city during which John was in danger of his life from the angry citizens. The situation was altered by the death of Edward III [...]. Though his enemies had accused him of aiming at the throne, John was without any taint of disloyalty. In his nephew's interests he accepted a compromise, disclaimed before parliament the truth of the malicious rumours against him, and was reconciled formally with his opponent."

Nevertheless, John was the main target during the Peasant's Revolt. It was an event important to understand what would happen half a century later. Though in this particular riot, we have the lower class in riots against heavy taxation, the complaints as to the 'man behind the throne', as if Richard II was John's puppet reflects the dissatisfaction people would have when Henry VI was surrounded by his favourites decades later, although on this case John was not Richard's regent. As we see below:

"[...]The main target of the angry revolt was not the young king. 'It became clear... that it was John of Gaunt whom the common people chiefly blamed, despite his lack of formal office, for the military failings and financial exactions of government' which inspired the revolt. One of the most detailed accounts of the Peasants' Revolt comes from Walsingham's chronicle, in which he is again bitterly critical of Gaunt. Although Walsingham's opinion seems biased and particularly spiteful, 'there is no reason to suppose that this part of his chronicle is not a fairly accurate reflection of the views of many of his contemporaries. The violent attacks on John of Gaunt in 1377, when the Londoners paraded his arms reversed, an during the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, when his palace of the Savoy was sacked,  show that feeling against him ran high."

Where the suspicious of the authority behind the throne lies, as we have said before, Sean Rocke¹ claims that:

"The people wanted to know to whom they were loyal, and whose authority was supreme: the King, or his powerful and unloved uncle behind the throne. This request epitomizes the 14th century preoccupation with issues of succession and legitimacy. However, these issues were not only characteristic of the 14th century. These very ssues would continue to influence politics and public opinion through the Wars of the Roses into the Tudor dynasty with its obsessions over legitimacy."

Whether he was genuinely guilty or not of those complaints, we understand by his actions that he was, not only a man of his days, but one whose ambitions rather led to foreign expeditions than to deal directly with domestic affairs. He was loyal to his family and fought for and next to it, which might be considerable to analyze if compared to others in his position that, blood or not, would not think twice before seizing the crown, as it was the case of Henry IV to Richard II and, ironically, to Edward IV to Henry VI years later.

And whilst we have an unfavourable view of John from the point of view of his rival, which could have also reflected a general view regarding his character as the quote above explained, there was also a more disposition opinion of John of Geoffrey Chaucer. In his eyes,

"Gaunt was no power-hungry villain wanting in the wings; indeed, 'there were better sides to his nature. Chaucer praised him as 'tretable/Right wonder skilful and reasonable', a genuine, courtly, chivalrous man who reflected the ideals of the Order of the Garter, another facet of the 14th century world that Gaunt reflects."

It can be suspected that such praise of the duke of Lancaster moves to the extreme opposite of that written by Walsingham, but to limit a character as this Plantagenet prince as good or evil is to forget that human beings in general had their flaws and qualities. Perfection does not exist, however tempting it is to look back and find glamurous the past. Nevertheless, impopular or not, towards the end of his years, John was created Duke of Aquitaine by King Richard II when he returned of his foreign excursions, avoiding being implicated in conspiracies against his nephew's throne.

In his final years, John married for the third time to his long time mistress, Katheryn Swynford née de Roet, whose sister was married to the poet Geoffrey Chaucer. It seems that, although Katheryn was raised at court and later served Blanche of Lancaster by being the governess of Philippa and Elizabeth, the signs of a romantic liaison between them supposedly began some time later before John's marriage to Constance of Castile. When John and Katheryn married, their children, having the surname Beaufort due to their birth at a French castle of this name, were legitimized by Richard II and Pope himself, although Henry IV would exclude them from inheriting the throne.

What then can be said of John's character?  He was, as said before, a product of his days. A courtly man, fond of poetry and arts, a knight who valued honour and dignity, which we can see by the loyalty to which he attached himself to the crown. When Richard II ascended to the throne, many preferred John to have been king instead of having another boy king on the throne (the last being King Henry III, who inherited the throne at age of nine), but he declined. He did not pursuit it, rather trying to settle, though unsuccessfully, himself as king of Castile. An ambition that was placed on two of his daughters that were crowned in Castile and Portugal, whose descendants are living until these days. After all,

"through his actions, 'the duke had shown himself an unyielding defender of the prerogative: he had stood by the crown in the difficult earlier years' and it would have been a major character change for him to be the villain portrayed by Walsingham and whose arrest and execution the peasant rebels demanded in 1381."

When searching for this post, we came across with positive views of him. Why does he inspire charisma to certain extent? Could he have prevented the illfated events that would lead to a tragedy which marked the next century in bloodshed? For this latter question, we have no answer. It is difficult to make predictions when every action led to that moment, as it was meant to be. As for the former, in terms of being the

"source of the Lancastrian and Tudor family lines, Gaunt was a literal father figure for the kingdom in later years, and Shakespeare's characterization of him as such shows that two hundred years later, his indirect influence was at least as strong as the influence he held as the counselor to the king. John of Gaunt led an unusual life, retaining almost unprecedented power and wealth, amassing a long list of titles, and vacillating between the positions of respected counselor and dangerous scapegoat for much of his political career. Some contemporary records give an image of a man greedy for a kingdom that he never attained, but this image is contradicted by Chaucer's insights, along with the evidence of Gaunt's consistent loyalty to the crown."

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and Aquitaine, died on 3 February 1399 at Leicester Castle, in England, aged 58. He was buried alongside his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, at Old St Paul's Cathedral in London. Through his first wife, John was the grandfather of Henry VI; through his third wife, he was the grandfather of Cecily Neville, mother of Kings Edward IV and Richard III; aside of being the great-grandfather of Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII. In Portugal, he is the ancestor of the House of Orléans-Braganza, and is a common ancestor for most of the European houses of the present monarchy.

Bibliography:

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

-http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_34.html

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-of-Gaunt-duke-of-Lancaster

-http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-john-gaunt

-https://historytheinterestingbits.com/2015/09/20/the-complicated-love-life-of-john-of-gaunt-2/

-http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/john-of-gaunt-1st-duke-of-lancaster/

-http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/gaunt.htm

-https://www.harlaxton.ac.uk/academics/downloads/honors/RockeSean-Gaunt.pdf¹

-http://www.britannia.com/bios/royals/jgdklanc.html

Ivan Vasilyevich IV: The Terrible Tsar Of Russia (1530-1584)

On today's post we turn our eyes again to the Russian monarchy. This tsar, a contemporary fellow king to others as Catherine de' Medici and her sons in France, Elizabeth Tudor in England, Phillip of Habsburg in Spain, is one of the most infamous of the House of Romanov. His name is Ivan and he is known for being such a "terrible" sovereign in terms of personality and as politician. However, it is our intention to question how terrible was he as person and as a monarch, so we hope to at least present a discussion to better enlight his historical figure.

Ivan IV was born Ivan Vasilyevich in 1530 as the first of two children of Basil III and Elena Glinskaya. Not much is known about his childhood in matters of education, but his early years were not the happiest one for someone of his position. Ivan was only three when his father died and ascended to the throne as Ivan IV. After a struggle against his uncle, his mother Elena became regent for four years before her own death, which is said to have been caused by poison.

"Once Basil died the boyars took over Russia, denying Ivan's right to the throne. Ivan's mother then with other trusted boyars took over the ruling party. Elena was able to successfully rule Russia for four years, until she died suddenly in 1538, apparently from poisoning, leaving eight-year-old Ivan an orphan."

This would prove to have dangerous consequences in Ivan when shaping the young tsar's character:

"Ivan's brutal behavior later on in life is testimony to his never having forgotten nor forgiven the childhood indignities he had suffered. The boyars would only pay attention to him when his presence was required at a ceremony. As the rivalry in the Palace for the power of Russia escalated into a bloody feud, Ivan witnessed horrible things. Living in poverty he watched and heard murders, beatings, and verbal and physicial abuse regularly. The boyars alternately neglected or molested him; Ivan and his deaf-mute brother Yuri often went about hungry and threadbare. Incapable to strike at his tormentors, Ivan took out his terrible frustrations on defenseless animals."

It would not be until 1543 that Ivan responded the ill treatments to him and his brother directed by violence. According to the next paragraph,

"On December 29, 1543 Ivan surprised his boyars by calling them to a meeting. He condemned them for their neglect of him and the nation, and denounced them for their misconduct. Prince Andrew Shuiksy, the leader of the boyars was thrown to a pack of hungry hunting dogs as an example to the others. After this, the boyars conceded that their rule had ended and that Ivan had complete power. [...] Ivan soon married Anastasia Romanova-Zakharyna-Yurueva. Anastasia bore him six children of whom only two survived infancy."

We will speak briefly of this marriage and it's offspring in the next paragraphs. For now, however, we must understand how significant was when Ivan finally managed to hold power for himself, despite being contested that he did so after he practiced the idea of divine right. A first step to this can be observed in his own coronation, when he took the title of "Tsar" instead of Grand Prince, as we can see in the following excerpt:

"On 16 January 1547, at age sixteen, Ivan was crowned with Monomakh's Cap at the Cathedral of the Dormition. He was the first to be crowned as 'Tsar of All The Russias', hence claiming the ancestry of Kievan Rus. Prior to that, rulers of Muscovy were crowned as Grand Princes, although Ivan III the Great, his grandfather, styled himself 'tsar' in his correspondence. Two weeks after his coronation, Ivan married his first wife Anastasia Romanovna [...] who became the first Russian tsaritsa."

There was a symbolic meaning before the self entitlement as Tsar of all the Russias. Apparently,

"The new title symbolized an assumption of powers equivalent and parallel to those held by former Byzantine Emperor and the Tatar Khan, both known in Russia sources as Tsar. The political effect was to elevate Ivan's position. The new title not only secured the throne, but it also granted Ivan a new dimension of power, one intimately tied to religion. He was now a "divine" leader appointed to enact God's will, as 'chuch texts described Old Testament kings as 'Tsars' and Christ as the Heavenly Tsar'. The newly appointed title was then passed on from generation to generation [...]."

From that moment on, a government was formed as the council was appointed by the tsar. Despite the principle of divine representative in earth, Ivan did not rule exactly alone. He is "believed to have governed with the aid of a talented group of advisers [...]." What can be surprising for many is that Ivan was an effective ruler, at least in the first half of his reign. He did implant important measures for Russia as we will see next. One of which was the law code, which he not only revised but also reformed.

"In 1550, Ivan announced a reformed code of laws and a new system for justice, the Sudebnik. Criminal acts now were clearly defined, and punishments were prescribed for each. In addition, judges who were appointed by Moscow, would share their benches with representatives elected by local populations, in an effort to curb the practice of corrupt judges that sold justice to those who could afford it. Now magistrates would, at least in theory, enforce the laws equally, without discrimination against persons of low status."

Ivan, aside of having implanted local police officers in order to prevent crimes, established

"a standing army (the streltsy), [...] the Zemsky Sobor (the first Russian parliament of the feudal Estates type) and the council of the nobles [...], and confirmed the position of the Church with the Council of the Hundred Chapters [...] which unified the rituals and ecclesiastical regulations of the whole country. He introduced local self-government to rural regions, mainly in the northeast of Russia, populated by the state peasantry."

In 1553,  the first printing press reached Russia, being introduced upon Ivan's orders. It would not last, however, after a few religious books were published for it angered the conservative writers who did not see this "improvement" with good eyes. Though not doing nothing in favour of the printing press, Ivan IV apparently held books written by Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets, the first Russian printers, who were forced to seek exile in Lithuania to avoid prosecution.

It did surprise us to see a side of Ivan that few propose to discuss it. A man fond of arts, Ivan not only was a great supporter of them but was, apparently a poet himself.  Also, "his Orthodox liturgical hymn, Stichiron No. 1 in Honor of St Peter, and fragments of his letters were put into music by Soviet composer Rodion Shchedrin."

In terms of diplomacy, Ivan had a good relationship with England, with Anglo-Russian relations being traced to the reign of King Edward VI, around 1551,

"when the Muscovy Company was formed by Richard Chancellot, Sebastian Cabot, Sir Hugh Willoughby and several London merchants. [...] In 1553, Richard Chancellor sailed to the White Sea and continued overland to Moscow, where he visited Ivan's court. Ivan opened up the White Sea and the port of Arkhangelsk to the Company and granted the Company privilege of trading throughout his reign without paying the standard customs fees. Muscovy Company retained the monopoly in Russo-English trade until 1698."

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, relations continued, though of one part it was focused to commerce, and the other, military alliance. By then, Ivan was facing problems concerning military and political issues. He also engaged with other Orthodox leaders.

"In response to a letter of Patriach Joachim of Alexandria asking the Tsar for financial assistance for the Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, which had suffered from the Turks, Ivan IV sent in 1558 a delegation to Egypt Evalet [...]"

In terms of religion, the tsar a religious, pious man which did not difer to his contemporaries as King Edward VI of England or Queen Catherine de' Médici in France years later. He used of burning and other sadistic methods to execute those who had different religious concepts of his. Those were the correspondent of the "torments of Hell, consistent with Ivan's view of being God's representative on Earth with a sacred right and duty to punish, [...] inspired by the model of Archangel Michael with the idea of divine punishment."

Looking back to the domestic affairs, it is said that his temper worsened after the death of his first wife, the first tsarina Anastasia. His discontent and grief were shown in public, it is said, when he hit his head. It is apparently from that moment onwards that he begins to be the terrible monarch he would later be remembered. For

"the first wave of persecutions targeted primarily the princely clans of Russia, notably the influential families of Suzdal. Ivan executed, exiled or forcibly tonsured prominent members of the boyar clans on questionable accusations of conspiracy. [...] In 1566 Ivan extended the oprichnina to eight central districts. Of the 12,000 nobles there, 570 became oprichniks, the rest were expelled."

It is suggested that the serfdom system that would mark Russia throughout the next centuries began in his reign. A better explanation is seen below:

"The country's vast lower class, the peasants, also saw their lot worsened during Ivan's reign. Much of the land turned over to the military servicemen had been state land worked by free peasants. The system gradually turned many peasants into serfs, bound to the land they tilled. In 1581 Ivan even issued an edict forbidding some peasants on service lands from moving."

As complicated it is to make a judgement of this act, it must be remembered that peasants who did not work were unseen with bad eyes during the 16th century. Even in England of the 17th century, Lord Cromwell would send to execution thousands of men who were "merely vagabonds". And much less trustable is to divide the Tsar's reign according to the perceptions of what was good or bad. Putting aside his personal character and what was the cause of the problems in his personal life that certainly led to his misconduct which turned Ivan into a dubious historical character, we have only brought facts of his reign in days that were burned by religious differences as a result of the Protestant Reformation.

The murder of his son and heir after an argument he had with his daughter-in-law, in which resulted a miscarriage that made the prince discuss with Ivan, certainly is not excusable for the eyes of our days and those of theirs. Yet, it does not compete to us to have it as a single subject to explore Ivan's reign as Russia's sovereign. In fact, the websites here consulted were mostly concerned about drawing out his policies, though some of which produced judgement of value that we hope to avoid by writing about this monarch regardless of our opinion about him.

Therefore, to end it, we can tell that Ivan's heritance to Russia after he died in March 18 1554 in consequence of a heart attack, was that he not only "altered Russia's governmental structure", but he established "the chracter of modern Russian political organisation".

"Ivan's creation of the Oprichnina, answerable only to him, not only afforded him personal protection but curtailed the traditional powers and rights of the boyars. Henceforth, Tsarist autocracy and despotism would lie at the heart of the Russia state. Ivan bypassed the Mestnichestvosystem and offered positions of power to his supporters among the minor gentry. The Empire's local administration combined both locally and centrally appointed officials; the system proved durable and practical, and sufficiently flexible to tolerate later modification."

A curiosity about Ivan is that in 1963, when the Soviets found the graves of Ivan and his sons,

"chemical and structual analysis of his remains disproved earlier suggestions that Ivan suffered from syphilis, or that he was posioned by arsenic or strangled. At the time of his death he was 178 cm [...] and weighed 85-90 kg. His body was rather asymmetrical and had a large amount of osteophytes uncharacteristic of his age; it also contained excessive concentration of mercury. Researchers concluded that while Ivan was athletically built in his youth, in his last years he had developed various bone diseases and could barely move. They attributed the high mercury content in his body to the use of ointments for joints healing."

Ivan IV was also much compared to the dictator Stalin and would be studied with suspicious eyes until nowadays. He is too, like Henry VIII of England, remembered for depousing more than three wives, managing to make seven consorts, though some of these marriages are disputed. Whatever the case, Ivan IV was succeeded by his second son, Feodor I.

Bibliography:

-http://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/ivan-terrible.htm

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

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-the-Terrible

-http://madmonarchs.guusbeltman.nl/madmonarchs/ivan4/ivan4_bio.htm

-https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-8-Wives-of-Ivan-The-Terrible

-http://historycooperative.org/paranoid-proactive-story-ivan-terrible/

Princess Isabel of Brazil: The Empress Who Never Was (1846-1921)

In our previous posts concerning the royals that helped to shape history in whatever context we have approached, we have acknowledged that history repeats itself in wherever part of the globe that monarchy (in such specific context) is or could be found. Looking to the tropics, Brazil's own history concerning the royals that left their marks in it, could not be different.

On today's post, we will discuss the lifetime of this Brazilian princess who could have been the first Empress of the tropics, in a charge that her contemporary Queen Victory would later occupy as Empress of India, had the coup d'état that replaced the old system of monarchy for republicanism, been prevented.

To those who are more familiar with Princess Isabel, she is most remembered for signing the Aurea Law, which granted freedom to all of the slaves in one of the last countries to abolish slavery. This particular deed granted the princess the nickname of "The Redemptress", but other than that historians have been questioning her role as regent during the times where her father, Emperor Pedro II, had been absent for reasons of health or for visiting friends and fellow monarchs in Europe; and the extent of her importance to Brazil's history. Whatever is the ideology one believes, it must be understood that every historical character is important for the construction of history. To deny that, is to undermine their relevance for History itself. Being a minor character or not, it is our duty to the figures they were to find out until what extent did their path as privileged persons crossed to History maker.

And to our princess, the Empress who never was, this could not be different. She had in her royal blood ancestors as Maria Theresa the Holy Roman Empress (who was also another subject to this blog), Louis XIV of France, Philippe II of Spain and even Henry VII Tudor through Mary, Queen of Scots. Not to mention the line of the Braganças of Portugal and Orléans of Spain.

Isabel, christened Isabel Cristina Leopoldina Augusta Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga of Orléans-Braganza, was born on 29 July 1846 at the Palace of Saint Christopher [Portuguese: Paço de São Cristóvão] as the second child and first daughter of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and his consort, Empress Maria Theresa of the Two Siciles. Before her birth, Isabel had an older brother named Alfonso, but he died at a tender age. After Leopoldina's birth, another brother was born, Pedro, but he did not live infancy.

It is said that Isabel's childhood was a happy one, once her mother, Empress Theresa (whose life we have already discussed on this blog, as well as of Emperor Pedro II's) always did her best in provide a happy and safe background accordingly to the social expectations of the 19th century towards their gender, which reflects the morality that marked this particular time in History. After the death of Pedro in 1850, Isabel's position rose as the presumptive heiress to the Brazilian empire. However, such position much concerned her father, since those were days that women were not expected to be the chief of state, though in 19th century England the same cannot be said of Queen Victoria. The next paragraph, thus reinforces what the Emperor thought of the whole situation:

"The Emperor's words revealed his inner conviction. After learning of the death of his son Pedro in 1850, he wrote: 'This has been the most fatal blow that I could receive, and certainly I would not have survived were it not that I still have a wife and two children whom I must educate so that they can assure the happiness of the country in which they were born.' Seven years later, in 1857, when it was more than clear that no more children would be born, the Emperor wrote: 'As to their education, I will only say that the character of both the princesses ought to be shaped as suits Ladies who, it may be, will have to direct the constitutional government of an Empire such as Brazil."

Despite of the fondness he undoubtedly had for his daughters, much of the Emperor's words reflect the common sense that was for the male-dominating society of those days in having male heirs. As historian Roderick J. Barman claims

"[...] the Emperor [...] although he valued D. Isabel as his daughter, he simply could not accept or perceive her in cold reality as his successor or regard her as a viable ruler.  The main reason for this behaviour was his attitude toward the female gender. "Pedro II believed, as did most men of his day", says Barman, "that a single woman could not manage life's problem on her own, even if she possessed the powers and authority of an empress."

As a result, Isabel's education was, perhaps, more fitting for a consort rather than a sole Empress. She was educated in "Portuguese and French literature, astronomy, chemistry, the history of Portugal, England and France, drawing, piano, dancing, political economy, geography, geology and [...] philosophy" She would be also fluent in French, English and German. It is also said that her father, the emperor himself, taught his daughters Latin.

Politics were not included in Isabel's education and hardly there were any approach of her father to introduce her to the matters of state. She was not taught about diplomacy nor was presented to the tasks that a presumptive heir should. Such neglection is explained not for the lack of fondness towards his daughter, but because the emperor was the product of a society dominated by male costums. Perhaps she would have been more acceptable amongst the rural nobility and more of the elite conservative had she been better acquainted with the role of a future Empress balanced with one of religious consort. It is said that Isabel

"[...] 'accepted women as dependent and obedient, and indeed her mother's and her governess's behavior did not justify anything else.' She 'did not lack powers of observation and a certain shrewdness, but she was very accepting of existance as it was and certainly not given to pondering the justification of existence for the established order'. All this meant that Isabel would not attempt a 'position in life autonomous of her father', even less rival him."

Isabel's character as adolescent was subject of comparisons to that of her father's in the same age. Apparently, she had a dispersive attention to things that did not hold her attention for longer than necessary and "a tendency to take a cheerful view of life". The princess was also "not afraid to speak her mind, and [...] held strong views." Physically, she was said to have been short, blond hair and blue eyes. She had no eyebrows and was a little overweight. When Gaston, Count of Eu, first saw her and Leopoldina, he described the sisters to be "ugly".

Although arranged as political match, it would develop to a love relationship. Isabel much relied on her loved husband, and this would be seen with some suspicious by the Brazilians, whom the prince of the royal house of France grew to be very attached to, as seen here:

"Isabel married French prince Gaston d'Orléans, through an arranged marriage in 1865. Although the prince initially described Isabel as ugly, they developed a strong attachment, and by all accounts they had a happy and loving marriage until their deaths (she in 1921, he in 1922). Likewise, he seemed to love Brazil, and he even fough for Brazil in the Paraguayan War."

Once this war which the Empire of Brazil fought against Paraguay after a diplomacy disaster committed by the latter ended, we come to Isabel's regency. As the next paragraph attests:

"Isabel played an important symbolic role during the first regency. Brazil had been gradually moving towards abolition of slavery for some time; as early as the 1820s, in constitutional debates for the new empire, some politicians spoke out against the institution. Mounting pressure from the English led to Brazil's formal abolition of the slave trade in 1850 (though illegal trade continued). After the Paraguayan War, however, the abolition movement really accelerated; during the war, many slaves and ex-slaves fought, often gaining numerous awards for their conduct on the field, and to return to slavery was an obvious problem. [...] In 1871, Brazil passed the Law of Free Birth, declaring that any child born to a slave woman after 28 September 1871 [...] would be free. Although Viscount Rio Branco wrote the law and Brazil's parliament passed it, it was Princess Isabel's signature that made the law the rule of the land. It would not be the last time her name was directly tied to the abolitionist movement."

Many historians nowadays disdainly question the extent of Isabel's support to the abolitionist cause. There are evidences that one of the reasons she did not openly embraced the movement was for fear to cause a negative impact to the majority of the supporters of monarchy, which were the owners of slave. This is a complex relationship that over 200 years had shaped Brazil during it's days as Portugal's colony and, in a similar situation in the Russia of Tsar Alexander II where putting serlfdom to an end resulted in his assassination, it should be careful when dealing with it. Isabel was not prepared for her charge, never she was taught to the role expected for the daughter of an Emperor as Pedro II and, to her disavantadge, many suspected she was a puppet of her husband, the french Prince Gaston. Many Brazilians saw her religious character and devotion to the Catholic Church with not good eyes, for they feared France and Rome would govern the country upon Pedro II's death when Isabel ascended as Empress. Isabel's piety is, here, not associated with kindness and support to a long cause of the abolishment of slavery, but rather a pawn of the Church. It did not help her side that she was associated "with ultramontanism, which emphasied the authority of the Church over the government."

After this first period of regency, Pedro II excluded her from government, which must have been a sort of relief for her as, according to "Castelo de Papel" by historian Mary del Priore, she distressed easily with tasks she was not only unprepared to take but disliked it much doing so. Nevertheless,

"a second period of regency began in 1876. This regency was marked with illness [for Gaston and Isabel], as well as fraud and intrigue within the government and public strife. Isabel and Gaston retreated intro private life as this disaster, even spending three years living in Paris."

However, it is her third and last time as regent that would mark not only Princess Isabel's position as presumptive heiress to the imperial crown but all of Brazil's history as well. She was once again forced to assume regency when Pedro II fell in 1888. When this happened,

"[...] conservatives were in power in parliament, and were still resisting total abolition. However, by this point, Isabel allegedly felt slavery's time was fast coming to an end. In 1888, she appointed a new government, led by João Alfredo Correia da Oliveira, also from the conservative party. The new government quickly introduced a law abolishing slavery in May of 1888; it passed the Chamber of Deputies (by a count of 83-9) before going to the Senate, which also passed the law. On May 13, 1888, Princess Isabel, who suddenly became known as A Redentora, or "The Redemptress", signed the "Golden Law", making Brazil the last country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery."

Yet, this act was a final blow for Brazilian's monarchy to fall. Republican sayings were already a trend in the country, though supported mostly by militaries, in spite of Pedro II's high popularity. Freedom of speech was, against expectations if observed in countries as Russia whose tsars forbade to speak ill of them, granted and news based in France's liberté, egalité et fraternité were spread (which is, historically speaking, hardly something new, but certainly gained a new refresh in this particular context). As it was said before, however, abolishing slavery was an act that affected all of the country, whose economy still largely relied on slaves and was in the beginning of "changing" it to immigrants.

Isabel's role in it has been minimized, but only because it is failed to observe that by the late 1870's, monarchy was more likely being shaped to be the head of the government than an active system that once was. As a regent, and one very inexperienced, she had to please both struggling sides: the liberals and the conservatives. It is also claimed that she was willing to give the vote for the women, something which would not happen until 1930's, and that she had set free many of her own slaves, taking those who escaped of their masters to her house, aiding them thus. It was also rumoured that Pedro II saw it coming and was more to a "republican" than a monarch. Whatever the case, 1889 came and, regardless of the high level of popularity of Princess Isabel and her father, the Emperor, a coup d'état occurred and the royal family was forced to live in exile.

"Isabel spent the rest of her days in exile in France. Although the Brazilian government lifted the ban on the royal family traveling to Brazil in 1920, Isabel's worsening health made any chance of a return to her birthplace impossible, and in 1921, she died at the age of 75. In 1953, however, her remains (along with those of her husband) were repatriated, and in 1971, they were buried alongside those of Isabel's parents in the cathedral in Petrópolis, the imperial center of Brazil."

Whatever that were the myths and the truths that surrounded this gracious figure, we are at least thankful that in our present days we find more biographies concerning her historical character, discussing with far more details than those here presented. So that way different perspectives can rise to propose more discussions about this woman who did so much to Brazil and yet, likely because of republicanism, is left in the corner of history books.

Bibliography:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil

-https://americasouthandnorth.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/get-to-know-a-brazilian-princess-isabel/

-http://international.loc.gov/intldl/brhtml/br-1/br-1-5-3.html

-http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/july-29-1846-birth-of-isabel-princess-imperial-of-brazil/

Nicholas I of Russia: From A Military Prince To An Autocrat Tsar (1796-1855)

On today's blog, we once again turn our eyes to the royalty that governed Russia before the tragic event that led to the end of it. Previously, we have approached a few figures of the Romanov dynasty, some of which were not so well known to the public as Empress Elisabeth and Emperor Alexander II. Coincidently, today we are speaking to the father of this latter. Nicholas I Romanov is, even for us, a surprising figure that, as far as our understanding go, are barely discussed. In his reign, there's nothing glamorous or quite striking in comparison to some of his predecessors and descendants. Then why is he being the subject of today?

In History, especially one concerning the figures in power as it is the case of the royals we study, we come to several situations where we come across with the infamous "what ifs". To us, the past is done and impossible to change, but in those days where past was present and their actors were living, they had no conscience of what could happen that would lead them to History. One small action, one decision and all is changed. A complex reflection that does not, however, bring any definitive answers for us.

To Nicholas Romanov this was no different. He, who was the son and brother of Tsars, was not expected to become one himself. Would Russian Revolution have been avoided had his brother's consort gave him sons? This is exactly the sort of "what if" we come across with when we look at such character. But Nicholas is not the unique example in History that awakes in us this sort of questioning. In every country that once held monarchy, or still does in the present days, second sons inherited the crown against all expectations and changed the whole course of the History of their countries. Henry VIII of England is, perhaps, the most famous example of such things, and in Russia, we speak of one himself.

The tsar born Grand Duke Nicholas Romanov was the third son of Grand Duke Paul and Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna. He was born towards the end of the reign of his grandmother, Catherine the Great, at Gatchina Palace in Gatchina. Five months after his birth, Grand Duke Paul became Emperor Paul upon the death of Catherine II. Nicholas was the youngest male of his siblings, amongst them the oldest being the future Alexander I, followed by Constantine and a few sisters.

Regarding his education, we understand he received an education proper for someone of his position in spite of the fact he was not the heir of the Russian crown. As we see below:

"The future emperor's first guardian and instructor was a Scottish nurse, Jane Lyon, who was appointed by Catherine II to care for the infant and who stayed with Nicholas constantly during the first seven years of his life. From Lyon the young grand duke learned even such things as the Russian alphabet, his first Russian prayers, and his hatred of the Poles (at least he liked later to trace the origin of his bitter antipathy toward that people to the stories told by his nurse about her painful experience in Warsaw in the turbulent year of 1794)."

Nicholas was taught French and German aside of his maternal language, as well as:

"[...] world history, and general geography in French, together with the history and geography of Russia. Religion, drawing, arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and physics were added to the curriculum. Nicholas received instruction also in dancing, music, singing, and horseback riding and was introduced at an early age to the theatre, costume balls, and other court entertainment."

From 1809, Nicholas was instructed also in political economy, logic, moral philosophy, natural law to strategy, English and classic languages as Latin and Greek. Looking at his curriculum, we can contest the idea he was not educated enough as the heir of such empire should in order to be the sovereign. What might best be said is that he was in position to inherite the crown once he was one of the youngests sons of the Emperor Paul, but this is yet to be discussed.

What captured the Grand Duke's attention was military science, which led him to become an army engineer and with no wonder awoke in him an interest towards the army, something that greatly marked him throughout his life. It was, as well, a Romanov tradition for the youngest sons to receive a military formation. It must be remembered that the whole affair against Russia marked Nicholas, who witnessed (though not directly) the defeat of Napoleon when he attempted to break in the empire. However the franco-russian relations have developed, what is important to observe is the consequence of it. One of which tells about Nicholas' marriage to Princess Charlotte of Prussia, who adopted the name Alexandra after their wedding.

"On November 4, 1815, at a state dinner in Berlin, Alexander I and King Frederick William III rose to announce the engagement of Nicholas and Princess Charlotte of Prussia (Alexandra, after she became Orthodox). [...] The solemn wedding followed some 20 months later, on July 13, 1817. [...] It proved singularly successful. Not only was Nicholas in love with his wife, but he became very closely attached to his father-in-law as well as to his royal brothers, one of whom was later to be his fellow ruler as King Frederick William IV. Beyond that, Nicholas was powerfully attracted by the Prussian court and even more so by the Prussian army."

By 1825, Tsar Alexander I died. He and his wife failed in producing any sons who would inherite the crown, so that way the crown passed to his brother. It should be passed to Grand Duke Constantine. Some sources claim he strongly refused so, others tell that he did not produce any sons himself so that way the crown would go to Nicholas. What is most likely is that he married to a woman of non-royal blood, so that way he could not become emperor himself. Whatever the case, the crown went to Nicholas, the third son, who now became Tsar Nicholas I. According to the next paragraph:

"In 1825, Alexander I died suddenly in Taganrog in the south of Russia, and as soon as the news reached Petersburg, the governmental authorities and the Guard regiments took the oath to the new Emperor (as it seemed to them): Constantine. However, at this point, Constantine's previous renunciation was made public, and troops were told they would have to take a new oath within several days, this time to Nicholas. A secret society, composed of liberal nobles, officers of the Guard and civilians, took advantage of the confusion to organzie a revolt in the hope of forcing Nicholas I to give the country a constitution and civil liberties. On 14 December, the Decembrists (as they came to be called due to the timing of the revolt) consolidated their forces around the "Bronze Horseman" on Senatskaya Ploshchad (Senate Square) and presented their demands. The uprising was crushed, the ringleaders arrested and after a lenghty investigation, five were unceremoniously hanged and the rest were exiled to hard labor in Siberia."

This uprising would leave a mark in Nicholas as sovereign and helped, with no shadow of doubt, to shape his conservative characteristic that would turn the rest of the years he'd reign, as an autocrat monarch. It is said he was the classic autocrat already by appearance and manners, in behaviour and policy.

"To quote Constantin de Grunwald, one of his biographers: 'With his height of more than six feet, his head always held high, a slightly aquiline rose, a firm and well-formed mouth under a light moustache, a square chin, an imposing, domineering, set face, noble rather than tender, monumental rather than human, he had something of Apollo and Jupiter... Nicholas was unquestionably the most handsome man in Europe."

Seeing that his role was "of a paternal autocrat ruling his people by whatever means necessary", he set the beginning of his reign the day after his eldest brother's death. It started in a Monday and, according to some sources, it was one very cold Monday, which was not seen with good eyes for the very supersticious russian people, who believed that Mondays were unlucky days.

His accession was marked by demonstration of the Imperial Army in order to let the people be reminded of the royal force. If any rebellion were to be risen again, the Tsar would not hesitate to crush the way he crushed the Decembrists. Nicholas I did not see liberal revolutions with good eyes, and more than once tried to interfere to prevent them to happen in Europe. Where his government is concerned, this close proximity to military affairs (which to some is seen as close to obsession) is perceptible inside his government. There, Nicholas appointed only men of experiences in battles, and by the end of his reign, he was rarely surrounded by civilians as we can observe in the following paragraph:

"Nicholas liked to appoint generals who seen combat as about least 30 of the men who served as a minister under him had seen action in the wars against France, the Ottoman Empire, and Sweden. This proved to be something of a handicap in the sense that could make a man distinguished on the battlefields such as bravery did not necessarily make a man capable of running a ministry. The most notorious case was Prince Alexander Sergeyevich Menshikov, a competent brigade commander in the Imperial Army who proved himself out of his depth as a Navy minister."

As a result, this government "exercised censorship and other forms of control over education, publishing, and all manifestation of public life." A few years later, for example, Sergey Uvarov, who was part of the ministry of National Education, organized a program entitled as "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality", which consisted in having the Russian people showing:

"loyalty to the unrestricted authority of the tsar, to the tsar, to the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church and to the Russian language. These romantic and conservative principles outlined by Uvarov were also espoused by Vasily Zhukovsky, one of the tutors of the Grand Duke Alexander. The results of these Slavophile principles led, broadly speaking, to the increasing repression of all classes, excessive censorship and surveillance of independent minded intellectuals like Pushkin and Lermontov and to the persecution of non-Russian languages and non-Orthodox religions."

It is said that the quote below was a speech that leaves it crystal clear what were his thoughts concerning his view of kingship:

"Here [in the Army] there is order. All things flow logically from one another. No one here commands without first learning to obey. No one rises above anyone else except through a clearly defined system. Everything is subordinated to a single, defined goal and everything has its precise designations. That is why I shall always hold the title of soldier in the highest esteem. I regard human life as service because everybody  must serve."

Paradoxally, however, literature and art flourished. The emperor, though loving everything Russian and establishing this language to be spoken at court as its manners (it is said that French and German were spoken at court), had a great deal of interest in medieval chivalry and "built palaces in Gothic styled, [...] organized stylized jousting tournaments, in which participants wore original armor from the Imperial collection." Yet, in 19th century, there was a great revival of medieval days, in which european historians and writers romancized such period, so perhaps this fondness of the tsar is a reflexion of the period. Nevertheless,

"This was the era during which the poets Pushkin and Lermontov worked, when Zhukovsky brilliantly translated foreign poetry, when Mikahil Glinka composed the first Russian operas, and Karl Bryullev and Alexander Ivanov painted their masterpieces. A plethora of construction projects contributed to the development of sculpture and architecture."

Also,

"his minister of education, Sergei Uvarov, quietly promoted academic freedom and autonomy, raised academic standards, improved facilities and opened higher education to the middle classes. By 1848 the tsar, fearing the political upheavals in the West might inspire similar uprisings in Russia, ended Uvarov's innovations. The universities were small and closely monitored, especially the potentially dangerous philosophy departments."

In spite of this conservative and severe character of the tsar, he was not fond of serfdom, but, unlike his son, was reluctant in abolishing it completely in Russia. A main reason (which is understandable if you have read the post about Alexander II on this blog, in which we have spoken more about it) is that he believed aristocracy would turn against him and Russian was, to certain great extent, dependent of this rural aristocracy. However,

"he did make some efforts to improve the lot of the Crown Serfs (serfs owned by the government) with the help of his minister Pavel Kiselyov. During most of his reign he tried to increase his control over the landowners and other influential groups in Russia." 

"[...] A half hearted measure for solving the peasant question was sought in the creation of "military settlements" and by encouraging landowners to voluntarily free their peasants under the condition that the peasants would carry out various tasks in the landlord's favor." 

By february 1855, Nicholas I caught a chill at a society wedding in St Petersburg, which worsened after he checked the troops in the following day. Medicine conditions in those days were not as good and excellent as in our days, so it could have not prevented a pneumonia to develop it. If at first the physician thought it was nothing serious, granting the Tsarina Alexandra that was nothing serious, quickly at the evening of 1 March, he changed his mind.

"During that night the doctor realized that the cold had turned to pneumonia and at one in the morning he advised the Tsar to send for a priest. Nicholas asked if that meant he was dying. The doctor told him he had only a few hours left. There was certainly nothing wrong with the Tsar's courage. He accepted the situation with unruffled dignity, sent for a priest to give him the sacraments and took leave of his family, friends and servants. He then turned back to matters of state and told his son, the future Alexander II, to say farewell for him to the army and especially to the brave defenders of Sebastopol, and tell them that he would pray for them in the next world. At five o'clock he calmly dictated messages to be telegraphed to Moscow, Warsaw and Berlin to announce his demise and told Alexander to order the guards regiments to the palace so that they could swear allegiance to their new tsar after his death."

That way, Nicholas Romanov died in 1855 and was later buried in the Cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, leaving the country to be ruled by Alexander II.

Looking back to his character, he was, undoubtedly, seen with negatives views from the liberals in Russia and to most european monarchs. The weight of duty was described by Nicholas himself as a cross he carried until the end of his days, which tells how unprepared he was when he reached the throne. Being well educated is no synonimous to be prepared to inherite a crown, especially when the expected heirs are taught and prepared for that duty from an early age to the duties that it follows. Naturally, this does not excuse his actions, but explains them.

It is only our interpretation to point out the fear of rebellions and the attachment to traditions and the military discipline that shaped the character of Nicholas as a figure of power, as the sovereign of Russia in days where liberalism was ecloding, especially after Napoleon. Seeing as how this latter tried to break into Russia and failed must have affected Nicholas, and it is not surprising to attest that he was the embodiment of the counter-revolution by the europeans in such days. Resistant to changes and trying to control everything, Nicholas perhaps would have been more successful as a general rather than a politician but this is only part of the "what if" we have mentioned earlier on this text and whose answer we will never know. What is unquestionable is his sense of duty that he took to the end, regardless of the consequences of it. Some might like to compare him with the medieval character of the fictional tv show "Game of Thrones", Stannis Baratheon.

Nevertheless, we come to conclude that:

"He became a conservative, severe, and sometimes brutal monarch, who did not tolerate any sort of dissent. In everyday affairs, he was very demanding of his family, the court, and all who were in civil service, and he put a high priority on order and obedience. A military man by nature, Nicholas I especially trusted the military and installed them in all key positions in the country. He also reorganized many governmental departments along military lines. Many institutes of higher education were militarized and students had to wear uniforms and a single, unified and very severe Charter was given to all universes in the country."

Bibliography:

-http://www.saint-petersburg.com/royal-family/nicholas-i/

-http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/death-tsar-nicholas-i-russia

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nicholas-I-tsar-of-Russia

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

Harthacnut of Denmark: The Last Viking King of England (1018-1042)

Whenever we turn our eyes to the past of the English monarchy, most of us go straight to the infamous Plantagenet and Tudor dynasties. When it's neither of them that capture the attention of the common sense, at times it is Matilda of the Norman Dynasty who fought for her crown against the usurper Stephen or even William I. This latter we know as the bastard son of the duke of Normandy who conquered the English crown after defeating Harold II of England, the last of a long line of Anglo-Saxons kings.

However, who were the kings that predeceased Harold and William? It is true that the most famous of the Saxons kings is one of the House of Wessex whose name we regard as Alfred the Great. Nonetheless, of others we have spoken here as well such as Cnut the Great and, afterwards, his consort Emma of Normandy who was twice the Queen of England. But what of their offspring? What do we know of them? Regarding Emma, we know that St Edward the Confessor was her son, but before Edward inherited the crown as King Edward III, there were two kings before him.

And one of them was Harthacnut (sometimes spelled Hardeknud in Danish), the son of Emma of Normandy and Cnut 'the Great', king of Denmark, England, Norway and Sweden. He was a younger half-brother to Sveyn Knutsson and Harold I, an older half-brother to Alfred the Aetheling and Edward the Confessor, and also an older full brother to Gunhilda of Denmark.

Informations surrounding Harthacnut's childhood could not be found. It is, in general, very difficult to draw his background, except that he was born in the early years of Emma and Cnut's marriage. At an early age, around 1023, 

"Emma and Harthacnut played a leading role in the translation of the body of the martyr St AEelfheah from London to Canterbury, an occasion seen by Harthacnut's biographer, Ian Howard, as recognition of his position as Cnut's heir in England."

It must be added that by then Sveyn and his mother, Aelfgifu of Merica, have already been sent to Norway to rule on Cnut's behalf. As for Harthacnut, when he was a eight-year-old boy, he would be sent to Denmark when the kingdom was threatened by both Norway and Sweden, in order to improve the defenses of the realm. Following this intention, 

"[...] in 1026 Cnut decided to streghten its defences by bringing over his [...] son to be the future king under a council headed by his brother-in-law, Earl Ulf. However, Ulf alienated Cnut by getting the Danish provinces to acknowledge Harthacnut as king without reference to Cnut's overall authority and by failing to take vigurous measures to meet Norwegian and Swedish invasions, instead waiting for Cnut's assistance."

As a result, Earl Ulf was murdered and Harthacnut was left as sole ruler of Denmark. What happened during this period until he reached majority it is not known, except that years he welcomed Sveyn and his mother Aelfgifu at his court after they fled from Norway, forced to do so because their rule were unpopular there. Despite the two half-brothers have been allies, Harthacnut "did not feel his resources were great enough to launch and invasion of Norway", so they sought to ask help from their father. It was when news of the death of Cnut 'the great' reached the Danish court.

The path for Harthacnut to inherite the English crown was a difficult one. First, because when he succeeded the Danish crown, he still had to deal with Magnus of Norway who constantly troubled him. Second, even with his mother Emma acting as regent on his behalf in England, the majority of the earls there present decided to support Harold (sometimes spelled Harald) Harefoot, obliging Emma to flee to Bruges in exile. There, he would meet his mother but, by 1040, delayed an invasion to England because Harold I was sick and would probably die soon. As we can see below:

"Harthacnut was probably preparing to invade England when, in 1040, Harold Harefoot died leaving Harthacnut to peacefully enter England and claim the throne as the last ever Viking King of England. Harthacnut was clearly upset with Harefoot, possibly as a result of the brutal murder of his half-brother Alfred, and had Harefoot's body dug up, beheaded and thrown in the Thames. This episode also suggests that Harthacnut was not pleased that Harefoot had taken the throne in Harthacnut's absence."

His arrival, despite peaceful, counted with 62 warships. This was done so because he "was taking no chances and came as a conqueror with an invasion force", probably to resemble his father's actions in the past. 

If in Denmark, Harthacnut ruled the kingdom alone, in England, it was expected he did differently, since the English were accostumed to have a king surrounded and advised by a council. But he would continue to rule "autocratically", even if this is what made him unpopular:

"When ruling England Harthacnut was not particularly popular as a result of his unwillingness to listen to the council of his earls and because he enforced high taxation at a time when the country was not enjoying plentiful harvest, thus some subjects rebelled before being brutally crushed by Harthacnut."

Another situation that did not increase his popularity happened in 1041, when Earl Eadwulf offended the king but, despite having been granted royal pardon, was murdered following the orders of Harthacnut. After this, the king earned the nickname "oath-breaker", but the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" gives no balanced views of his historical character. Nevertheless, it is said that

"Harthacnut was generous to the church. Very few contemporary documents survive, but a royal charter of his transferred land to Bishop Aelfwine of Winchester, and he made several grants to Ramsey Abbey. The 12th century Ramsey Chronicle speaks well of his generosity and of his character."

Another document that praises his image, and that of his mother, was Encomium emmae reginae which was written in the 12th century to ensure the regium figure of Harthacnut and her position as queen of England and queen mother. It is stated that Harthacnut had a good relationship with his half-brother on his mother's side, Edward, and named his heir, despite the rumours that Emma preferred Magnus of Norway to inherite the English crown at the same time that it was Emma who encouraged naming Edward as heir instead. Whatever the case was, Edward returned from Normany in Harthacnut's reign with some claiming he was co-ruler of the country and would inherite the crown upon his half-brother's death in 1040.

The cause of the king's death was, apparently, a stroke, even though he 

"had suffered from bouts of illness even before he became King of England. He may have suffered from tuberculosis, and he problably knew he had not long to live."

Despite this,

"Harthacnut presumably consumed large quantities of alcohol. As he was drinking to the health of the bride, he "died as he stood at his drink and he suddenly fell to the earth with an awful convulsion; and those who were close by took hold of him, and he spoke no word afterwards". The likely cause of death was a stroke "brought about by an excessive intake of alcohol."

As contradictory his figure was, historians as Ian Howard and M.K.Lawson agree that he was, if compared to his contemporaries, a successful medieval king. Had he not died young, the Norman Conquest would have never happened and, as a result, neither the lines of Plantagenet kings and the Tudors also. But it's risky to go too far where "what if's" are concerned.

Ian Howard praises Harthacnut for

"keeping peace throughout his empire, benefitting trade and merchants, and ensuring a peaceful succession by inviting Edward to his court as his heir. Had he lived longer, Howard believes, his character might have enabled him to become a successful king like his father."

Whatever is the opinion surrounding the figure of Harthacnut, it is important to remember he played an important key in England's history, but sadly few information concerning him are found. Despite the irony to point out the Vikings sat in England's throne for three generations (if you include Cnut's father, who took the crown of Aethelred by right of conquest but died within a year) after being defeated by the Saxons, they certainly helped to shape England's Christianity by approaching the formal religion to the popular belief. But this is another matter to be discussed another time. Their Viking inheritance would be continued with William, the Bastard of Normandy, whose several times great-grandfather was Rollo, the first duke of Normandy whom we have spoken in this same blog.

Bibliography:

-http://history.ossettacademy.com/the-vikings.html

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

-https://infogalactic.com/info/Harthacnut

-https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Harthacnut%20I%20of%20Denmark

Frederick II of Prussia: Was He The Great Military Genious Of His Days or Another King Victim of Propaganda? (1712-1786)

Admittedly we have, on this blog, turned our eyes mostly to medieval figures who left their own marks in History in more restricted days, them being male or not. We have also noticed that when it comes to military wars and their heroes, most of the people look after male or female characters who lived in the turbulent period that were the Middle Ages.

However neglected some of the greatest personages of the Modern Era have become, at least to some extent in our point of view, we hope to bring them back to the common public eye. As a result, it is our humble attempt to enlight another perspective to Frederick II, the Great Prussian king who was the inspiration for many of his contemporary and for those who lived way beyond his years, such as Wilhelm II, the Kaiser of a unified Germany who looked at Frederick as his great example for his military ambitions.

As a king, soldier and man, who was King Frederick? Could it be possible to understand his personality, the person he was based on the interpretations of him we have from historians and others who speak and/or study him? Was he as great as history claimed he was, or did Frederick irresistible fall in the traps of propaganda? Motivated by these questions, we hope, if not providing an answer for them, to give space for reflections throughout this post.

Frederick (German: Friedrich) was born in Berlin, as the son of Frederick William I and his consot, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover on the day 24 January 1712. By his mother's side, he was grandson of George I of United Kingdom of Great-Britain, nephew of George II and first cousin to the Prince of Wales, also named Frederick, who'd be the father of King George III. He had a sister named Wilhelmine to whom he was very attached.

Frederick's education was a complicated subject that would bring tension in father-son relationship. For a start, King Frederick William I of Prussia wished his children to be educated as "simple folk" and having his former tutor Madame de Montbail, a Frenchwoman, to take the main role of the education of his children. Nonetheless, as the prince grew, he was instigated by his mother to get in touch with the enlightened subjects she herself had been previously in contact to. So he learned music, literature, French culture as welll as Greek and Roman classics, philosophy and poetry, despite being brought to the strict Huguenot education. To understand why such upbringing caused an opposition relationship between father and son, we have a closely look below:

"Frederick's upbringing and education were strictly controlled by his father, who was a martinet as well as a paranoic. Encouraged and supported by his mother and his sister Wilhelmina, Frederick soon came into bitter conflict with his father. Frederick William I deeply despised the artistic and intellectual tastes of his son and was infuriated by Frederick's lack of sympaty with his own rigidly puritanical and militaritic outlook. His disappointment and contempt took the form of bitter public criticism and even outright physicial violence, and Frederick, beaten and humiliated by his father, often over trifling details of behaviour, took refuge in evasion and deceit. This personal and family feud culminated spectacularly in 1730, when Frederick was imprisoned in the fortress of Küstrin after planning unsuccessfully to flee initially to France or Holland. Lieutenant Hans Hermann von Katte, the young officer who had been his accomplice in the plan, was executed in Frederick's presence, and there was for a short time a real possibility that the prince might share his fate."

Such were the tensions between these two men of different personalities. It was also rumoured that Frederick had been involved to homosexual relations with not only Katte, but formerly with the king's page, Peter Karl Christoph Keith. If such rumours were to be taken credit by the king, which probably were, then this situation in which Frederick was forced to watch Katte's execution explains the urgency his father was in arranging a marriage for his son. A few suitors included Maria Theresa of Habsburg herself, who Frederick proposed if she did not ascend as Charles VI's heiress, which she naturally declined. Eventually he was married to Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Bevern, who was a Protestant relative to the Habsburgs.

As a result, this was not a happy match for both parts, despite being said that Elisabeth continued to be devoted towards him. Upon his rising as King of Prussia, Frederick II soon managed to separate from his wife, paying rare visits to her and having a court for himself, and bestowing the title of "Prince of Prussia" to his younger brother Augustus William, acknowledging him as his heir instead.

That being said, where politics and wars were now concerned, from the first moment he became King of Prussia, Frederick declared no one else would decide policy of the kingdom but himself, which let the ministers very clear of his intentions as their sovereign. This taste for war would be released after being balanced with his personal tastes for arts, music and literature. One of his first acts as sole monarch was to attack the Habsburg's province of Sielisa, which was

"a wealthy and strategically important area to which the Hohenzollerns, the ruling family of Prussia, had dynastic claims, though weak ones. The most important threat to his plans was Russian support for Maria Theresa, which he hoped to avert by judicious bribery in St. Petersburg and by exploiting the confusion that was likely to follow the imminent death of the empress Anna. He also hoped that Maria Theresa would cede most of Silesia in return for a promise of Prussian support against her other enemies, but her refusal to do so made war inevitable."

In other words, involved at the War of the Austrian Sucession in which he not only contested Maria Theresa's authority as Holy Roman Empress (who was once the topic of this blog) but also over the territory of Silesia, battles were fought backed by the renewed alliance with Great-Britain, invading as well Saxony, claiming Prague for the Crown. In such conflict, however, territories were won and lost with certain assiduity. 

Following this war, it came the conquest of Poland. Frederick was surprisingly remembered for his prejudice and hate towards the Polish people. He claimed the conquering of Poland 

"under the pretext of an enlightened and civilizing mission, particularly given his negative perceptions about Poland and the traditions of its ruling elite, all of which merely provided a convenient path for the "sanguine ameliorism" of the Enlightenment and heightened assurance in the "distinctive merits of the 'Prussian way'". He prepared the ground for the partition of Poland-Lithuania in 1752 at the latest, hoping to gain territorial bridge between Pomerania, Brandenburg and East Prussian provinces."

By conquering Poland, he would prevent the advances of Russia towards his territory when it was Russia's Empress, Elisabeth (herself another topic of this blog) who complicated Frederick's interfering in European kingdoms. Eventually, however, an agreement between Frederick and Empress Catherine led to the latter controling the politics of Poland when a candidate she supported was elected King of the Polish. This pact between Russia and Prussia also guaranteed the mutual support if one of the parts suffered an attack from Austria or the Ottoman Empire. 

Where this enlightment is concerned, it must be remembered that the concept of "enlightened despotism"came under his domestic rule, when he established in cultured minds primacy of state over personal interests, tolerating religious differences, reforming the military, granting freedom of press to some extent and, mostly important, establishing the first German code of law. That is how his reign is most remembered for. However, 

"His actual achievements, [...] were sometimes less than they appeared on the surface; indeed, his inevitable reliance on the landowning officer [Junker] class set severe limits in several respects to what he could even attempt."

Based on that, how far can Frederick be granted the nickname "the Great"? In his first victory, he did not command his troops in person, and throughout the international conflicts Prussia participated, there had been victories and defeats in the same balance. He was, apparently, reserved and quiet, thoughtful even. According to the writer of this article¹ regarding the celebrization of Frederick as a military genious, 

"Frederick rationalized his position by appealing to "reason of state", a principle independent of moral guidelines applying to individuals. His 'Anti-Machiavel', published anonymously in 1740- the year of his accession to the throne- argued that law and ethics in international relations should be based on neither the interests of the ruler nor those of his people. Instead, they should be fundamentally consistent, subject to rational calculation and governed by principles that could be learned and applied in the same way one maintains and repairs a clock. This trope remained central to his foreign policy throughtout his reign."

But

"Frederick's ultimate success in the Seven Years' War came at a heavy price, both to him and to Prussia. Although Prussia remained financially stable at the war's conclusion (unlike most of the other major belligerents) its population was devastated from various invasions by Austria, Russia and Sweden. Many of Frederick's closest friends (as well as his sister Wilhelmine, his brother Augustus William and his mother) and the best of his officer corps died during the war."

Was he a ruthless man? Can it be said no? Hardly can we ever hold certainty based on events to shape someone's character. What we can possibly assume is that Frederick II was no more different than any other king in his position in the 18th century. There were certainly critics and perhaps there were contemporaries who held more victories and ruled in better terms. But what it must be remembered is that Frederick embodied the concept of the brave leader that encouraged his soldiers. As a king, he was successful to bring  Prussia reforms that enlarged it in culture, politics and military terms. equal to realms geographically greater such as Russia, and established empires as Great Britain and Austria. As the paragraph below tells us:

"In an age when physical courage was taken for granted in senior officers, Frederick twice left major battlefields--Mollwitz in 1741 and Lobositz in 1756--under dubious circumstances. [...] Nevertheless, the man who brought Prussia through three brutal wars, oversaw its reconstruction and secure its status as a great power was far more than the sum of his negatives."

And:

"Frederick's concept of statecraft in turn convinced him that Prussia must fight only short, decisive wars -partly to conserve scarce resources, partly to convince the losers to make and keep the peace, and partly to deter potential challengers. This required development of a forward-loaded military, able to spring to war from a standstill with strong initial results."

Kingship during this century was, evidently, differently shapped according to the demands of the 18th century. Yet, it must bear in mind that Frederick, coming from a small state if compared to established and older empires, managed to evolve Prussia evolve in military terms that would not be complete until the unifying Germany a century later. It is no wonder why Kaiser Wilhelm II often looked up at him, seeing the importance he brought to Prussia.

However might be our interpretation of who he was, as king and man, it is important to leave in evidence that:

"While Frederick did not necessarily seek battle for its own sake, he held nothing back once the fighting started. His enemies responded by denying him the initiative whenever possible, fighting only under favorable conditions and limiting their tactical commitments."

According to the expectations of the Prussians, he might have filled them well. But it is inevitable to say he fell to the temptations of propaganda, once commonly the present not always look glorious as the past seemed to have been, and was used as the greatest of Prussia to closely achieve the glory the Germans would continue to seek under Kaiser Wilhelm II and before him, Bismarck. To understand Germany, we must understand Frederick II's ambitions and how far they shaped him. Yet, he was far from the genious that Napoleon laterwards became, for better or worse. Frederick was, however, a man of his time and he must be remembered as such.


Bibliography:

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

-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-II-king-of-Prussia

-http://www.biography.com/people/frederick-ii-9301742

-http://www.historynet.com/frederick-the-great-the-first-modern-military-celebrity.htm¹

-https://www.boundless.com/world-history/textbooks/boundless-world-history-textbook/enlightened-despots-1110/frederick-the-great-and-prussia-1112/frederick-the-great-1121-17703/

-http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-1297/1746-1794-Frederick-the-Greats-Great-Law-Reforms.aspx

-http://www.historytoday.com/reviews/frederick-great-king-prussia

-http://www.britishbattles.com/frederick-the-great-wars/the-battle-of-hohenfriedberg/

-http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21664055-what-made-frederick-great-prussian-and-powerful