The Children’s Crusade
What comes to mind first when you think of the Crusades? Is it a knight clad in chainmail or plate armor covered in a white tunic with a bright red cross? You wouldn’t be wrong to think of a Templar knight first, they are ubiquitous with the pop cultural ideal of the Crusades. However knights played a small part of these crusades, forming a small but important core of any medieval crusading force. In reality, a Crusade was a confluence of people from many walks of life within Europe. During the Medieval period, it was all the rage to pledge oneself to a crusade, from elderly people, high born nobles and knights, kings and princes, all the way down to common or destitute people, and even children taking up “the cross.”
But what is a crusade? A crusade in this context, is a Roman Catholic religious movement in the form of a military expedition, to retake or conquer territory held by non-Christian groups. Officially, a movement can only be called a crusade when it was called into existence or sanctioned by the Pope himself. There were officially eight crusades from 1095 to 1291, focusing on the capture and securing of the Holy Land or Outremer (today made up of mostly Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) for Catholics, but crusades also focused on North Africa, specifically Tunisia and Egypt. However, there were many “popular” or unofficial crusades that cannot be excluded from what historians now call collectively “The Crusades.” In this collective, you have popular movements and military expeditions focusing on the modern states of Poland, Lithuania, Spain, France, Czechia, and Germany, as well as the traditional target of Outremer. The Children’s crusade was two movements that have been combined into a singular example of these popular but unofficial crusades.
Let us first start by stating the Children’s crusade may not have happened at all, and if it did happen, it may not have been led or made up of children. There is debate amongst historians regarding translations of medieval sources on whether these were religiously fanatic children or just common people. This debate hinges on the words infante and parvuli which some historians translate as “wandering poor,” not children. Additionally, the sources we do have are hostile to the popular movements, with concern from the Church at the message and methods of the children crusaders. But the majority of primary and secondary sources contest that children led two large mass movements, which we are going to explore in depth.
In 1212, two separate movements emerged that would collectively come to be known as the Children’s Crusade. The first was led by Stephen of Cloyes, a French shepherd boy, and the second by Nicholas of Cologne, a German youth. Both claimed to have received divine visions or messages urging them to lead a crusade to the Holy Land.
Starting with the French movement, Stephen of Cloyes was a 12 year boy who claimed he met Jesus Christ. In this meeting with Jesus, who was appearing to the boy as a poor pilgrim begging for bread, Stephen was given a letter from Jesus to give to the King of France, Phillip II. This claim attracted the attention of people and he quickly surrounded himself with a large group of like-minded youth and impressed adults. Some of these young people claimed to also possess spiritual and religious powers from God and could work miracles. Eventually, a total of 30,000 began to follow Stephen on his journey to deliver the letter to Phillip however, Phillip would not receive the crowd and implored the people to return to their homes. Stephen, with the vigor of youth, refused to give up and began preaching and traveling around France, losing over half his flock by the time he declared they were going to Jerusalem via Marseilles to convert Muslims to Christianity. The travel through France was tough on many of the followers, who were forced to survive by begging for food, convincing most that they were better off returning to their homes, as Phillip originally requested. Those left in Stephen’s crusade were able to secure passage from Marseilles to Tunisia but met a disturbing fate upon their arrival: they were sold into slavery by the merchants who had ferried them across the Mediterranean, ending the movement.
The second movement, either starting in the spring or summer of 1212 was led by a German boy, Nicholas of Cologne. Like Stephen of Cloyes, Nicholas claimed to have received a divine vision or message from God, instructing him to lead a crusade to the Holy Land. The exact nature of this revelation is not well-documented, and much of what we know comes from later accounts that may blend fact with legend. He reportedly attracted a significant following, including many children and young people who were drawn by his message and the promise of a divine mission. Nicholas’ crusade had peaceful aims, intending to convert the population of the holy land through message and scripture. Nicholas and his followers, after massing in Cologne, split into two groups in order to reach the Holy Land, with both traveling through different parts of Switzerland. The journey through the alps for both groups was brutal, with 2 out of 3 people on the journey dying or returning home. Nicholas had assured his followers they would not have to take ships to the Holy Land as the sea would divide for them and clear the way, however when the remaining 7,000 people arrived in Genoa, the were bitterly disappointed when the sea did not part as promised. Some left, accusing Nicholas of being a fraud and betraying them, while others implored patience that God would divide the sea and support them. Of course the sea never parted and the group remained in Genoa, although the local authorities were so impressed by the faith of the group that they offered Genoese citizenship to the remaining followers. Most of the remaining “crusaders” took up this offer but many others refused to give up, including Nicholas. He traveled with those who refused the Genoese offer first to Pisa (where some claim that a few ships departed for the Holy Land) and then onto the Papal States, with the group splintering further with each stop. In Rome, Nicholas met with the Pope, Innocent III, who asked him and his remaining followers to be good Christians and to return home. Unfortunately for Nicholas and his followers, the journey back proved to be just as perilous as the first, with Nicholas himself and many of his remaining members, dying in the Alps. The family members of those who perished in Nicholas’ crusade were so enraged that they found his father and lynched him as retribution.
An image of thousands of children marching to Jerusalem is conjured when one hears the name “Children’s Crusade,” but more than likely it was a movement of adults, elderly, and children caught up in the religious fervor of the Crusading period, if it even happened at all. With both of these histories ending in such dramatic fashion, involving slavery and or death, one should absolutely approach this topic with skepticism. However, if they are accurate in their basic telling, the Children’s Crusade is a fascinating example of religious fanaticism gone wrong.
The Nika Riots
Do you know what is considered to be the largest and deadliest sports riot in history? You would be forgiven for believing it was a large football hooliganism incident in the 1970/80s, or a baseball riot in Philadelphia. In truth, the largest sports riot occurred in 532 CE, during the height of the Byzantine Empire over chariot racing and is known to us as the Nika Riot. These riots almost brought down the government of the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian I, and destroyed large swaths of Constantinople.
The Romans were obviously obsessed with sporting events, just look at the ruins of large arenas that still stand, dotted around the former Roman world. However, the Romans (and the later Byzantines) were not just about gladiatorial games, but were also ravenous chariot racing fans, at one point having four major teams, during the West and the Eastern Empires. The races occurred at arenas known as Circuses, or Hippodromes. The two most famous, and largest, being the Circus Maximus in Rome and the Hippodrome of Constantinople. By the time of our riot, in the 6th century, these teams had consolidated into two, the Greens and the Blues, named after the uniforms that the charioteer teams would wear to differentiate themselves from one another, with each faction representing different sides of society, the Greens having more support from wealthy citizens and the Blues with the working or middle class, although the factions had followers from all walks of life. To make things even more interesting, these fan groups acted like something more akin to violent grassroots political groups that were also sports fanatics. They would frequently shout from the stands their feelings on politics, religion, taxation, and current events, usually directed at the emperor, who was often in attendance. The two groups became so powerful (helped along by political backing from high powered senators and other officials) in their control of their populace, that the Imperial security apparatus had to cooperate with Blues and Greens to maintain order. There were frequent but limited “incidents” between the two fan bases or between fans and authorities, often resulting in the arrest and sometimes execution of leaders (usually if deaths occurred due to the riots). One of these executions (and its botching) was the catalyst for the Nika Riot. But what set this riot apart from previous incidents, was the political tension at the time.
At the time of the riots, Justinian I (a former Blue supporter), was facing a period of disapproval due to his recent reform of the civil service, higher taxes, a recent lost war to the Persian Empire, and his implementation of significant legal reforms. Justinian himself was also seen by some an illegitimate emperor due to his perceived lack of class and pedigree from the nobility, being regarded as an upstart. The previous emperor, Anastasius, died without arrangements for a successor and while he had three nephews, none were considered a viable candidate. Justinian’s uncle, Justin, used support amongst the military to proclaim himself Emperor. Justinian served as his uncle’s advisor, replacing him upon his death, nine years later. On top of these exacerbating issues, Justinian also attempted to clamp down on the influence the Blues and the Greens had. The Greens felt this was a tyrannical action while the Blues felt betrayed due to Justinian’s previous support of the Blues. Usually, Emperors would back one of the two factions, but Justinian, while a former blue supporter, tried to stay impartial, hence the cracking down on both groups. Three days prior to the main riot beginning on 13 January 532, a smaller riot resulted in the imprisonment and subsequent execution of members from both the Greens and Blues, but two of the condemned, survived their hanging. Taking the opportunity now presented to them, they fled into a nearby church, barricading themselves within. During later races that day, the two factions chanted for 22 out of 24 races and requested Justinian I, who was present at the races from his imperial booth within the palace (the palace was next to the hippodrome), show the two survivors mercy but there was no response from the Imperial booth. The crowd, now incensed, flooded out of the Hippodrome (trampling many people in the process) and broke into smaller groups with some surrounding the palace and attempting to take it, putting the palace under siege. Others spread out amongst the city, starting fires that engulfed large parts of Constantinople. Some of the crowd arrived at the City Praetorium, the location of the official overseeing the hanging of the prisoners that kicked the whole thing off, demanding the release of the two surviving prisoners. When no response was received, they burned the building down, probably freeing the prisoners in the process – no more requests are made for their release after this event.
On the second day of the riot, Justinian attempted to calm the riots by announcing additional races, but this did nothing to placate the crowd, who continued to riot and now set fire to the Hippodrome itself, causing damage. The crowd then turned their anger on those they blamed for preventing the emperor from previously releasing the two prisoners, demanding the resignation of three unpopular ministers, which Justinian conceded. However, the crowd, now sensing blood in the water, pressed their luck and continued to riot, starting more fires. At this point, some of the crowd were armed and it became obvious they supported wider political machinations. Senators opposed to Justinian, took the opportunity to influence the crowd and the focus changed from releasing of prisoners to total regime change of the Byzantine throne. One of the nephews of the previous emperor Anastasius, was proclaimed by the mob as the new emperor either on the third or fourth day (the chronological events of the riot are hard to piece together). This nephew, Probus, did not accept their proclamation. The crowd continued to set fires, eventually catching the Hagia Sophia on fire and destroying the buildings around it in the process. Finally, Justinian made the decision to call in soldiers to quell the riots, calling troops from Thrace to enter the city, arriving the next day.
The soldiers engaged the rioters in a pitched fight within the streets but failed to put down the riot by the end of the day. Although previously damaged due to fire, the Hippodrome became the main center of operations for the Blues and Greens, who’s prominent individuals still sat in their respective sections, even as they directed the riots. On 18 January, Justinian entered the Hippodrome and appealed to the crowd there. Justinian brought copies of the Gospels with him and apologized for not agreeing to the demands right away and offered a pardon of the rioters. While some in the crowd received these words warmly, others hurled insults at him, causing him to withdraw again to the palace. After Justinian’s withdrawal, the crowd declared another nephew of the Anastasius, Hypatius, as Emperor. Hypatitus was taken by the crowd, having been adorned in improvised regalia, to the Hippodrome, drawing more and more people to the arena. Justinian, receiving word of what was happening, ordered the palace sealed off entirely and prepared to flee the city. However, Justinian’s wife Theodora famously convinced him to hold his ground and remain in the capital. Historians debate on whether Justinian planned to outright flee or just leave Constantinople, knowing the violence that was coming (no matter who won the struggle for Emperor) and wished to not be present. Oddly, Hypatius, still wishing to show his loyalty to Justinian, informed the palace that most of the mob was now in the Hippodrome, but was told that Justinian had fled (even though he had not), clearing the way for his taking of the throne. Initially hesitant, Hypatius now started to engage with the crowd calling for his reign. Armed members of the Green faction also had arrived in the Hippodrome, preparing to force their way into the palace in support of Hypatius, a fellow green supporter.
While this was happening, Justinian realizing that violent confrontation was required, ordered the military to seal off the Hippodrome. He also ordered an advisor into the Hippodrome to divide up the factions and arrange support from the Blues, playing on Justinian’s previous support for them and reminding them that Hypatius was a green supporter, causing some Blues to leave the arena. The great Byzantine general Belisarius (who we may do an article on in the future) then entered the arena, after having other commanders seal of the entrances. Once Belisarius arrived, the slaughter began. The soldiers killed everyone in the arena they could, Blues and Greens, slaughtering indiscriminately. When the killing stopped, around 30,000 people were dead, officially ending the Nika Riots.
Justinian realized that although the riots were over, he had to solidify his authority that was now badly shaken. He ordered the execution of Hypatius, confiscated the property of Senators supporting the rioters, and hunted down any remaining agitators. Never again would the Blues and Greens unite with one another, except in times of war. Justinian would rule until 565 CE, rebuilding Constantinople and the destroyed Hagia Sophia.
The Battle of Tours
In 732 CE, a battle in southern Europe, now largely forgotten outside of Europe and university courses, started a titanic shift in the power balance between Christian and Muslim forces in Europe - the Battle of Tours. In what is today France, Umayyad Muslim forces invaded Gaul (France) from Iberia (Spain) but were checked by the grandfather of the future Frankish emperor Charlemagne. This grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, probably has one of the coolest nicknames known to history, Charles “the Hammer.” Why was this battle so pivotal and what was the impact? Well read on and you’ll find out.
We are going to start this article with helping you understand who the primary figures are, first with factions, then with people. Our first faction, the Umayyads, were a large caliphate or empire and were the second caliphate created after the death of Muhammad. The Umayyad Caliphate spread from the borders of modern-day India to Spain. They had their main capital in Damascus but had regional hubs in North Africa and Spain, with their main Spanish city being modern day Cordoba. They were overthrown by the Abbasids in 750, but due to the sheer size of the Umayyad empire, they survived in part with their new capital being Cordoba, eventually becoming known to Christian sources as the Moors. The next major faction is the Franks/Gauls – a name for a collection of tribes (the name first popped up in the 3rd century CE), becoming a centralized people, that gives us the modern-day English name for France. The Franks, originally from Germania, settled in Roman Gaul during the empire. They became a powerhouse in the wake of the collapse of Roman direct rule, eventually founding both the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire. There are some minor factions at play here too, such as the Visigoths and the Aquitanians who were regional powers but were eventually swallowed by their neighbors or transformed into different entities entirely. The Visigoths were a tribe originally from Germania that were part of the wider “Goth” ethnic group that led the toppling of the Western Roman Empire, settling in regions such as France, Spain, the Balkans, and Italy. As for the Aquitanians, we aren’t sure their ethnicity (probably Frankish or Goth) but they were led by a man named Odo the Great. Odo has been speculated to be of Roman, Frankish, or Gothic origin but scholars aren’t sure exactly.
Now, on to our people, first we have Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah Al-Ghafiqi who was the leader of the Umayyad expedition into Southern France, and the governor of Cordoba. Abd Al-Rahman participated in several battles against Aquitanian forces, facing Duke Odo the Great at the 721 CE Battle of Toulouse (Umayyad defeat) and the 732 CE Battle of the River Garonne (Umayyad victory). Now, we have Charles Martel – Martel is s sobriquet for Hammer, so we are just going to call him Charles the Hammer because that is more fun. Charles the Hammer rose to lead the Franks, the foremost power in Western Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, in 714. He spent the first 15 years of his rule campaigning, consolidating his realm against rivals, and expanding Frankish territory and power. Last, we have Duke Odo of Aquitaine, whom we discussed briefly in the preceding paragraph. Odo spent the majority of his leadership of southern France facing off against Umayyad incursions from Spain but also resented Charles’ influence, attempting to assert his independence at different times.
But how did we get to where Spain became a Muslim Umayyad powerbase? Spain, after the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, found itself primarily ruled by Visigoth immigrants from Germania. But at the start of the 8th century, the Visigoths themselves were beset by Umayyad Muslim invaders from North Africa, pushing the Christian Visigoths nearly to extinction. The Christian forces were able to survive in the very north of the Iberian Peninsula but could barely defend themselves effectively by this point, they were significantly assisted by the mountainous geography of northern Spain and were able to hold up in defensive positions to outlast the invasion. With the sequestering of the Spanish Christians, the Umayyads could bypass the Christian forces in the north, and penetrate into the Pyrenes mountains, spilling into what is now southern France. They did just that in 719, taking control of small parts of Aquitania and the town of Narbonne. Raiding parties started roving deeper in Burgundy, causing chaos amongst the Aquitanians, leading Odo to fight continuously to defend his realm. Although an early victory against the Umayyads bought Odo and his forces time, the war started to swing against them with their defeat at the Battle of Garonne.
At the following Battle of Bordeaux, Odo was soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties, forcing him to flee into the territory of Charles. Odo, desperate for assistance, turned to his rival, Charles the Hammer. This was a curious decision as Charles the Hammer raided Aquitaine, breaking a treaty with Odo, forcing Odo to have to retake the city of Bourges from the northern Franks in 731, in response to Odo asserting his independence from Charles. It has been speculated by scholars that the Umayyads severely underestimated the power of the Franks, considering them to be just another Christian tribe to be dealt with. Charles, answering the call from Odo for assistance, mobilized his forces, dispatching a contingent of his calvary to defend the town of Poitiers from Umayyad raids. The rest of his forces met the Umayyad army somewhere between Tours and Poitiers. An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 men participated in the battle, with the Umayyad forces suffering around 12,000 casualties to the Frank’s 1,000. Sources are not reliable for the exact nature of the battle, but due to what scholars know about early medieval warfare, make up of the Frankish forces, and tactics, it’s been pieced together to fill in gaps caused by the unreliable sources. The belief is that the Umayyad army found themselves broken by massed Frankish heavy infantry, coupled with a surprise calvary attack led by Odo on the Umayyad camp, attacking the camp inhabitants (non-combatants such as soldiers' wives and children, merchants, and support personnel). Abd al-Rahman was killed in the fighting, sowing further chaos. This attack on the soldier’s families combined with heavy casualties against the Frankish heavy infantry, forced an Umayyad tactical withdrawal to defend the remains of the camp, then fully retreating from the region during that night.
This victory did not end raids or incursions into Gaul, but did land a significant blow against Umayyad forces and provided a morale victory for Christian Europe. Odo was forced to swear allegiance to Charles, bringing Aquitaine temporarily under Charles’ purview. It would not be until Charles’ grandson, Charlemagne, that Muslim raids and capture of territory in Gaul would end, 60 years later, establishing northern Spain as the frontline of the Christian wars to retake Spain that would become known as the Reconquista. The legacy of the Battle of Tours is not the immediate ceasing of raids against Gaul, nor the consolidation of Frankish territory, but it is the effect it had on the mindset of Christians. Christian forces in Europe had been suffering a string of defeats for the last century against Muslim forces and the Battle of Tours marked a milestone in the Christian desire to check the advance of Islam and the recapture of lost territory.
Five Gruesome Deaths in Classical and Medieval History
Have you ever wanted to know who died the worst in early recorded history, or who had a painful and slow death? Are you also a a fan of true crime podcasts or documentaries? If so, this is the article for you. This article will discuss, in Seeking History’s opinion, some of the most gruesome deaths in recorded history. But first, a note on sources: most of these figures are from ancient or early medieval history, so the primary and secondary source material should be taken with some skepticism. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, ancient or premodern sources either have a bias (all written works have a bias, but historical writing especially had a bias in most of written history), political agenda, or were written decades to centuries later, so they must be taken with skepticism and interpreted for what they are - unreliable sources. That being said, these sources can still be used to inform and educate as there is likely some truth within them, or more realistically, are the only sources we have. Now that is out of the way, on to the death and macabre!
Let us start chronology with our first brutal death: Phalaris, who according to history, and let’s be honest, was a real asshole. Phalaris was a tyrant (sort of a title in Hellenistic civilization to denote a leader) of modern-day Agrigento, Sicily, who met his end around 554 BCE. While there is not a ton of information on the man, amongst the things that Phalaris is accused of, is eating literal babies. Phalaris had ambitions to be the sole tyrant of Sicily but was overthrown by another, named Telemachus. Phalaris, while in charge, commissioned the creation of a novel execution method known as the brazen, Sicilian, or bronze bull. Essentially, it was a bull statue, made entirely of bronze but hollowed out and with a door cut in the side. A person would be placed in the bull, while a fire was lit underneath, roasting them until dead. To make the execution more entertaining, the bull was designed in a way that the screams of the victims could be heard, and made to sound, like the roars of an actual bull, while smoke exited through the bull’s nostrils. The irony of the death of Phalaris is that Telemachus executed him by putting him in his own creation to be roasted alive. Sources allege, that later in history, the bull would be used by the Romans to execute Christians.
Second, we have Manius Aquillius who died in 88 BCE. Aquillius was a Roman consul and general who ran afoul of one of Rome’s early foes, Mithridates VI of Pontus. Aquillius did this by being dispatched to Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) as an ambassador to restore a King of Bithynia to his throne after this King was expelled by Mithridates. While Aquillius was successful in restoring the Bithynia King, he screwed up by encouraging the King to then attack or raid Pontic territory. This action led to the start of the First Mithridatic War and ultimately Aquillius’ brutal death at the hands of Mithridates. Once Mithridates struck back against Bithynia and the Romans, Aquillius utilized a legion of Axillaries (local or foreign Roman soldiers, not full legionaries) to attack Pontic forces but found himself against 100,000 soldiers while he only had a maximum of 6,000. Obviously, Aquillius was defeated, and he attempted to retreat to Italy but was captured on the Greek island of Lesbos and sold or turned over to Pontus. Eventually, after a short trial and a detail of his “crimes” against Pontus, he was executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. You read that right. This method of execution would (maybe) inspire the death of Marcus Crassus forty years later, and 2,000 years later, the fictional death of one of the Targaryens in Game of Thrones. You will see this method pop up in history, usually around the deaths of extremely wealthy individuals or those who tried to purchase their way out of a situation, leading to doubt about the true nature of their deaths as it can be surmised that his method may used as a metaphor for a “comeuppance” to the greedy by the source authors.
Next on our list is Saint Lawrence, who met his gruesome end in 258 CE. Lawrence was made a deacon in the Catholic Church by Pope Sixtus II in 257 at the age of 32. Additionally, Sixtus II trust in Lawrence was so great, he put Lawrence in charge of the treasury and the material wealth that the church possessed. In 258 CE, the Emperor Valerian ordered that all clergy and associated people of the Church be rounded up and executed. Pope Sixtus II himself was captured while giving mass and summarily executed. Once the Pope was dead, the Roman authorities, demanded that St. Lawrence turn over the riches of the Church. Lawrence stated he needed three days to gather the wealth but instead, he worked quickly to distribute as much Church property and riches to the poor and disabled as he could. With the church treasure distributed, Lawrence handed himself in to the authorities. So outraged by the actions of Lawrence, the prefect in charge had a large hot grill or gridiron prepared over scorching coals. Lawrence was thrown on this grill to be executed and essentially cooking him whilst alive. The legend goes that Lawrence, after suffering greatly while being slow cooked to death, shouted “turn me over, I am cooked on this side, and eat!” In regards to attributed sayings or quotes, which always must be treated with suspicion, Seeking History really hopes this one is true, as its pretty badass.
Then, there is the death of the Roman Emperor Valerian. Valerian not only suffered a gruesome fate in the 260s CE (the actual year of his death is unknown), but he also suffered humiliation at the hands of his enemies both in life and death. We get our source of Valerian’s death from the Roman writer/historian Eutropius and from the writer, Lactantius (full disclosure, there is dispute amongst modern historians regarding the veracity of the accounts, even debate on Valerian being mistreated at all). Valerian is not a sympathetic figure, even if his death makes you feel as such. He is known for his brutal religious persecution and is responsible for the death of our previous figure, Saint Lawrence. Valerian attempted to force a military victory over the Sassanid Persian empire, a classic enemy of Rome at this time. Unfortunately for Valerian, his campaign did not go well, and he found himself captured by the Persians. There are conflicting accounts regarding what exactly happened to Valerian, so we are going to share both accounts. They do have some details in common, but the physical death of Valerian has two tales. The Emperor Shapur I of Persia, once capturing Valerian, made it his mission to humiliate and humble his Roman counterpart. According to the sources, Valerian was subject to years of captivity and humiliation, at times being used as a human footstool for the Persian Emperor to mount his horse, and living out his remaining days in a cage. Unable to endure captivity, Valerian offered to personally pay a very large ransom for his release, hoping to be cut free to his Empire. In response to his offer of ransom, Shapur I either had molten gold (we’ve heard this story before) poured down the throat of Valerian, or had Valerian flayed alive. Whatever the method of his death, and here is where it gets really interesting, his corpse or skin was stuffed with straw, dyed with vermillion, and put on display as a trophy in a Persian temple. There are claims that years later, the Persians cremated or buried the stuffed Valerian, but it is unknown exactly what happened to his remains.
Our final death is the death of King Aelle of Northumbria in 867 CE. For those unfamiliar, Northumbria was one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that made up what is now England, before the Norman conquest of 1066 CE. Famously, these Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were constantly beset by Norse (Viking) incursions, with most falling to the Northmen. Aelle is famous in history for his defeat and execution of semi-legendary figure, Ragnar Lodbrok, throwing him into a pit of snakes to be killed. This made him a target of the “sons” of Ragnar (not all likely his sons but claimed lineage to legitimatize their leadership) and their “Great Heathen Army.” Aelle’s death has two very conflicting accounts. The first is is the Anglo-Saxon account, depicting his death as heroic, dying in battle against the Sons of Ragnar and the Great Heathen Army. The second account, is the Norse account, depicting his capture by the Sons of Ragnar, and his death by the infamous torture method, known as the Blood Eagle. The Blood Eagle is, probably, our most gruesome death on the list, so if you are into that sort of thing, I am not sorry for making you wait to the very end. The Blood Eagle is a method where the victim was placed in a face down or prone position, then they are cut open from the back, their ribs cut from the spine with a sharp knife or sword, and their lungs pulled through the opening to create a pair of "wings.” All this is done slowly and usually while the victim is alive. Now, we must state that Blood Eagle may not have been real at all and was a fabrication of contemporary or later Christian writers to denote the brutality of the Northmen foe they were facing. But, if true, it has gone down in history as particularly brutal.
The Spanish Inquisition
The Inquisition, specifically the Spanish Inquisition, is something we have heard referenced in film, short stories, and novels but what was it really? Why is the Spanish one notable? Were there other inquisitions? To answer these questions, I have to get into how the medieval Roman Catholic Church operated, but not too into it, that would require a lot of writing that I am not willing to do at this time (thank me later). For those that enjoy torture, religious zealots living up to the term zealot, and people being burned alive, then this article is for you. But you know what also is for you if you enjoy those things? Therapy.
Before we dive in, I want to highlight the use of terms here, Spain throughout most of its history was not united under what we call now Spain. It was a series of kingdoms that eventually were united under two monarchs from the two largest kingdoms, Castile and Leon in 1469 CE. However, the Iberian Peninsula was made up of kingdoms like Castille, Asturias, Leon, Aragon, Portugal, and many other smaller ones throughout its medieval history. But for the sake of simplicity, we are going to call the Christian/Catholic monarchies in this article Spanish and use Spain to identify the region and Kingdom that eventually is united and rules the entire peninsula (except for Portugal) in 1492.
Ok, let’s start with what seems to be the easiest question, but is actually pretty complex, what was an Inquisition? The answer is going to differ depending on which countries' inquisition we are discussing. There were many inquisitions: the Roman Inquisition, The Papal Inquisition, and inquisitions in what is now Spain that precede THE Spanish Inquisition, to name a few and keep the list short. There were inquisitions in almost all Western European countries during the medieval period. Broadly speaking, Inquisitions were official Roman Catholic institutions or trial like processes that were set up to uncover, destroy, and repress “heresies” that the church felt threatened their control. The inquisitions were led by Inquisitors who oversaw these efforts of suppression. The inquisitors operated with near total impunity but had to adhere to church law and doctrine. Torture in these Inquisitions was legally sanctioned by the Church through a Papal directive under Pope Innocent IV, called Ad Extirpanda, issued in 1252. The torture an accused had to endure was not (key word here) to result in permanent physical damage or death but was utilized as a tool to get suspected heretics to confess to their accused heresy, and then used against them when sentencing or punishment came. An individual was only allowed to be tortured once but inquisitors found a way around this by accusing individuals of multiple crimes and torturing them for each charge. Methods of torture throughout the Inquisition’s history consisted of the Rack, waterboarding, and putting someone on the Wheel or Pulley. If an individual did not survive the torture, they were still shamed as heretics and their bodies were hung up on display for the public. The punishments could range from whippings, having to go on a pilgrimage, to execution depending on the accusation and compliance of an individual. If an accused did not confess and name names of other heretics, they could expect torture and execution.
So, now that we have established what an inquisition is, why was there one in Spain and why is it the one that everyone remembers? The answer to the second question is simple, it was the longest lasting, and has been made famous by movies, books, and stories. Additionally, it was used as an example of Catholic cruelty and corruption during the Protestant Reformation and exaggerated into being much more widespread than it really was. But the first question is a little more complex so let’s discuss the Reconquista, or the Reconquest, that was on the mind of every Spaniard from the 8th century to the 15th century CE. In the 8th century, Spain was invaded by warriors from North Africa that eventually became to be known as the Moors. These Moors swept up the Iberian Peninsula and at one point led incursions into what is now France, only to be repulsed and establish a front line north of Barcelona. From the 8th century on, every Spanish monarch made it their goal to push Christian control of the peninsula further south in what is arguably the longest lasting Crusade. Finally, in the year 1492, forces under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella conquered the last Moorish stronghold, Grenada, and united Spain under Catholic control. I blew through about 700 years of history there and you could not even imagine the number of factions, players, and personalities involved. There are many books out there about the Reconquista as it is a titan of a historical subject, hence, I could not attempt to summarize it fully in this article. But why is it important to our inquisition? Well, because there are two major religious factions vying for control in the peninsula for hundreds of years, areas that would fall under one or the other would be mixed in religious make up. During this period as well, Spain had a significant Jewish population to mix in with the Muslim and Catholic numbers. Throughout most of this period, these three faiths GENERALLY lived alongside one another (minus the whole war thing, pogroms/discrimination against the Jewish population, and slaughter of Muslims, Catholics, and Jewish people, every time one side seized a city/town/region) but that changed once the Catholics defeated the Moors for control. Also, in 1492, Spain expelled all of its Jewish population, they had to leave (160,000 chose to leave) or convert. Those that did convert were known as Converso and Muslims (forced to convert or leave in 1526) were known as Morisco. These converts, even though officially converted to Catholicism, were constantly under the threat of discrimination and accusations of carrying on their former faiths in secret. At the same time all this drama was going on in Spain, Western Europe saw a number of different religious movements spring into existence and were subsequently deemed heresies. Examples would be the Cathars, Hussites, and Waldensians. The Church set up inquisitions to root out these “heretics” and felt the same thing would be needed in Spain to root out false converts, followers of other “heretical” doctrines, or those who preached false miracles and events. The Spanish Inquisition as we know it, officially began in 1478 and shockingly lasted until 1834.
Due to the length of the Spanish Inquisition, it’s impossible to fully summarize it succinctly, so, I am going to break it down in a few phases. The first would be the phase that focused on the Conversos, Moriscos, and the early Inquisition. This early period saw around 2,000 people burned at the stake for just being formerly Jewish or Muslim and not confessing to carrying on their former faith in secret. Conversos were accused of outlandish things like spreading the plague, kidnapping Christian babies and boys for ritual sacrifice, and poisoning water supplies of towns (these poisonings either didn’t exist or were actually outbreaks of disease, such as cholera). During this period, medieval justice was especially cruel and consisted of public trials and spectacles involving royalty, the accused’s family, and friends. Common during these proceedings was to seize the wealth and property of those accused. Those accused of heresy or false conversion weren’t allowed to face their accusers, receive a defense, and were often accused without evidence or on false testimony.
The second phase of the Inquisition (16-17th century) focused on repressing the Protestant Reformation and prominent clergy or Catholics that didn’t fully follow the teachings of the church by the book. The inquisition worked very diligently to root out those who started to question the teachings of the Papacy and The Catholic Church, utilizing the same methods that they used to repress and essentially extinguish the Muslim and Jewish population of Spain. Prominent Catholic clergy and scholars were accused of heresy for promoting new interpretations or ideas even if they were still considered canonical.
The third and final phase of the Inquisition is the decline and fall. The Inquisition during this period (17- 19th century) was focused on keeping Spain catholic and rooting out forbidden ideas, those who read banned books, and intellectuals promoting Humanist and Enlightenment ideals. All this carried on until the invasion of Spain by Napoleon in the early 19th century, eventually being banned outright by that small statured French Emperor (the short king narrative of Napoleon is false by the way, blame the Brits for that one). After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, it was reinstated, then finally stamped out again in 1832 as part of a deal that Spain had to sign with France to help put down a rebellion within Spain. The last person executed in Spain by the Inquisition was in 1826.
Here is a fun fact for you, the Inquisition still technically exists within the Catholic Church although it operates differently and has received a nice new name change since its final dissolution in Spain, and as of 2022, called The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or informally, The Holy Office.