A History of the Celtic Peoples: The Reawaking of Celtic Pride

By John Heinmiller

In the History of the Celtic Peoples, author John D. Heinmiller examines history from a unique perspective. In focusing on the Celtic peoples, the peoples from the Britannic Isles to the Iberian Peninsula and the northern part of the modern nation of Italy, Heinmiller argues that it is the Celts who were and are the real dynamic force of Europe from the 15th Century onward. Though the position is controversial, Heinmiller presents the evidence in this history as clearly as he can.

In the second volume, the Reawaking of Celtic Pride, Heinmiller discusses the history of the Celts after the end of the dark ages and the slow reawaking of knowledge during the second half of the Medieval Period.

In this history, the author tries to use the actual names of places, not their anglicized names. Thus, Rome becomes Roma, Italy becomes Italia, Normandy becomes Normandie, etc. Even the names of people and kings are adjusted, the English Henry is the French Henri and the Spanish Henrique. The French Philip becomes Philippe while if he is Spanish he is known as Filipe. This, however, is not taken all the way; for example most readers would not realize that Bourgogne is the true name of Burgundy after all. Still, the author wants the reader to be aware of the actual names.

• Language: English
• Publisher: John Heinmiller
• Release date: Feb 11, 2021

John Heinmiller

John D. Heinmiller is a student of truth, in all of its various ways. He has long been interested in such questions as why and how we know what we know. Of course, he started looking into itThen, true to form, he started to write about it. Of course, he did not limit himself to just that field of interest.A lifelong Californian who was born in Los Angeles, Mr. Heinmiller currently lives by himself in San Francisco where he tries to continue his research and his writing.

Book preview

A HISTORY OF THE CELTIC PEOPLES

In Four Volumes

Volume 2

The Reawaking of Celtic Pride

By John D. Heinmiller

Smashwords Edition

License Notes: `This e-book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This e-book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then go to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Copyright 2021 by John D. Heinmiller. All rights reserved.

Portions of this book may not be reproduced without the express written consent of the author. Quotations from this book are permitted so long as due credit is given. If you are quoting a quote in this book, please give credit to the original author.

Table of Contents

Preface

Part Four – The Medieval Revival

The Capetian Turn

Norman England

Iberian Warfare

Imperial and Papal Struggle

God Wills It

Growth and Conflict

Henry Plantagenet

Philippe Auguste

Law and Power

Part Five – The Reemergence of the Celtic States

Iberian Advancement

Rights and Authority

The Mother of Modern Legislatures

Longshanks

The End of House Capet

Intelligencia

The Hundred Years War

Clarles Resumes the War

Peasant Revolution

Internecine Peace

Part Six – The End of the Medieval Age

Renaissance

Lancastrian Warfare

The Maid of Orléans

The End of the Curse of William

France

Scottish Development

The War of the Warses

The End of Plantagenet

Trastámara and Avis

PREFACE

In this, the second volume of A History of the Celtic People, we deal with the Celtic people from the time of approximately 1000 AD to 1500 AD.

Much has happened among the Celtic peoples in the first volume. The lands were conquered by the Romans then overrun by the Germanics. First the Romans imposed their ways upon the Celts, then the Germanics took advantage of it and simply moved in. Other peoples also moved in—the Saracens in Iberia, the Vikings in the Gaul, Britannia, and Hesperia.

If you accept the way the historians put it, the Celtic peoples completely disappeared in most of the lands they used to live in, though they grudgingly admit to Celtic existence in Britany, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Historians have for a long time followed the leaders; when the leaders lose a conflict and are invariably executed or disposed of in some way, it is as if the people suddenly disappear. If you were to listen to them, you would think there were no Celts in Iberia, Gaul, the Po River Valley, or in England. It is as if the conquerors simply lined up all of the original Celts and slew them, decapitating all of the men, gutting all of the women, and slicing up all of the children. By that logic, the Picts have disappeared from the face of the earth! Only one problem with this: we know it did not happen that way. Geneticists today can prove that modern people have a great amount of Celtic blood flowing in their veins. For the Celts were not a people who disappeared or were exterminated; they were a people who survived.

They were also a merged people. The various Germanic peoples—the Vandals, the Goths, the Fraenks, the Angles, Saxons, even the Jutes—all took over, then merged with the more numerous Celtic peoples. Among the nobility, one can see purer strains of Germanic blood, but among the common people, the merging began almost soon after an area was conquered.

We also see the merging in the names of the peoples. In Scotland, the Vikings had settled and had gone native, from them we get the Bruce and Wallace clans who would play such a large role in Scottish affairs. Names such as Cotter, Doyle, Jennings, Higgins, McLaughlin, McManus, O’Rourke and others show the descent from Viking conquerors in Ireland which also did not escape from the heavy hand of the Nordic raiders. The Saracens also left their influence in the names of the people of Iberia; names that start with Al like Alcantara and Alpujarras, show Saracen ancestry. Only the Welsh and the Northern Italians seem to have missed the opportunity, though a few places in Wales show evidence of Nordic influence and settlement. That said, the Northern Italians had several waves of Germanics, first the Ostrogoths, later the Longobardis. So in reality, nobody escaped.

It must be noted that the Saracen influence is much stronger in Iberia than any of the invader influences were anywhere else. We know this from the names they gave not to the people but to places. The Guadalquivir is not a Celtic name but an Arabic name; the Saracens had renamed the river, as they did other rivers, cities, and mountains. It is for this reason we do not know where so many of the battles of Hamilcar in Iberia happened; the names have been completely changed.

Still, they were a people strengthened by the turmoil and pain they had endured. The period they had endured was known as the Dark Ages. In truth, it truly was dark. Knowledge and learning all but disappeared. Medicine retreated to a primitive level, if it remained anywhere. Art was suppressed. War was constant as the Germanic, Viking, and Saracen overlords continuously fought it out. Britannia suffered the worst, as has been seen, but no place escaped entirely.

And what was lost was great. What the Celts had lost was their principles, their laws, their lore, their way of life. Everything that gave the Celts a certain measure of greatness had been destroyed, first by the Romans, later by the Germanics. The spirit of the Celtic peoples had been crushed.

But though the spirit was crushed, it was not destroyed. It seemed to be destroyed, but it still lived. And the Celtic people, bowed, broken, but not truly conquered, survived.

Such was the Dark Ages, one of the worst periods of human existence.

When one thinks about it, it was Caesar who started the dark ages. It was Caesar who elevated the military and the power of the military leading noble above all else. With such an emphasis on the military, it was inevitable that the military crush everything else. Caesar’s hatreds and loves became the hatreds and loves of the dark ages, hatred of opposition, hatred of knowledge, love of ambition and military power. This was Caesar’s gift to the Celtic world and to Europe—the Dark Ages. We have seen the military crush knowledge through the violence of the times. We have seen the military destroy the trades, except those necessary for survival, in Britain. We have seen the military destroy good government, even the hope of good government, many times over. We have seen military might crush and abandon nations. We have seen lords fight each other much as Roman generals did, all for supremacy of power. We have seen nobles abandon their leaders, all because they did not see themselves winning. In Gothic Iberia, we have seen the consequence of this to the fullest.

In such a world, of what use were the great principles and ideals of the Celtic peoples? Of no use whatsoever. Equality? Idealism? Of what value were these against naked military aggression, the greed of nobles who only desired the power that Caesar had? Of no value whatsoever. Of what importance were the common people to the ambitions of the great nobles or the sway that militaries had over one another? No importance at all!

I will admit, when I started to write this work, I had no idea Caesar’s influence was so vast, so overpowering. I thought much like everyone else, that Caesar saved Roma, that the Imperium finally fell due to old age and that the Dark ages resulted in the fall of Roma. The discoveries I made while writing the first volume was, literally, an eye-opener for me, a journey of discovery as to just how much influence one man, one very greedy and ambitious man, one we would define as evil by all standards of morality, had on so much of the world.

But it is not the Dark Ages we need to talk about, the time that started with the victory of Caesar over all that Rome held dear and ended with the downfall of Harold Godwinson of England. It is the Medieval Recovery, the second half of the Medieval Age, that we must talk about. For the issues confronting the various Celtic peoples were different, all dictated by the realities that had occurred during the Dark Ages.

In the Iberian Peninsula, the issue was to free the nation from a foreign power. In the Po River Valley, the issue was to spread out and to develop contacts with the rest of the world, especially for trade and the exchange of ideas. In Scotland and Ireland, the issue was to forge a unified government. In England, the issue was to develop a stable government without going autocratic. In Francia, the issue was to unify the lands.

Scotland and Ireland would fail. The clannish nature of true Celtic society would rise up and stop the unification necessary. Scotland would come closest, the pressure of war with their larger neighbor had forced the Picts to develop a monarchy to deal with it, but always their clannish nature prevented them from coalescing around the monarch, developing a truly strong government. They would have their moments but that would be all. And in Ireland, the result would be even greater weakness. The Celts of Hesperia needed a strong, central government to prevent the ravages they would receive from the English. Sadly, the clan nature of Irish government would play right into the hands of the worst of the English.

Asturias of Iberia would succeed in its goal but at a terrible cost. The land would be divided between an ocean-going people and a warlike people who fought almost all the way to the end of the medieval period. Even today, the turmoil in the Iberian Peninsula is a result of the way the Dark Ages ended there, of the need for battle and war that dominated there like nowhere else. But in Iberia, was also developed a stronger central government, one that was the envy of the rest of the kingdoms. In Iberia came the drive of the modern era, though with the drive also came the sword.

Northern Italia would succeed though their glory would be brief. The road Italia traveled was fraught with isolation and division. But they had an advantage the rest of Europe did not, contacts with other parts of the world. They were almost certainly destined to be the ones to lead the rest of Europe out of the Medieval period. Once they got started, there was no holding them back. Sadly, we will not be dealing much with Italia, it is a fact that wars and turmoil are more interesting than peace and education and the real advances in Italia were in knowledge and its corollary of trade. But make no mistake about it; the people of Cisalpine Gaul would give birth to the mind of the modern era.

England would succeed but not without terrible struggle. William the Conqueror would remember what the French kings had to endure; he would act to prevent it in England. He would restore the machinery of government that Godwin and Harold had so arbitrarily tried to destroy. But he would also set that nation against the Fraenkish nation. With his holdings in Normandie, which were more important to him than his English holdings, he would ensure that war between the English and the Fraenks would last a long time. But the worst part of his legacy was that the English would remember the conquest and, blaming the Fraenks, would harbor a deep-seated resentment against all things French. As a result, much of the history of England and France was a struggle between the two nations, all because of the ambitions of a Viking that was allowed to thrive thanks to the weakness of an earlier Fraenkish king. The French would do well to call him the French variant of what the English call him; Guillaume le Conquérant. For in William the Viking ambition of conquest reached its final success, the consequences between England and France were terrible indeed, developing a deep-seated resentment in French minds against all things English. But it is ironic but the very struggle that occurred helped to form and develop English law and government in a way it would not have otherwise. In many ways, England was the cradle of modern civilization.

Francia would also succeed, though its path was darker. The weakness of the Carolingian monarchy would come back to haunt that nation. War, pain, and turmoil would rip the Fraenkish nation to shreds again and again. But always it would return united, stronger, and more powerful. And the contact between England and Francia was not that bad, for Francia also would make their own developments, developments that would spread out throughout the world. The two nations would exchange ideas in government that would benefit both. Like England, we will be dealing with Francia a lot. For in the wars, turmoil, and, yes, ideas that occurred in Francia, we will find the crucible of the modern era.

Iberia, Italia, Francia, England. These were the four regions that developed modern civilization. What was developed in these four regions would spread out throughout the rest of the world. Legislatures, universities, exploration, efficiency in government, it all was developed here in the Celtic world.

Four different peoples, Iberian, Gallic, Britannic and Italianic, with Belgic and other peoples thrown in—these were the Celts, or what was left of them. It was enough. For the Celtic people were never a people tied by blood but a people tied by principles, law, and a belief in the value of people and in the ability of mankind. Somehow, the Celts remembered, even when they did not. It was almost as if there was an unconscious memory, or as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel might claim, the spirit of the world was preparing the Celts for their moment. Those principles and beliefs might be slumbering at the moment, but they were there, in their hearts. And though other peoples loved to share the same beliefs, it would be the Celts who would give rise to the beliefs, the principles of modern society.

But much needed to grow before the Celtic peoples could truly make any real contributions to the world. They had been crushed; their pride and self-respect needed to be reborn. Their way of life had been destroyed, the way of life needed to be regained, even if the expression was different. But most importantly, their laws and legal system were gone, they needed to be redeveloped.

This volume describes, as best I can, the reemergence of the self-respect and pride of the Celtic peoples, the redevelopment of certain principles of law, and the way of life, even to a degree how they spread.

But, as is well known, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In Iberia, the end of the Dark Ages and the unification of the land began with a revolt. In Italia, the end of the Dark Ages began with a school. In England, the end of the Dark Ages and the restoration of government began with a conquest. And in Francia, the unification of the land and the end of the Dark Ages began … with an election.

THE MEDIEVAL REVIVAL

1

THE CAPETIAN TURN

Louis V was dead and the nobility of Francia faced a dilemma.

On the one hand, there was Charles the last of the Carolingians. To his advantage, he was a Carolingian, a direct descendant of Charles le Martel. But he had been crowned king of the Fraenks by the enemy, the Holy Roman Emperor Otto. He had actively fought against his brother Lothair and Lothair’s son Louis. The nobles who gathered to elect the new king had fought him, indeed they had almost certainly rejoiced over his defeat at the hands of Lothair. He was considered to be a traitor and most historians have used this to claim he was automatically excluded from the throne. But he was the last of the Carolingian line and, per the laws and traditions of the time, the legitimate heir. Besides, treason had never been reason enough where the interests of the nobility were concerned.

On the other hand, there were the Robertians, the upstart lineage. The remnants of the Robertian line, Hugues the Great, had supported Lothair and Louis. But the nobles had not forgotten the power that Hugues the Great had attained; they did not want another power monger leader of the nation. Roi (king) de la Fraenks was a necessary evil, as duc de la Fraenks was a title they did not like. Hugues had assumed that title duc de la Fraenks and forced its acceptance upon both Lothair and Louis. The nobility were loath to deal with his successor.

It was a matter of which devil the nobility would accept—the traitor or the power monger’s son. Both had their advantages, both had their issues; neither were well liked. In fact, neither were truly wanted. But one of them had to be chosen. The only question was, which?

In the matter of whom was to sit on the throne of Francia, it was the Archbishop of Reims who held the key. Claiming then, as they likely still do now, the authority to crown the kings of Francia, the archbishop was the one who ultimately decided between the rival claimants. And the Archbishop was Adalberon.

Adalberon had been placed into his see by Otto, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He had wanted to see the Fraenkish kingdom conquered by Otto to unify the kingdom and make a single empire again, much as in the days of Charlemagne. That said, he would have accepted Francia being a vassal state to Otto’s empire. And well did he strive for this. Not trusting Hugues the Great to conform, he had supported Lothair’s claim to the Fraenkish Throne. But Lothair had surprised Adalberon and actively opposed Otto. When Adalberon had transferred his support to Lothair’s brother Charles, Lothair had defeated him as well. When Lothair died Adalberon told Louis to seek an alliance with the new emperor; Louis, however, chose to continue his father’s policies and attacked Adalberon, forcing him to flee.

Adalberon knew that the nobility was not all that friendly to the empire; they wanted the crown to be in Fraenkish, not Germanic hands. But which claimant would he support? Most of the nobles were waiting for the archbishop to try to force them to support Charles, Otto’s favorite. Some thought that Adalberon would support a candidate who would be weak enough to become a vassal to Emperor Otto. Given Adalberon’s history there was no reason to assume otherwise.

Adalberon surprised them all. When he addressed the electoral assembly at Senlis, Adalberon first attacked Charles, the last Carolingian claimant, recounting how Charles had attacked the Fraenkish kingdom and had betrayed his brother, the king, in favor of the Emperor. He reminded them how Charles had tried to have himself crowned by Otto, but how Lothair had opposed it and succeeded in striking back against the imperial power. He also decried Charles for taking as a wife the daughter of a man who was not noble enough; back then noble rank was everything. As Richer de Reims wrote in his History: We are not unaware that Charles has supporters; they maintain that he has rights to the crown, transmitted by his parents. But one must give the throne only to an exceptional man by the nobility of the blood and the virtue of the soul. Charles did not keep his dignity, he lost his head to the point of having returned to the service of a foreign king Otto II and to have taken a wife in a lower class of the nobility.

Instead of the expected support of Otto and Charles, they had heard a complete repudiation of Charles. It sounds strange to us that Adalberon would so completely repudiate one he had consistently championed without some ill or hurt. But in the speech Richer recorded, one key point stands out if one knows to look for it: "…taking a wife in a lower class of the nobility. Charles had married a daughter of a vassal of Hugues the Great, the daughter of a lesser noble. Knowing the importance the nobility, especially the great dukes, gave to their class ranking, it is likely that Charles did not keep his dignity by taking a wife in a lower class" that was the real damnation in the eyes of Adalberon, not his having served Otto. This claim is given support by the fact that after Charles had married, Adalberon refused to support Charles after Lothair’s death, even though he later tried to get Louis to become a vassal of Otto. Once he had married the wrong person, Charles was worthless in Adalberon’s eyes.

Then Adalberon turned to Hugues Capet, the son of Hugues the Great, and gave him great praise. He recounted Hugues’ skill in arms, his ability to lead, his piety and his wisdom. He gave testimony to Hugues’ loyalty to Lothair and how Hugues had later supported the claim of Louis. Then, he almost certainly gave a statement that would have increased the support for the Robertian.

Hugues’ Capet was a descendant of Charlemagne. This ancestral lineage came through his grandmother, Beatrice of Vermandois who had married King Robert. One of their children had been Hugues the Great. So Hugues Capet was not only a Robertian, he was also a Carolingian as well. In Hugues Capet was a fusion of the two royal lineages, a compromise that reputedly all could live with.

Anyone who knew the Archbishop would have known that Adalberon thought the world of Hugues Capet. It is not too surprising. Hugues was a very religious person who gave generously to the church, the bishop and the power monger’s son were friends. But then, Hugues was, first and foremost, a consummate politician; he knew how to make and keep friendships. Besides, Hugues had a proper marriage to Adélaïde, the daughter of the duc d’Aquitaine, maintaining the dignity Charles had given up.

Nobody knows how Hugues got the appellation of Capet. His father Hugues the Great certainly did not have it, neither did any of his ancestors on both his paternal and maternal lines. But even when he was younger and a friend of Lothair he was known as Hugues Capet. Perhaps he assumed it in order to differentiate himself from his father Hugues the Great. If this was the reason it was certainly effective.

Richer de Reims writes that Adalberon closed his arguments for Hugues with the following: The throne is not acquired by hereditary right and the head of the kingdom must be selected only through his qualities. Give yourself as leader Duc Huge, commendable for his actions, his nobility and his troops, in which you find a defender, not only the public interest but also private interests. It was obviously a noteworthy speech, for the majority of the nobles selected Hugues Capet as the King of the Fraenks, the coronation being performed by Adalberon.

Little did anyone realize it at the time but a page had been turned in the history of the people of Gaul. A period of long decline, starting with the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar and lasting over a millennium, had ended. Behind them was the long effects of the conquest of Gaul by Caesar, the conflict between the legions of Roma, the breakup of the imperium and the weakness of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties. The militarization of the imperium had resulted in the breaking up of the nation into dukedoms and even the strong compts had left the realm fractured and divided. Sitting on the throne of the Fraenks was the first of a long line of kings who were determined to not only hang onto the throne but to expand it, to regain the glory of the Fraenkish nation, of the lands of ancient Gaul. Behind them, a weakening and divided land and people broken apart by the lust Caesar shared with the nobility. Ahead of them, a unified kingdom.

The road to the monarchy had been an interesting one for Hugues. As the son of Hugues the Great, he had a number of enemies right from the beginning. When his father had died, while he was still in his minority, several ducs and compts of the realm had laid claim to Robertian lands, he was forced to see the shrinkage of his holdings before he achieved his minority. But once he achieved his majority, things began to turn around. During his campaigning to restore Robertian lands he became known as a deadly warrior and a skilled commander. He had wisely sided with Lothair before Lothair’s peace with Otto, feeling he had been ill-used he turned against the king. But once Lothair was dead it did not stop him from supporting Lothair’s son Louis. And always he had the friendship and support of the Archbishop of Reims, Adalberon. Now that Louis was dead Hugues wanted the throne for himself. Thanks to Adalberon, he had it.

Unfortunately for the Fraenks, the initial state of the new monarchy was weak. The monarch controlled only the land around the city of Paris as well as the land around the city of Orléans. The great ducs and compts controlled all the rest, and though the ducs officially were subjects of the monarch in practice they were independent of the monarch.

It was a strange time in the lands that used to belong to Charlemagne. The eastern lands, the Germanic kingdom, was developing into the elected monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire with the great dukes deciding who the emperor was. The Italian lands were becoming a vassal state of the Holy Roman Emperor without any say in who ruled them. In many ways, the Fraenkish nation was going the same way as the Germanic nation, with strong nobles electing the king to defend their own interest. The electors of Hugues thought that they were now the ones who determined who sat on the throne of the Fraenkish people, they believed that they had the right and that the state of things had finally achieved its God-given natural reality. And, as far as all the evidence showed, they were right!

They did not realize it, but the nobles were the fundamental cause of all the difficulties the Fraenkish realm was being plagued with. They, with their lusts, their ambitions, their arrogance, and their demands of their rights, even at the expense of the king, as well as the imposition of their rights upon the backs of the commoners, were ripping the Fraenkish nation to shreds. They did not believe they were doing anything wrong, they had inherited the gift of Caesar after all, though they did not call it that. They were simply doing what had been done in the Roman Imperium so very long ago. In other words, they were doing what had been done for a millennium.

But the nobility, while the main cause of the problem, was not the only one. Fraenkish law was also responsible. The Merovingian dynasty had burned itself out due to the inheritance issue demanded by Fraenkish law. The Carolingian dynasty had gone the same way, for the same reason. The law of the Fraenks was most explicit, a father had to provide equal inheritances for their sons. This law was noble meaning, but dividing land would and did create problems. It is true that Church law circumvented that requirement to a degree; as ecclesiastics inherited Jesus, they got no earthly inheritance. But the issue of dividing up the kingdom for the sons was one the Merovingians and Carolingians had foundered on.Hugues knew the difficulties and troubles plaguing the nation. He knew strong leadership was necessary to turn everything around; he also knew he did not have the means to do it. But he did know there was only one way for it to happen. Hugues had to create a dynasty that would endure, one that was not dependent upon election by the nobility but one where the king would be the head of the nation, not responsible to the nobles.

There were three critical issues that the new monarchy had to deal with. It needed to deal with the inheritance of the kingdom, passing it along to a single descendant without dividing it up like the Carolingian and Merovingian lines had while preventing the nobility from electing another king. It also needed to deal with the other sons and find a way to give inheritances to all of the sons without taking from the single heir. Finally, it needed to deal with the very powerful nobility, it needed some tactic, some strategy, by which it could counter the power of the ducs and compts of Francia.

Hugues was king but like the kingdom of Asturias in Iberia, the monarchy was initially not suited to the job of unifying the kingdom. It needed to grow, to develop, to change. Most of all, it needed to endure. It needed power. It needed direction and it needed to resolve the issues that destroyed both the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties.

The most critical issue was the issue of the inheritance of the kingdom. Hugues knew that he had to ensure that his offspring, his son, would get the throne. He knew that if he died the nobility would look to elect another as king, he needed to prevent that. Fortunately for him, the solution of Lothair came to his aid. Lothair had made his son Louis a co-king who became full king as soon as he died. So he repeated what Lothair had done and got his son Robert crowned as co-king. It was a quite successful strategy, one that Hugues’ descendants would use for years. The ducs may have grumbled but because they had supported Lothair when he made Louis his co-ruler, they were stuck for it. Then as now, precedence is always a strong argument.

Hugues’ had found a way to prevent the nobility from electing another king, at least as long as there were sons to become king while the prior king was alive. It was just successful enough to work. But this was just the first of the three issues and for a long while, everything was in doubt. Still the new monarchy had taken its first step toward resolving the issues that had plagued the Merovingian and Carolingian monarchs.

After Hugues died, Robert, known as Robert II, ruled as king. He had issues with getting a son and heir. Several marriages were made and ended, none resulting in a son who was suitable. Finally, after being excommunicated by the Church, his third wife, Constance, gave him not one but three sons. Robert made his first son Hugues co-king though when Hugues died his second son Henri became co-king on Robert’s orders.

The threat of the divided kingdom now had to be dealt with. Robert’s third son, who went by the same name as his father, wanted lands, title, and power of his own, he would accept nothing less. In this issue, he had the backing of his mother, Constance, who was devoted to all of her sons. Disaster stared King Robert in the face. His kingdom was tiny indeed and it seemed he would be forced to divide it between his two sons. The Capetian line would be doomed to go the same way as prior two royal lines. It is almost certain that the great ducs were chuckling among themselves.

However, a solution was at hand. Earlier in his reign, the ducal throne of Burgundy had been vacated. Robert had placed a claim to the ducal throne. Unfortunately for Robert another had also placed a claim. Fourteen years of struggle resulted before the Church supported King Robert in his claim and he became Duc de Burgundy in addition to King of the Fraenks. This gave Robert the solution he needed. Robert the son wanted power of his own, the duchy of Burgundy offered it to him. It was a decision that king Robert did not want to do but it proved to be the best decision he could have made. By giving his son Robert the duchy of Burgundy, King Robert ensured that his younger son was happy with his own lands and that the crown would not be divided. Henri would become King of the Fraenks while Robert would enjoy his dukedom to the fullest. Robert the younger was pleased, he ceased his war against his father and went off to claim what was now his.

Robert’s decision set an example for the future; future kings would give their younger sons dukedoms of their own, often creating a duchy just so the son would have their own lands and power. But the monarchial throne always went to the eldest living son. It may not have followed the letter of the Fraenkish law, but it worked well enough.

Robert had a long reign, filled with good and bad decisions. His worst decisions all revolved around religion. Known as The Pious, he was as devout a Catholic as there could be. It should not, therefore, be surprising that he tried to force the Jews to convert to Christianity, supported pogroms and reinstated the ancient imperial practice of burning people at the stake. This custom would leave a very bloody and fiery trail of people who were killed for doing what the local priest or religious thought was improper. Thanks to what we know of the personality of his wife Constance, it is certain that she was behind some of these decisions. As a result, Robert left the realm somewhat worse off in some ways than it was before, in a bitter mood. But the foundation was now much stronger, a key issue had been resolved and all that stood in the way of the House of Capet and full power were the great nobles who ruled their fifes as if they were their own kingdoms.

It was in the reign of Robert’s son Henri that the Fraenkish kings began to feel a semblance of their strength. Unfortunately, it also saw the height of feudal power, the power of the great ducs and the compts who divided the Fraenkish nation reached their zenith. Henri was still weak compared to so many of the other feudal magnates, but for once the Fraenkish kings could field a decent army. But what to do with it? If he tried to conquer any of the lands the other nobles would rise up, unify and attack him, removing him and terminating the Capetian monarchy; they would then elect someone more pliable to the wishes of the ducs and the reunification would end before it began.

Henri saw the weakness of his position and made a very shrewd decision, one that would take a long time to complete but would allow the monarchy to slowly regain land and power. He would not oppose the nobility directly. Instead, he would play them off against each other. He would play off duke against duke and compt against compt, siding with one or the other as he saw fit. In doing so, he would do all he could to ensure that none of them gained so much power as to be stronger than him.

It was a brilliant plan, but the devil was in the execution. It was due to this thought that he made what would be the most momentous mistake he ever made, though to be fair there was no reason to believe it would become a disaster. A young child by the name of Guillaume fled to him and Henri, true to the decision, protected the youngster, even aiding him in regaining his dukedom. Henri and Guillaume would join forces and fight a few more fights, mostly in support of Guillaume’s claim but later to support an action of Henri’s. But later, as Guillaume de Normandie got stronger, Henri would turn and try to take down the powerful duc, failing each time.

It was during Henri’s reign that the monarchy reached its smallest stature. But the monarchy, rather than being weaker, was actually stronger. The foundation of the monarchy was more stable than it had been when Hugues was elected king. All of the necessary decisions had been made. The issue of succession had been adopted, a solution for younger brothers had been figured out and a plan of action to deal with the nobles and regain the power for the monarchy had been chosen. All the critical weaknesses that Hugues had inherited when he got himself elected were dealt with. Like the kingdom of Asturias in the Iberian Peninsula, the Capetian lineage had contracted while it solved a lot of problems and restructured itself to deal with what was needed. Now, as long as the monarchs could ensure that the great nobles did not join forces against them, the way forward was open. All that needed to be done was to implement the decisions.

Henri got his son Philippe crowned co-ruler while he was a child. He also tried to take on Guillaume several more times, failing each time. He failed to make any headway against the nobility and indeed he saw a decision of his go awry. But he had not lost anything; in fact, he had managed to beat a few nobles, albeit in the end with Guillaume’s help. The lesson that the future monarchs learned was that the way forward was not going to be easy, indeed there would be setbacks. Cunning would be as important as strength and determination. But as the victories mounted and as the nobilities weakened the monarchy would grow stronger.

However, the inevitable test of the system happened. Henri died and his son Philippe, who was just a child, inherited. Now the monarchy was in a serious crisis. Hugues’, Robert and Henri had been adults when they became sole king, able to deal with the issues at stake. Now for the first time a son inherited the throne while he was not in his official majority. To be fair, with the way the Capetian monarchs seemed to gain their sons only when they were old this issue was inevitable but now the monarchy entered its first regency. It needed a strong leader who was devoted to the fortunes of the monarchy; otherwise, it would die.

Fortunately, Henri had married a very strong woman. Anne of Kiev was a younger daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev; she had traveled far to become the bride of Henri. She was about the only woman he could marry who was not within the laws of consanguinity. Highly intelligent and well educated, which was a rarity among women in those days, she had been the perfect match for Henri. She could ride, knew politics, accompanied Henri on many of his many rounds, even attached her signature to many documents with Henri’s full knowledge. She was so skilled that Pope Nicolaus wrote her a letter in which he said the following: Honorable lady, the fame of your virtues has reached our ear, and, with great joy, we hear that you are performing your royal duties in this very Christian state with commendable zeal and brilliance. He was right to write this, for during her regency, the kingdom was well-governed. This formidable woman also brought her son with her on some of the tours of the kingdom and her signature, in Cyrillic, were attached to multiple documents.

Unfortunately, there were some nobles who objected to her. Interestingly enough, the reason given was not because she was a woman but because her French was less than fluent. This was absolutely stupid because she had found a way around it through translators, but still they decried it. It is hard to say if they objected because they did not want a woman in charge, they were upset that the monarchy was so well-governed, or (as I suspect) both. But it was the times people lived in. Bad enough having a king, but a well-governed kingdom was very bad! And having a queen in charge? Impossible!

And then, Anne did something that gave her detractors a wedge: she fell in love with Compt Ralph de Valois. Now, Ralph was married but that did not stop him from repudiating his wife, sweeping Anne off her feet, and marrying her. Normally most of the nobility would have simply looked the other way. After all, how many of them were true to their own wives? But the marriage gave her detractors exactly what they were looking for. With joy, the nobles used it to drive a wedge between herself and her son. They succeeded, though they did not succeed in driving Anne off.

The traditional story is that Ralph kidnapped Anne. Almost certainly this is false; the story of the kidnapping occurred long after everything had happened. Almost certainly the two ran off together and eloped, as often happened in that day and age. But the story would become quite useful to Anne as it allowed her to retain a certain measure of honor and respect amongst her peers. Ralph, not Anne, would take the full blame and be harshly dealt with; he was excommunicated because he was still technically married. But it did not help her in her dealings with her son.

Philippe was now thirteen, the age upon which it was expected a young man could start governing on his own authority so the regency likely would have ended at about this time anyway. But thanks to this incident, Philippe was bereft of his very experienced mother who could have advised him. This was a great loss for other great events occurred.

While Philippe was still a child, the event that his father Henri had inadvertently allowed occurred. Guillaume the Norman crossed the English Channel and defeated Harold of England, becoming William I of that nation. It is true that William actually saved England from a feudalizing destruction. However, in doing so, William became not only master of England, he became more powerful than any of the French nobles, more powerful than any two nobles combined, let’s be honest, more powerful than the King of France and several nobles combined.

William was now the supreme danger to the Fraenkish realm, he turned the English against France and set the two monarchies against each other for centuries. But the danger of William helped focus Philippe’s task. With William and the Normans so powerful, the Fraenkish goal of playing off noble against noble was adjusted to not only play noble against noble but to ensure that the sons of the Normans were supported against the father and that the first noble played off against was always the Norman.

But Philippe still had to pick and choose his battles with care, he could not just throw his forces in and hope to be successful. The following example shows the care he took. William had advanced into Britany and was besieging a castle in Dol. Philippe could do nothing about it and was forced to stand aside while William pursued his goals. But soon, an Angevin force attacked William’s holdings in Maine. William was able to repulse the attack, but Anjou was now beginning an expansionist policy, they wanted Normandie. Philippe, wisely picking and choosing his fights, marched and, risking all, defeated William at Dol, forcing him to lift the siege. Then he simply sat back and watched the fight between William and the Angevins unfold without taking sides. In this, the key military constraint of choosing your battles is exemplified for all to understand.

Philippe would make peace with William who would, finally, give up trying to conquer Britany. He also managed to start the expansion of royal lands by capturing a small strip of land called the Vexin and adding the city of Bourges to royal control. He defeated Robert of Flanders in support of Arnulf, though Robert won because Arnulf was killed, displaying the all too common occurrence of winning the battle yet losing the fight.

Yet during his reign, Philippe almost brought the whole thing crashing to the ground in disaster and ignominy. The reason behind it was not martial skill or lack thereof; Philippe had a sound military head on his shoulders and, as the siege of Dol showed, was able to strike at precisely the right moment. No, the cause of the near-disaster was sex, or more likely, love. Philippe had married a noblewoman named Bertha and through her, he got the son he desperately needed, but he fell in love with another woman, Bertrade de Montfort. Now, Bertrade was married to Fulk IV, Count of Anjou, one of the powerful compts of the day. But that did not stop Philippe and Bertrade from marrying each other, which by the mores and customs of the day was highly immoral as they were both married and, because polygamy was against the law in those days, was very illegal as well. One could say like mother like son and in this case, they would be right, only whereas Anne, in the end, left the man she may have loved, Philippe never left Bertrade.

The Church, angered over this violation of Christian law, excommunicated the two. Several times Philippe separated from Bertrade but the longing of the two for each other was obvious. It was as if God the Almighty made it so these two had to be together no matter what; the two could not remain apart for long and kept finding ways to be together. Eventually, Philippe found a way to be discrete in his affair and the Church, realizing the longing the two had for each other, accepted that this was the best they were going to get and lifted the excommunication. This ended the deadly threat during Philippe’s reign for the Church could have made a huge issue about it, even supporting people who wished to depose the lovelorn monarch. Yet his love for Bertrade remained; for the rest of his life he would be balancing the fate of the kingdom and his love for Bertrade.

The Abbot of Suger would give the words that closes the time of Philippe:

After [Philippe] had abducted [Bertrade], he could achieve nothing worthy of the royal dignity; consumed by desire for the lady he had seized, he gave himself up entirely to the satisfaction of his passion. So he lost interest in the affairs of state and, relaxing too much, took no care for his body, well-made and handsome though it was. The only thing that maintained the strength of the state was the fear and love felt for his son and successor. When he was almost sixty, he ceased to be king, breathing his last breath at the castle of Melun-sur-Seine, in the presence of Louis... They carried the body in a great procession to the noble monastery of St-Benoît-sur-Loire, where King Philippe wished to be buried; there are those who say they heard from his own mouth that he deliberately chose not to be buried among his royal ancestors in the church of St. Denis because he had not treated that church as well as they had, and because among so many noble kings his own tomb would not have counted for much.

Considering how seriously the Church considered this love affair to be, it can be said that it is amazing Philippe was able to not only retain his throne but to pass it along to a successor. He had created a storm. But somehow the monarchy weathered the storm, managing to do so without Philippe rejecting the woman who was the one true love of his life. If only everyone could be so successful and be with their true love.

One other thing occurred during the reign of Philippe. In response to a cry for help issued by the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos, Pope Urbanus II issued a call for a crusade to aid the Byzantines and free the Holy Sepulcher from the control of the Muslims.

2

NORMAN ENGLAND

Harold was dead, killed by William the Norman. The Witenagemot, the council of English nobility, responded by electing Edgar, the son of a cadent branch of Alfred, to be king. He was the only one of the old Saxon lineage left. He would come down to us as Edgar the Ætheling. But he never was crowned king. First, he was too young and, second, he was easily dominated by Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ealdred, Archbishop of York, Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria. The nobility only halfheartedly supported him. To be honest, they did not bow to Edgar because they wanted to or because they deemed it right or proper; they bowed to him because to not bow to him would mean they had to bow to the one who defeated Harold Godwinson.

William was not passive. He had the force to move and he moved where he would. He knew that all of England was opposed to him and he meant to make an example that would strike fear into the hearts of everyone. The town of Romney in the region of Kent had managed to kill several of William’s knights. William turned his attention to the town. Let’s just say the result was not pretty. The news of what happened spread like wildfire; people rushed to pay homage to the man who had conquered them. To be fair, they wanted to avoid what happened to Romney. But it bit deep into the heart and mind of the English.

The coalition that dominated Edgar began to crack. Stigand was the first to break, he went and gave homage to William when he crossed the Thames near Wallingford. As William moved towards London other supporters of Edgar abandoned him and to give homage to William. Finally, the Witenagemot decided it had no choice but to submit to the conqueror. As a result, the rest of the nobility that was currently in London, along with Edgar, traveled to William and gave him the homage he desired.

William was crowned in Westminster Abbey, his victory complete, but the task of subjugating the land had just begun. He tried to reconcile with the native magnates. He confirmed Edwin as Earl of Mercia, Morcar as Earl of Northumbria and Waltheof as Earl of Northampton. Waltheof married William’s niece Judith and a marriage between Edwin and one of William’s daughters was proposed. Edgar the Ætheling was also given some land, it seems. But the big losers were the remnants of the House of Godwin whose members all lost land. To ensure that the English nobles knew that things had changed, he named William fitzOsbern the Earl of Wessex (now Hereford) and his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, was named Earl of Kent.

One could say England was in danger of going the way of Francia—a totally feudalistic structure with the king only having some power and the great earls having their own power through their armies. Under the House of Godwin that is exactly what was happening. But William was determined to not let his new nation go completely feudal on him. He had established several nobilities and had confirmed others, still others he shrank or disposed of as he saw fit. But he remembered well what had happened in Francia, he knew well what the great nobles had done to the king of that land. He knew the weakness of Henri, King of the Fraenks and was determined that what happened there would not happen here. It was a problem that would plague him for much of his reign.

William took many of the great nobles with him when he traveled to Normandie, but he left Odo in charge of things with fitzOsbern to back him up. It was well he did so. While he was back in Normandie the Count of Boulogne attacked Dover. A lesser noble, Eadric attacked Hereford. Also, Harold’s sons started raiding England from a base in Ireland.

Odo and fitzOsbern found it hard to control the population, it was just too vast and too angry, the Normans did not have the bases of support they needed. So they went to their Norman roots and began a system of castle building, providing them with the bases they needed to control the population. They were powerful investments. When Exeter revolted, William returned and marched on Exeter which he besieged for eighteen days before it fell. Then, following the pattern began by Odo and fitzOsbern, he built a castle to control the land around Exeter.

The castles of the time were of the earlier style known as a Motte and Bailey. These were wooden structures where a keep was built on a raised mound, a motte, with a type of bridge connecting it to the bailey, where all the rest of the fortification was placed. They were cheap and easy to build and produced effective strong points. Of course, they had their weaknesses, If the frontal baily was captured, it often rendered the keep vulnerable. And of course, they were made of wood, they would eventually deteriorate and dissolve like any wooden structure. But they served their purpose, they helped to pacify the nation.

William’s strength was increasing and, with a number of revolts crushed, William felt that he had a sufficiently strong grip on his realm. Therefore, during a period where there were no revolts he called his wife over to join him. Matilda soon arrived and was crowned in May of 1068. It was one of the few times that William was actually happy in England.

The peace did not last. Edwin and Morcar revolted soon after Matilda was crowned queen. The chronicler Orderic Vitalis stated that Edwin's reason for revolting was that the proposed marriage between himself and one of William's daughters had not taken place. In other words, he revolted because he felt slighted. It is possible that William would have eventually made good on his promise, William was cruel and ambitious, power-hungry and grasping, but he did keep his word. But since Edwin revolted, William marched north with a powerful force and built a castle in Warwick. With this show of power, the two brothers, for brothers they were, submitted once again to William. Edwin would die three years later, betrayed by his own as he fled to Scotland. Morcar would be imprisoned by William for the rest of his life.

But the most serious revolts were inspired by the biggest thorn in the side of William—Edgar the Ætheling. While Edwin and Morcar were revolting, Edgar led several revolts against William from Northumbria. During this time, he had the support of Malcom, King of the Scots. Of course, it was not just from Scotland that Edgar obtained aid, Philippe of France gave Edgar a castle to use against William; only a shipwreck prevented Edgar from obtaining the castle. Unfortunately, Edgar may have been a thorn in William’s side but he was not much more; each time Edgar launched a revolt, William marched, Edgar was defeated and forced to flee.

Eventually, William attacked Edinburg, forcing Malcom to submit to him and removing a key base that Edgar relied on. But Malcom did not turn against his one-time friend; instead, he persuaded Edgar to make peace with William. Eventually, Edgar submitted, abandoning his attempts to reclaim his ancestral throne. Of course, he had no other real choice.

With a number of castles being built, William finally felt strong enough to bring over his friend, the priest Lanfranc. He had a very serious reason for doing this; he had obtained the support of the Papacy in his quest to gain England and he wanted to pay his debt. Besides, he felt naked without Lanfranc, his friend and frequent source of good, practical advice. Lanfranc was William’s man and supported him in all his endeavors.

In Lanfranc, we find a man who was not only William’s man but Pope Alexander’s man as well. Pope Alexander considered England to be schismatic, too independent of Papal control. The Papacy had supported William because they wanted to bring the balky English church in line. Lanfranc meant to make sure the island nation was solidly within the sphere of the church. When Lanfranc reached England, he sent an invitation to the Pope for some Papal legates. Alexander responded by sending three papal legates with instructions to bring the English church to heal. Their first act in 1070 was to crown William a second time, demonstrating their claim that the only valid coronation was a coronation given by bishops who were appropriately vetted by Roma. Of course, this also gave the papal seal of approval to William’s conquest of England. But with that statement firmly established, Lanfranc and the three legates sat down and began to reorganize the Church in England.

The reorganization was nasty for the natives and showed the truth of the saying Woe to the vanquished! The first step was to remove the native Englishman Stigand from the Archbishopric of Canterbury as well as his brother Ethelmaer from the Bishopric of Elmham. Naturally, Lanfranc was selected to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury, which fulfilled his own ambition. They might have removed the Archbishop of York but Ealdred had died the year before so no such action was needed, instead all they did was to fill the post by appointing yet another Norman, Thomas of Bayeux. Norman clergy quickly deposed English clergy and when it was over, it is said that only two English bishops remained in office. It must be pointed out that several continental prelates who had been appointed by Edward the Confessor retained their office, but they were continental, i.e., Fraenkish not English.

For the most part, in quality and skill, the prelates who were replaced were every bit as good as the prelates who replaced them, one of the few exceptions being Stigand