Scrapbook Blog

Web Site Value Calculation for

2012-09-17T12:00:00.001-07:00

How Britains Lived in the Time of the Druids

2012-09-15T10:15:00.000-07:00

Ancient Britons tended to build round dwellings with mud rendering around wicker frames in the south. Further north, Britons would use stone instead, though still in round wall design. The thatched coned roof was also common. They did not use chimneys and would have a fire burning in the middle of the dwelling. The smoke would rise up inside the thatched and cone shaped roof to slowly seep through the straw and out into the open. This stopped birds and insects nesting in the thatch. Sometimes these dwellings were clustered within great hill fort palisades and had done so for many hundreds, if not thousands of years. The Great Hill Forts were like market towns where people would come to trade farm produce and other manufactured items, like tools. The people were illiterate before the time of the Romans and would have spoken Celtic dialects like that of the Welsh, Cornish or even Bretons of North West France. They had a religious culture based on druidism, which today is thought of in romantic and mystical ways, though it is possible they did practise human sacrifice on occasions. This adds a more sinister aspect to the druid priests.

In Gaul, today's France, young apprentices were sent to Britain to be schooled in the ways of druids. It must have been done through word of mouth and been a very hands on method of tuition if they were illiterate and they may have had some form of rune carving that meant certain things. This religion was all but vanquished after the first couple of hundred years of Roman rule, and when Christianity came it would have diminished further.

Many of the communities throughout Britain lived in such abodes seen above until the Romans began to build villas and great cities.

What Became of King Xerxes I of Persian Empire

2012-09-15T10:11:00.000-07:00

King Xerxes I was a famous Persian King who is known in the western world for his invasion of Greece and his battle with 300 soldiers of King Leonidas of Sparta. Because of this, King Xerxes has a demonised image among Europeans especially, who view Greece as the mother of European civilisation and democracy. This is, of course, unfair of the Persian king and perhaps, the entire civilisation of Persia’s Achaemenid Dynasty.

A Colourful, Ficticious and more Dreadful Portrayal of King Xerxes from
the movie 300 when shown as a more evil person then he really was.

This ancient Persian Dynasty was stooped in a rich history of which, the Greek invasion was a bit of a sideshow. That’s not taking away anything from the brave 300 of Sparta who all Europeans love and cherish.

King Xerxes I of Persia lived from 519 BC until his death in 465 BC at the age of 54. His death and passing from this world is an affair of dreadful intrigue and murder, for he would be betrayed by a man called Artabanus and he would try to rule in his stead as a regent for a few months after the death of King Xerxes I of Persia. He would almost destroy the declining Achaemenid Dynasty.

Before King Xerxes I was murdered, he is said to have had his brother and his entire family killed on the wishes of his wife and queen. One of his queens was named Esther, but the story of this queen was probably earlier in his reign. This Killing of his brother would obviously cause great tension in the royal household and make many jittery. His Queen Esther is celebrated as a heroine by Hebrews because she is remembered with affection for saving them from massacre and getting a high profile minister executed who was planning to have Jews killed in King Xerxes' name. This is a famous story, but such events and dealings within the Achaemenid household would cause tensions among other members who were, perhaps, less fond of this beautiful Jewish queen who had rose to great power from the kings harem. When King Xerxes I was assassinated, there is no record of what became of Queen Esther. She may have died before hand or gone back to Israel or been slain too. The later is unlikely, but if Xerxes is this powerful king with a harem of many women, perhaps Queen Esther had played her part in history and moved aside, drifting out of prominence yet leaving a wake of dissatisfaction for the king - weather she died, lived or left to fade from history.

A presentation of King Xerxes and Queen Esther from a movie called:
One Night with the King

King Xerxes’ would be murderer, Commander of Royal Bodyguard – Artabanus had come to the prominent position of the Royal Persian court because of strong religious support from zoroastrian priests and gaining friends among the eunuchs – a powerful body of slaves that knew of harem intrigue and chatter. Artabanus also had seven sons who were put into prominent positions of the Royal Persian court too. It is probable that Artabanus was extremely calculating and very audacious in some form of planning and wanted to gain control of the Persian Empire and rule it directly. He had eyes and ears all about the court and access to much information. His ambition might have been so outrages for a number of good reasons. Perhaps and despite not being related to the Achaemenid Dynasty; he might have had some distant blood line along the fringe that he thought to fashion into some legalised way of ruling, once he had eliminated prominent Achaemenid persons of power. Perhaps he had heard of other relations resentful of their less prominent positions of power within the Royal Achaemenid family. Perhaps many were nervous of this queen who had seen murder done to the king's brother and family. There must have been a lot of tension and many might have thought Xerxes was losing his grip on his dynasty.

King Xerxes I had an elder son who would succeed him called Prince Darius. Xerxes had many sons and daughters but Prince Darius was to be the successor. Another son, lower in line, was called Artaxerxes and it is possible that Commander of Royal Bodyguard Artabanus formulated a plan to eliminate King Xerxes and his eldest son Darius and somehow find a way to work through the younger Prince Artaxerxes.

Commander Artabanus got close help of a powerful eunuch named Aspamitres and had King Xerxes I killed. It was then blamed upon Prince Darius as parricide and he was quickly put to death. The vacuum of the Persian throne left Commander Artabanus as a regent dictator for a few months. History is not sure if Artabanus then tried to groom Prince Artaxerxes to his way, so that Artabanus could rule through him or perhaps he might have tried to manipulate the young prince in some other way before taking total control over the Achaemenid Dynasty.

On the other hand, it is possible that the younger Persian Prince played along with the Commander of Bodyguard Artabanus, allowing him to eliminate all above thus placing him in line. It is not written so, but it could be. History is vague in this point. Whatever drove Commander Artabanus upon his ambitious crusade for power; it all went wrong when Prince Artaxerxes killed him – some say personally stabbing the Commander of Royal Bodyguard with his own sword. All of Commander Artabanus’ sons were quickly dispatched and put to death too, plus the eunuchs and priests who had supported the Commander that tried to move and do things beyond his station in the Persian society.

After the death of the famous King Xerxes I of Persia, the brief interlude of a few months was followed by the actual rule of King Artaxerxes I from 465 BC to 424 BC.

King Artaxerxes is seen as avenging the murder of his father King Xerxes I and elder brother Prince Darius. However, it is possible that this blame might be put upon Commander Artabanus though It is difficult to imagine what Artabanus long term gain might be, if he was not of Royal line when the society he lived in understood only these things. Was Prince Artaxerxes more involved in the plot rather then that of an unwitting pawn in over ambitious Commander Artabanus' plan?

What Happened to The Mary Rose Battleship of King Henry VIII?

2012-09-15T10:07:00.000-07:00

The Mary Rose

England was a land of virtual irrelevance during the 15^th century and was no more than a fringe island on the edge of Europe – a small nation that had spent years fighting a civil war of the Roses between House York and House Lancaster. This finally ended with the death of Richard III in battle and the accession of Henry VII of the Tudor dynasty. During this turbulent time England had neglected her navy and had only constructed six ships for the crown in a period of eighty seven years. The new king, Henry VII maintained a precarious peace with the dominant powers of Europe and managed to keep the island nation free from trouble allowing England a small time to establish breathing space and rebuild. At least, begin to rebuild.

Midships Section of Mary Rose

When Henry VII died his second son – became King Henry VIII. His first son, Arthur had died before ascending to kingship. Arthur had briefly married the Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon. In this day and age, Spain was the super power of the world and France challenging for dominance too. Because Henry VIII wanted to join a powerful Spanish alliance against France, he decided to marry his late brother’s wife Catherine of Aragon – he was six years her junior. By doing this, Henry the VIII had made a powerful enemy of France but had many strong allies including the Holy Roman emperor Maximillian alongside the superpower of Spain. Little England was trying to punch above her weight, but for those who dare; sometimes things work out. This did in the long run but in twisted ways that none designed or could have predicted at the time.

Henry VIII had received the start of a navy from his father Henry VII, but early into his new alliance with Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, his small country decided to start by showing ambitions to the navy. England had two large warships to boast of and they were the Regent and the Sovereign. Henry VIII decided to add two more substantial battleships of the day. One was called the Peter while the other would be the Mary Rose. After this, even more ships were started and the beginnings of a Royal Navy ensued.

Inside Part of Mary Rose

The grand war ship ‘Mary Rose’ was launched in the summer of 1511. She went to London and received adulation in a grand ceremony as she was towed up the River Thames. The glorious array of flags and streamers must have been a colourful sight to behold as citizens of London flocked to see the modern battleship. For the times, this ship was real state of the art building and engineering, lovingly crafted from fine English oak and craftsmen who were very proud of the profession and able to work for the grand king and country.

Some people believe the name ‘Mary Rose’ came from Henry VIII sister, Mary Tudor and the Rose of the Tudors. However, eminent historians say that it was the fashion throughout Europe to name ships from everyday common Christian names. England was trying to play alongside the big boys of Europe now and tried to emulate them in all ways.

For twenty five years the ship patrolled and did her national duties taking part in actions against the national enemies of France and Scotland. She had castle style protection at the stern and bow with a lower mid-ship section. She would have looked resplendent in this day and was brought back into dock for a major rebuilding and enhancement programme in 1536. She was to be upgraded from a 500 ton vessel to 700 tons. After this, the Mary Rose continued in her duties against the main enemies until a fateful day in 1545 when the grand ship of war took a lead to attack a French invasion fleet.

Before this battle, the grand ship had performed admirably during the first and second French Wars – this was the third French war when Mary Rose was to meet her fate.

The Mary Rose lay on the Solent bed for many years.

As the Mary Rose went into action, a Flemish eye witness had his version of events written down. He saw the Mary Rose fire all one side of her guns as the battle began – a salvo. Then as the grand ship manoeuvred to present her opposite side of guns, she was caught by a strong breeze which caused the vessel to extravagantly heel to her starboard side, where many of the lower deck gun ports were still open. These were water tight when shut, but during the confusion of the battle they remained open and were, of course, in use. The sudden intake of water caused the ship to heel further over to her broadside as the weight of the water intake caught the mighty ship of balance. All people on board would have been flung about. Heavy guns and other bulk items would have broken from their fastenings and slide starboard too, causing more weight on this starboard side. Men would have been crushed and killed during the horrendous twist of fate. Those that escaped being crushed would have been struggling in blind panic as their world, inside the ship, turned upside down. It was all over, very quickly, as the Mary Rose capsized and sank in the Solent off of the Isle of Weight and from a crew of four hundred and more; only thirty five men survived the capsizing of the Mary Rose. The vice Admiral George Carew went down with his ship and crew as well.

Salvaged part of hull in Portsmouth museum

This terrible event rocked the entire nation and the great battleship lay on the sea bed for hundreds of years until she was raised by scientists in 1982 after being re-discovered in 1971. Many of her artifacts and much of her hull are on display at the Portsmouth naval museum today.

Scientists working on Hull Preservation

Why Mad Holy Land Crusader was Wolf of Kerak - Raynald of Châtillon 1125 - 1187

2012-09-15T10:04:00.000-07:00

Mad Crusader Raynald of Châtillon 1125 - 1187

Raynald of Châtillon is a very controversial crusader knight of the middle ages. He was born in France in 1125, but his origins are vague. He was a man of middle class ranking in Middle age French society and his father was said to be a Lord of Châtillon. However history seems unsure if Raynald came from Châtillon Sur/on Marne or Châtillon on Loing - each Châtillon is on a river.

This young man seems to have been a reckless and rebellious character and was sent away on the second crusade at age 22 years in 1147. He entered the service of Constance of Antioch - a noble born lady who would be widowed in 1149. Raynald of Châtillon was to spend the next 40 years in the Holy Land until the end of his life aged 62.

Raynald of Châtillon must have made some impression upon Constance of Antioch - perhaps the lady was taken by the brash young chancer - there would have been an obvious element of danger about the young man. It is also possible that the young noble lady of Antioch was manipulated in some way for she was used as a commodity of power from a young age. Her mother, Alice of Antioch, had tried to marry her to a Muslim Prince to gain control over Antioch as a regent. This was when Constance was an infant. Alice of Antioch was banished for this deed, and when she was allowed to return, she tried to broker a marriage alliance with for herself with a Christian Crusader called Raymond of Poitiers. Through this marriage they could both rule Antioch, by her young daughter, as regents. Again Alice was foiled by Raymond of Poitiers for he married her 9 year old daughter in secret and Alice was forced into humiliated exile. This was in the year of 1136.

A Knight Crusader could achieve great social standing in the Holy Lands
It attracted pious and holy men plus ambitious and unscrupulous people too.

In the Holy Land, lower ranked individuals could rise in social standing, far easier than in Europe, doing service for the Holy Roman Empire in the Holy Land. Here, the new Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem had been founded in 1099 AD. Areas all about the Middle East were being colonised by christian invaders and small vassal kingdoms were being set up in various surrounding cities. The Crusader state of Antioch was one such place and now, through devious means, a low rank knight had won control of a small kingdom state within the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

A situation had developed in the Holy Land where wealthy men were pedalling the religion of Christianity as a material business. Anyone could jump on the band waggon and all were deluding themselves that they were doing God's work. Some may have believed this, but many that were intelligent enough to grasp the situation of ambition and acquisition, easily manipulated more pious and devoted men, of lower rank, to naively support hidden and unscrupulous causes. The example of Raymond of Poitiers and Alice of Antioch is such an example. The 9 year old wife could hardly have known what was going on.

Then at the age of 20, Constance of Antioch sees a young knight from France come into her service, though more likely under the command of her husband. This is Raynald of Châtillon's first appearance in the Holy Land. Did he quickly grasp the situation coupled with his rebellious streak?

Raynald of Châtillon would have witnesed Muslims and Hebrews being subjugated to Christian rulers - immigrents who believed their prophet Jesus Christ should have Christian people rule the area. He may have been indifferent to them and probably the lower ranks of his own kind. It is hard to put oneself in the mind of such men when they could do underhand things and pedal forgiveness and penance so easily through their church. Imagine - suddenly there is a land of milk and honey to plunder and there is a God given right to do what you want, provided you rule as a believer of the Christian religion - or say you do, if you are of an unscurulous and cunning mind.

In 1149, two years after Raynald of Châtillon arrived at Anticoh, his Lord and master was killed at the Battle of Inab. Raymond of Poitiers - husband of Constance of Antioch, was beheaded by his Muslim enemy when captured during the battle. His head was sent to the Caliph of Baghdad as a gift. Why young Raynald of Châtillon was not on this expedition is not known for he was in the service of Constance and Raymond the co-rulers of Antioch.

Four years passed for the widow Constance of Antioch, then one day in 1153, she secretly married Raynald of Châtillon. How this secret marriage came about is not well known but it was not approved by King Baldwin III of Jerusalem. Together Raynald and Constance would have two daughters. The marriage of Constance to a man of such low birth was not permitted, but this was the Holy Land where men could better themselves in the service of God. Raynald had got his foot on the ladder of ambition and climbed up a few steps.

From the start, the rebellious and reckless young man caused controversy, often raiding and plundering neighbouring Muslim states in the name of God and the Holy Church of Rome, becoming a difficult person to control within his Crusader state of Antioch.

Byzantine Emperor Manuel I

Raynald of Châtillon became very angry and resentful towards the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I, who Raynald believed, owed him a vast a sum of money. As a form of revenge and punishment, Raynald wanted to invade the island of Cyprus which was ruled by the Byzantine Emperor. For this, Raynald requested that the Patriarch of Antioch (Bishop) grant him the funds necessary to finance such an invasion. When the Patriarch refused this, Raynald had the Patriarch stripped naked and covered in honey. He was then put out in the hot sun for a great length of time, until the exhausted holy man was forced to relent and grant the funds required.

Crusaders of the Holy Land

Raynald of Châtillon led his Crusader forces against the Byzantine state of Cyprus, the way he attacked Muslim states in the Holy Land. The island was ravaged and plundered by his knights much to the consternation of the King Baldwin III of Jerusalem and the Byzantine Emperor. The shock waves caused Emperor Manuel I to raise an army and move towards the Holy Land.

Raynald of Châtillon was forced to grovel before the Byzantine Emperor in bare feet and dressed in rags. Later the Emperor went to Raynald's Crusader state of Antioch where he was recieved with pomp and ceromony by Raynald, and then; in full view of his subject, Raynald of Châtillon, had to be seen leading the Byzantine Emperor's horse through the streets. This was always a mark of humility in the Middle East. Also Antioch was forced to accept a new Patriarch - an orthodox Greek Bishop. The last thing wanted by Rome and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem was to upset the Eastern Christian Church. This political unrest with neighbouring Byzantine lands was put to rest in 1159.

Byzantine soldier of Manuel I allies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
Raynald of Châtillon upset such friends that the Kingdom of Jerusalem
could ill afford to loose

If 1159 was a bad year for Raynald of Châtillon, then 1160 was to be the beginning of 16 years of trouble and strife. He led an expedition raid against a Muslim Kingdom called Marash and got himself captured. He was taken to the large city of Aleppo in Syria and remained a prisoner for 16 years. He was released in 1176 aged 51. When captured he was 35 years of age and now after a 16 year prison sentence and aged 51, one might think the old ruler of Antioch was mellowed. This was not to be so. Perhaps, as a high ranked official of Antioch, Raynald of Châtillon's confinement might have been better accommodation then most might expect. The Crusader Knight does not seem to have been humbled or integrated with an understanding of the Muslims where he had lived over the years as a prisoner. His wife, Constance of Antioch, had died in 1163 and all rule of Antioch was passed from him.

In 1176, after his years of confinement, Raynald of Châtillon was released from the Islamic prison and sent back to the Holy Land, where he was married to a Princess called Stephanie of Milly. She had been widowed twice and had children. She would have two more by Raynald of Châtillon and was the heiress to Oultrejordain and owned the castle of Kerak.

Kerak Castle

Raynald was back and into his old habit of attacking Muslim caravans as they travelled through the Kingdom of Jerusalem and her other Crusader states. The signed truces had allowed for this, but Raynald of Châtillon would not abide by these things still - despite all of the trouble this impulsive and disorderly conduct had brought upon him, in the past. History seems to portray him as a very driven pantomime villain, for he would not conform in any way. He even made threats upon the Islamic Holy Temple of Mecca and this brought Saladin the Great upon his castle at Kerak during the year of 1183. At the time there was an arranged marriage ceremony going on between Leper King Baldwin IV's half sister and Stephanie's son.

The antics of Raynald of Châtillon were a constant cause for concern and when the Leper King Baldwin IV died, the reckless knight supported Queen Sibylla (Baldwin IV's sister) and her husband Guy of Lusignan. This led to a fatal confrontation with Saladin's invading army at Hattin. Raynald of Châtillon continued to attack Muslim pilgrimages and caravans - one had Saladin's sister travelling within. This final outrage brought Saladin the Great into the Holy Land to sort the problem of rouge Christian attacks out, once and for all.

The Crusaders suffered a heavy defeat at the Battle of Hattin
Here Raynald of Châtillon fortune ran dry.

The confrontation at Hattin was a huge defeat for the Crusaders and many prisoners were taken - among them Raynald of Châtillon and Guy of Lusignan (ruler of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.) It was 40 years since 1147 when 22 year old Raynald of Châtillon arrived in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and by this time in 1187, the 62 year old Crusader's luck had run dry. Some say Saladin himself plunged a dagger into the unruly Crusader's neck before he was dragged among his Muslim soldiers and beheaded. It was also said to have been done before Guy of Lusignan's eyes. Whatever happened; the problem of Raynald of Châtillon - the mad christian crusader was put to rest. He died as violently and terribly as he had lived, receiving no mercy for his rank and social standing. In the eyes of Saladin and his Muslim soldiers, Raynald of Châtillon (often called the wolf of Kerak) had shown no such protocol to Muslims - why should he receive such respect for his social standing in return. While convulsively chocking from his stab wound in the neck, he was beheaded and probably not to quickly. It is difficult to imagine a person choking for life and standing still so that an executioner can swiftly behead. It was probably a very messy affair.

Raynald of Châtillon was supposedly stabbed and then beheaded by
Saladin the Great

He died a martyr by some Crusaders, but history is less sympathetic to the man in this day and age. For 40 years he lived out in the Holy Land, spending 16 years as a prisoner, mid way through this time. His monument among the Muslims is that of a terrible land pirate or plunderer known as The Wolf of Kerak. Among Christians and the western world he is remembered not. Only historians with a special interest in the Crusader wars would know of this man. He was also portrayed in the Ridley Scott movie 'Kingdom of Heaven.'

Raynald of Châtillon 1125 - 1187 as portrayed in the movie:
Kingdom of Heaven

How Balian Defended Jerusalem Against Saladin the Great

2012-09-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

The Christian Crusaders of the Holy Wars

There is a historical movie by Ridley Scott, called 'The Kingdom of Heaven.' This film is very enjoyable and portrays the events that led to the fall of Jerusalem. Of course the romance of Hollywood film directors added social diversions within the movie that were not so. Mainly concerning the historical characters of Balian of Ibelin and that of King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem's sister, Sibylla, who would later become Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem. This romantic story with stunning special effects for the backdrop of the fall of Jerusalem, in the year 1187, is untrue where Balian and Sibylla are concerned, though their paths did cross. I mention this because the film was most entertaining, but the love interest of the two mentioned (Balian and Sibylla) is untrue. Also the happy ever after ending in France was a big no, no as well.

In the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven,' we are presented with a young Balian who is 20 something years of age, and a humble blacksmith working in a remote French village. He is recently a widower and is the bastard son of a titled man who fights in the crusades in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Again this aspect of Balian is not true.

In reality Balian was a third son of Barisan of Ibelin with two elder brothers Hugh and Baldwin. Ibelin was a castle in a province ruled by the Christian crusaders. Concerning Balian's brother Baldwin; it is important to know that King Baldwin of Jerusalem (the king suffering from leprosy) and brother Baldwin are two different people with the same name. This bit of info is to avoid confusion as I continue the blog.

When Barisan of Ibelin died, his eldest son Hugh became the Lord of Castle Ibelin, and when he passed away the castle went to Baldwin who was already the Lord of Rama. He gave Ibelin castle to Balian, hence we have Balian of Ibelin. At this time Balian would have been around 44 to 46 years of age.

The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem had come about in 1099 when the city fell to the Christian crusaders. It has to be visualised from a certain perspective in western points of view when calling it the 'Crusader Kingdom.'

Imagine, if you will, the American continent when it was first discovered by European nations. They carved out chunks of land for themselves, like Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina etc. Well in the middle ages, the christian crusaders tried to do this with the middle east, believing that it was their Holy Land where their prophet was born. Untitled christian men could win renown for themselves and find improved social standing beyond their dreams. Far greater then if they remained in Europe. In the long run; the Muslims would win this long and turbulent struggle for the Holy Land, but it would take many generations to displace the invading Christian Kingdom builders.

Many of Europe's nobility gave themselves regal titles within this Crusader Kingdom under the endorsement of the Popes. From their point of view it was legal and the Muslims and Hebrews no longer had a viable standing concerning the matter. In this time, the Muslim nations tried to battle the European Christian invaders, but for a long period of time; the Christians occupied the Holy Land (The Crusader Kingdom of)

Queen Sibylla of Jerusalem
II60 - 1190

Over the years there had been battles, defeats and victories for the Christian Crusaders, but they also began to argue among themselves concerning lands within the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and when Balian was charged with the overseeing of castle Ibelin he may have been away from the squabbling fractions at the court of Jerusalem. Here King Baldwin IV was in the advancing stages of Leprosy and he was concerned as to who would take control of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. He wanted to marry his sister, Princess Sibylla, to a worthy consort and the person his sister married was Guy of Lusignan.

In 1183, Balian and his elder brother Baldwin championed their support for a noble called Raymond III of Tripoli against Guy of Lusignan who was acting as a regent for Baldwin IV King of Jerusalem. The king was rapidly dying from the leprosy that was eating away at him. Balian's brother Baldwin had not long returned from Muslim captivity after being captured in a battle.

Leper King Baldwin IV

In 1185, King Baldwin IV died aged 24 and the young son of Sibylla was crowned king at just five years of age. The sickly child died a year later as Sibylla became Queen of Jerusalem in 1186 with her husband Guy of Lusignan as her consort. Balian reluctantly accepted the new consort, even though he did not support the man, while his elder brother exiled himself in Antioch. Brother Baldwin is believed to have died here in 1187.

Meanwhile Consort Guy then went with an army of Crusaders to challenge the Muslim Sultan Saladin who had mobilised his Islamic army because of brutal raids against Muslim caravans that had permission to pass over the Christian held territories. This culminated in the Battle of Hattin in which the Muslim forces defeated the Christian Crusaders. Guy Of Lusignan was captured by Saladin and imprisoned in Damascus.

Saladin the Great of Muslim forces

Balian was in Jerusalem when Saladin led his Muslim army to recapture the city and make Islam the dominant power of the Holy Land and vanquish the Crusader Kingdom of. The siege lasted for several months and though Saladin's forces managed to puncture holes in the walls of Jerusalem; his Muslim forces could not enter the city because the Christian crusaders put up formidable defences against the besiegers.

Balian was able to evacuate his wife and four children to Tripoli unmolested because Saladin observed strict Muslim laws, and Balian was recognised as the highest ranking official defending the besieged city. He had honour status and thus his family had this right and privilege to vacate Jerusalem unmolested. It should be noted that Christian crusaders did not always afford or observe the same protocols towards Muslim nobility.

Image of siege of Jerusalem from Ridley Scott Movie

During Balian's valiant defence of Jerusalem, he made sixty men knights because there was under twelve knights to defend the Holy city when he first began to prepare defences against Saladin's army.

The siege lasted through September and when Sultan Saladin asked to speak with Balian outside the walls, a peace treaty was thrashed out after Balian promised to destroy everything of value in the city before any of the Christian Crusaders would give up.

Eventually Balian agreed to surrender the city of Jerusalem to Saladin for the Christian defenders to go free. However, there was a material price in bezants (gold coin) for this mass release of Christians. It was 30,000 bezants per man or two women or ten children. Any who could not meet the price would be sold into Islamic slavery. There were many who could not pay, but many of these were released by Saladin after and allowed safe escort from the city. There remained some Christian Frankish citizens who were not freed. Balian and Patriarch Eraclus offered themselves as high ranking hostages for their freedom, but on this issue Saladin would not give way. The Frankish inhabitants went into slavery.

Queen Sibylla was also allowed to leave with her daughters. She went to Cyprus and died of an epidemic three years later in 1190 at the age of 30. Her daughters also perished of this illness too.

Balian was reunited with his wife and four children and would have some involvement in the third Crusade, in which England's Richard the Lionheart was involved. He was at the Battle of Jaffa and took part in the peace negotiations that was known as the Treaty of Ramala. King Richard the Lionheart left for England while Sultan Saladin gave Balian castle Caymont as a Christian Vassal. Balian died in 1193 at about 53 years of age, six years after the fall of Jerusalem.

The Invading Christian Crusaders were eventually defeated in the Holy Land

Did Ancient Phoenicians Trade with Britain?

2012-09-15T09:57:00.000-07:00

The Phoenicians came from areas of today's Lebanon and Israel

The Phoenicians were a Mediterranean race of seafarers that travelled many seas in search of trade. They were among the first of the great cargo transporters developing complex international trade among the great and emerging civilisations of ancient times. The lands that these people came to occupy during their greatest era was Lebanon (mainly) but also parts of what is today, Israel, Palestine and Syria. The prominent times of the Phoenician sea traders was between 1200 BC and 800BC. After this time, the Phoenicians began to be swallowed up or ruled by other Mediterranean powers, though their seamanship skills were still hailed and used.

Main areas of Phoenicians

In their heyday; the Phoenicians sent out explorers to settle various area and even went beyond the Mediterranean sea in search of trade. They were known to go along the west coast of Africa, Spain and France. It is also believed that some settled in Ireland too. There is also a strong belief that the Phoenicians began to trade with Britain for tin, which was abundant in Cornwall. Some historians believe that the tin was traded for in the north west of France as a secondary seller, acting for south west Ancient Britain - a sort of middle man. However, if a seafaring race like the Phoenicians know that tin can be got across a channel of water, it is very likely that seafarers would go directly to the source once known. I, therefore, believe that the Phoenicians and probably Israelites travelling with them, might have came to Britain and traded for tin.

Phoenician Bireme used to travel across great seas

There are, of course, no written records in existence of Phoenicians visiting Britain because when Carthage fell, to the Roman Empire many of the historical writing of Phoenician explorers was lost in the destruction of the great city, long after the time of the great Phoenician trade routes and explorations.

Imagine what the Phoenicians might have thought of the Celtic Neolithic stones of Gaul, Ireland and Britain - especially Stonehenge, for I believe these Mediterranean traders would have seen such places. But then coming from lands of Pyramids and other great building feats of monumental achievement; perhaps the stones would not have been too amazing to such well travelled people.

The Phoenicians had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such trading vessels
scouring the seas for nations and trade

I try to visualise the scenes of Ancient Britain through the eyes of a Phoenician sailor or Jewish trader looking for things of interest to buy and sell. The lands of North West Europe would have seemed very lush green and densely forested - a raw untamed view of mystical Celtic Britain via the eyes of a first time visitor.

A Phoenician Trader might have chanced Britain's
rivers in certain areas.

The Leper King and Saladin the Great at War

2012-09-15T09:53:00.000-07:00

Baldwin IV 16 year old leper king at Montgisard

This blog is about Saladin the Great’s defeat, before his great victory that echoes throughout eternity. It is not derogatory of the great warrior Sultan, but tells the story of a gigantic incident that might have conditioned him better for future conflict. Many people of Europe know of the Crusades, but we fantasise and glory only in the victories and regard the Islamic forces in a dark and sinister light. However, it appears upon greater reflection, that the Crusaders and their Christian Holy war caused great mayhem and slaughter of life. There were heroes and antiheroes on both sides of the Crusader wars and much is viewed from bigoted perspectives on both sides. Let us pretend that all men are good and can be corrupted and amid such turmoil and confusion some people try hard to be good before God in whom, they believe. This could be said of many in the Crusader wars on either side of the colossal conflict that Islam eventually won.

Saladin the Great

Saladin the Great is a monument of Chivalry in Middle age history among many Europeans, even though he was an enemy of Europe’s Christian Crusader Kingdom. This is with good reason, of course as the Fatimid Caliphate that governed Jerusalem fell to the European Crusader Christians in 1099. This event drove a wedge through an Islamic territory of the Fatimid Egyptian ruled Caliphate that stretched across North Africa into Egypt, up through areas of Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and parts of Turkey, Syria and Iraq. It should be noted that over 70,000 Muslims and Jews were massacred by the Christian Crusaders and the violence of the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 AD was horrendous. Many of these wicked slayings were blamed upon Christian Franks.

Perhaps, for this reason – 88 years later, Saladin would not free the Franks that he captured when he retook Jerusalem in 1187, despite the pleas of Balian of Ibelin and the Patriarch of the defeated Crusader Christians. All others were given safe conduct to the ports, while the Franks went into slavery. These are of course things that happened before and after the first of Saladin’s conflicts, as Sultan, with the Crusader Kingdom’s celebrated leper King.

For many centuries, before the Western European Christian Crusaders came; there had been wars with the Byzantine Empire and Western Muslim Caliphates and Eastern Muslim Caliphates. All were wrestling for over dominance of the Holy land territories. Everything was mixed and confused within the Middle East – in other words; business as usual in the Holy Land.

When Saladin the Great was born in 1137 or 1138, the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem had existed for around 39 years – a rule of European immigrant Christians. This new born Islamic boy noble would one day become a great man and his name was Yusuf. The Muslim land of his birth bordered this conquered land where Christian Crusaders ruled and continuously tried to expand its Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Young Yusuf (Saladin the Great) grew up among a virtuous Islamic family of the eastern Caliphate ruled by Ayyubids. His birth place was Tikirt in Iraq. He would go through a great many periods of learning as a youngster and also was involved in political turmoil before he became Sultan of Egypt and Syria in 1174 aged about 36 or 37. This growing up and coming of age period was full of many notable events in the life of Saladin the Great. He would have been used to all the finery of a Royal Muslim within the finest and highest courts of the world of Islam – resplendent and gloried with fine architecture throughout the lands of the Middle East.

By the same example – yet in Christian courts, another young man was crowned King of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1174 and this Christian King would become an arch enemy, yet a respected foe. This strange young leper king would prove a worthy opponent of Saladin the Great as the new Sultan had to constructively come to terms with the difficulty that the Christian Crusader Kingdom presented to the new Ayyubid Caliphate. From the perspective of the Islamic Caliphate; the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem was an extremely aggressive and temperamental unwanted neighbour that had stolen territory.

At this time of 1174 AD the young Crusader Christian King of Jerusalem was just 13 years of age. He had been born in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but was a European Christian coloniser begot by Christian Crusader parents. His name was Baldwin and the young King was crowned King Baldwin IV. Many of the Crusader Christians of Jerusalem were extremely radical and fanatic in their Christian belief and found it difficult to compromise with any credence outside of their own. Part of their doctrines believed in humility and humbleness before God, which led to all sorts of twisted ways of regarding people – sometimes for good and sometimes for bad, depending on which perspective these Holy fighters choose to look at a circumstance.

Therefore it is possible that this 13 year old boy, who was very well educated, could be revered by zealot Christian warriors in a Holy way. These people who believed in the poverty and humbleness of their divine Jesus Christ looked at this blighted young 13 year old boy and regarded him as something special within the kingdom of Jerusalem. He was not expected to reign for long, but then many of the Holy men of Christendom had died young and supporting great Christian beliefs. The Crusaders looked at their 13 year old king stricken with leprosy and thought him divine before God and their Holy war and somehow fitting in the new Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Thus the confrontation was set, between the Islamic Sultan of Egypt and Syria – Saladin the Great and the young Crusader Christian King Baldwin IV (The Leper King). The new name that the Sultan was given ‘Saladin’ was an epithet bestowed upon him for his own rightness and devotion to God. His Islamic warriors and people looked upon the Christian leper king’s blight in a very different way to the Crusader Christians. To many of them it was a terrible judgement bestowed upon the Crusader kingdom through their young king.

For some time there were tensions and cross border raids, this was usual – even a planned naval attack with allied forces of the Byzantine Empire against Saladin in Egypt but nothing came of this. It was all just theory, plan and speculation. Then in 1177 word came to the court of the now 16 year old King Baldwin that Saladin was to launch an invasion from Egypt.

King Baldwin set out to meet Saladin suffering from the aggressive stages of leprosy that slowly ate away at his limbs and flesh, leaving hideous disfiguring deformities. Much of this unsightly blight was hidden beneath a knight’s attire of armour. It is also believed that he wore an elaborate mask too. He had a small number of devoted Templar knights and the leadership of his forces by the unhinged and testing Templar knight, Raynald of Châtillon who had just been released from 16 years of captivity in Syria. This man was supposed to be a fearsome monster of a Crusader warrior and is portrayed in a more cruel light in this day and age, though he was respected and revered by some Crusaders. To others – Crusader and Muslim alike; he was un-chivalrous, cruel and without charity of any kind. However, he was a fearsome opponent as many Muslims warriors had found out to great cost and just the man for the type of challenge that lay before the army of Jerusalem’s Crusader Kingdom.

Saladin the Great would not have earned the ‘Great’ part of his name at this time and his ill-deserved confidence on this occasion did little to show such promise of the great nemesis of the Crusaders, he would one day become. The Sultan led his army towards Jerusalem attacking various places on route. He knew of the young leper king and the small Crusader army of Templars that had been mustered, but he paid scant attention to the possibility of threat because his army was vast and overwhelmingly outnumbered the Templar knights. He did not suppose they would pursue nor have the audacity to attack him. Saladin allowed his army to spread out over a wide area and this was to prove a very big mistake indeed. It is often known that great men learn by their mistakes and become tempered by such things. Perhaps this makes them better prepared for future trials and tribulations and maybe this was so of Saladin when he came upon the young Crusader leper king and his Templar knights at the Battle of Montgisard.

Saladin was unaware of the rapid pursuit of the Crusaders along the coast. He had spread his army out into small groups to pillage and attack scattered locations and the small force he thought he needed to confront the leper king Baldwin IV was inadequate. At a place, sometimes known as Mons Gisardi, the Battle of Montgidard took place.

Saladin’s force was spread out and not in proper formation when the leper king’s Crusader army formed before them under a giant relic of a cross. In the desert heat and by the rolling sea of the coast, the Muslim army began to panic and hurriedly tried to form into battle order.

Among the Templar army of the Christian crusaders, the sick leper king, Baldwin IV was helped down from his horse where he knelt before the relic of the true cross and prayed for a victory. The 16 year old king’s leprosy was in aggressive and advanced stages, but he was seen by his Templar knights and put back upon his mount. He ordered and rode with the charge upon the disorderly Ayyubids army of Saladin.

It is believed that the Templar army numbered around 500 knights with several thousand foot soldiers, while Saladin's army was 26,000. This might not have been the entire amount that was present at Montgisard, because many had been dispersed over a wider area and would been raiding and pillaging elsewhere. The Crusaders fell upon the Muslim host with fierce violence and hacked and killed a great many. Amid the turmoil and confusion the young leper king fought fiercely with his bodyguards about him. His limbs were bandaged to hide the wounds and sores eating away at his blighted flesh and his armour would hide the disfigurement of his confounded condition.

Saladin began to see his bodyguards dwindling as they were systematically dispatched by the fanatical Crusaders. He only avoided capture with moments to spare when he managed to escape by swiftly retreating. The whole affair was a disaster for Saladin and his great Islamic army. His losses were estimated at 23,000. If this is all from the entire battle of Montgisard or perhaps including the mopping up of scattered raiding parties later, one can’t say for sure. However, it is believed that Saladin returned to Egypt with only 10% of his invasion force because 90% perished and most of these would have fallen at Montgisard.

The young Leper King Baldwin IV was propelled to divine status among the Templars of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. He was the darling boy king, stricken by leprosy yet still able to win victories and do God’s work in the eyes of all Christians that flocked to the Holy land on, what they believed, a sacred cause. This was the leper king’s glorifying moment in eternity and he would come up against Saladin again in the remaining eight years he had to live, for he would die from his illness in 1185. With his passing the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem would meet its demise in two years’ time when Saladin – wiser and cautious would reverse the tables and become the nemesis of the Crusader’s at the fall of Jerusalem in 1187.

Saladin would, prior to attacking Jerusalem, kill his arch enemy; Raynald of Châtillon after capturing the man at the Battle of Hattin. Saladin’s chivalry was highly regarded among many knights – Christian and Muslim alike, but he could be fierce and unmerciful to those who he decided were unworthy - Raynald of Châtillon was one such person.

Eventually Saladin's monument over shadowed that of the strange leper king – champion of the extinct Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem. Even in Western Europe where today, Saladin is widely known yet the leper king is like the vanquished Crusader kingdom - dust in the desert winds. Baldwin IV the leper king is probably better known among Muslims of the Middle East then he is by Europeans.

The Siege of Drogheda Ireland 1649

2012-09-15T09:49:00.000-07:00

Cromwell's New Model Army Arrive Drogheda 3rd September 1649

In 1649 a New Model Army (Roundheads) of the English Civil War landed in Ireland after becoming victorious over the English Royalist Army in a second and brief Civil War. They were very fundamental Protestants who had extreme religious views that were so radical; they executed their sovereign King Charles I to protect and enhance their beliefs and rule across the English nation. In a far- reaching move; the Puritan English had destroyed the Monarchy and formed a Republic based on, their believed view of, vital religious needs to run a good God-fearing nation. The English Civil War that had raged through the 1640s decade had come to a turbulent end. The start of ominous and new zealot type rule, taken to extremes, was about to begin in earnest, but a final and third effort still remained to the defeated English Royalist Army.

Some historians think this strange new Protestant Commonwealth of England was a step in the right direction for the English constitution which would develop from the monumental change that had happened, but the beginnings were very precarious and would cause another decade of harsh religious fanatical government. Not for just England but all of the Isles – Scotland, Wales, Ireland included – plus the American colonies that would also suffer under the Puritan cloud of law.

When the English Puritans did the unthinkable and executed King Charles I of the Scottish Stewart dynasty they sent shock waves throughout Europe and brought an end to the second English Civil War of 1648 – 1649. The third English Civil War would start because the eldest son of the late Charles I was in exile and waiting to claim his throne. He was King Charles II and he formed an alliance with the Irish Confederate Catholics which allowed the defeated soldiers of the English Royalist Army to join forces with soldiers of the Irish Confederate Catholics. It seems strange in this day and age to regard an English Republic fighting against Ireland in support of the Monarchy, but in a strange and haphazard way this was so.

The Protestant English and their New Model Army regarded Ireland as a land of heretic Catholics who had killed many Protestant Settlers in 1641 during a rebellion. Now these un-pure people were supporting the vanquished English monarchy – aiding un-pure Royalists who would side with such heretics to destroy the divine Puritan goal of the New English Commonwealth.

Oliver Cromwell – champion of the Parliamentary cause was now at the head of his New Model Army to destroy a third English Royalist Campaign and exact vengeance upon the conflicting Irish Confederate cause. Ireland was a land to be colonised in a new exodus of Protestant religious dispersal. In the eyes of the English Protestants; they were new crusaders and the Catholic Confederation was no better than a Caliphate blight of the Holy land during the Middle Ages in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. This was, of course in the eyes of zealot English Protestants, heady from victory over a monarchy – an old style of rule that had subjugated them. Now this unholy and unclean form of Christianity, supporting the old defunct ways, was in danger of destroying the hard won Puritan dream.

The New Model English Army of Roundheads would bring a nightmare of their own for trying to destroy their Puritan dream. This outlandish crusade would scream out in Irish history to this day and part of one of the many dreadful battles was; the Siege of Drogheda.

Cromwell and his New Model Parliamentary arrived outside of the walls of Drogheda on 3^rd of September 1649 and began to position his soldiers around the southern side of the walls. The Harbour was blockaded by Parliamentary ships. The city was cut off with 3,000 troops of the Irish Catholic Confederate and English Royalist Army under the command of Arthur Aston – a man who had seen campaigns in Europe among Swedes, Poles and Germans. He had also fought in the previous English Civil Wars. He believed if he could hold Drogheda, he would be reinforced by Royalist and Irish soldiers numbering 4,000 under the command of the Marquees of Ormonde. In this, Arthur Aston was to be sadly mistaken.

After two days, Cromwell received his 48 pounder 11 siege guns and had them dispersed in the relevant places to start bombarding the old walls of Drogheda. The guns opened fire and two breaches were formed before the Parliamentarians called upon the besieged forces to surrender. The commander of Drogheda, Arthur Aston refused and so the shelling continued.

On the 11^th September and the New Model Army infantry went in, trying to get through both breeches in the town’s old medieval wall. At the east breech of the wall, the Parliamentarians were beaten back by the Irish and English Royalist soldiers. However, in the south breech; the English Protestants, of Cromwell’s army, gained a foothold. The Royalist forces tried to counter attack but their leader, Colonel Wall was killed and the defenders then fell back allowing more Parliamentarians to flood into the breach. It was at this fierce fighting point that many of the soldiers of both sides fell in combat amid the rubble of the southern breach. Around 150 Parliamentary soldiers were killed, including Colonel Castle of the New Model Army.

After this more and more Parliamentary soldiers flooded into the town as the wall’s defenders retreated in panic. Arthur Aston with some English Royalist and Irish soldiers took refuge in Millmount Fort as the massacre of Drogheda began in terrible earnest by the English Parliamentary army. It is said that when Oliver Cromwell see many of his Roundhead soldiers lying dead within the rubble of the southern breach, he became enraged and gave the order for no quarter. The bloodlust of the attackers became uncontrollable and although the order was for all bearing arms, everyone they came across was being put to the sword. Of the 3,100 soldiers defending the city, 2,800 were killed and a further death toll of the town’s civilians numbered around 3,000 put to the sword. The carnage and slaughter must have been horrendous for all the inhabitants as they tried to flee in blind panic.

Arthur Ashton and his men at Millmount Fort watched the carnage in horror. The Parliamentarians could not breech their smaller fort without more and considerable effort, so when the slaughter began to abate, some thousands of deaths later; terms of safety were offered to the English Royalist and Irish soldiers under Arthur Aston. These terms were accepted and the remnant defenders in Millmount Fort were disarmed and taken to a mill close by.

Here another dreadful atrocity was performed by the English Protestants of the Parliamentarian Army. Arthur Aston was manhandled by his murderous captors and was believed to have been bludgeoned to death by his artificial wooden leg – his skull smashed in as he was left dead along with the rest of his murdered men – the group of defenders that surrendered after taking shelter in Millmount Fort.

Other areas of the town harboured defenders, including a church that was set alight. As the burning building began to collapse and the defenders tried to escape the burning church; they were killed by Parliamentary troops surrounding the place. In other areas where English Royalist and Irish soldiers surrendered; officers were put to death and one in every ten ordinary ranked soldiers were put to death as an example. The remaining survivors were sent to penal servitude in Barbados.

Many of the dead officers had their severed heads sent to Dublin and displayed upon spikes. The highest ranking defender to survive the massacre was named Richard Talbot – the future Earl of Tyrconnell. Why he was spared, is not really known for he was an Irish Royalist and later Jacobite soldier. Some think he escaped from the garrison before it fell.

The Siege of Drogheda is one of the foremost reasons why Oliver Cromwell is remembered, without affection, by many in Ireland to this day – his campaign from 1649 – 1653 left a terrible legacy that effortlessly stands the test of time in historical memory.

How Pope Urban II Started Crusades

2012-09-15T09:42:00.000-07:00

The Pope of 1095 opened the artery of faith across Europe and caused a great flow of people across the continent. The Holy War of the middle Ages lasted for almost two hundred years and caused a transformation in the Middle East for both Christian and Islamic cultures. Two of the world’s greatest religions came into bloody conflict and thousands upon thousands of people would perish during these violent and fanatical wars. Christian Crusaders would evolve into societies of warrior casts that would wage war upon all non-believers of Christian religion, while the Muslims would have Jihadi warriors of the same magnitude. During these Holy Wars, Christians would set up and create Christian Crusader states governed by Christian Kings, Dukes and Barons – all the ranks of European society would be enforced upon the Christian Crusader ruled provinces of the Middle East.

These Crusader Kingdoms and states would reach their height after the first hundred years until the retaking of Jerusalem by Saladin the Great of the Islamic rulers. But first the Latin Christian soldiers would push their Christian Crusader states forward carving a huge area of land out for themselves in the Middle East – mainly in the countries of today’s Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and parts of today’s Turkey, Syria and fringes of Egyptian territory too.

After the fall of Jerusalem, back to Islam, there were more crusades, but Jerusalem was never retaken. The Crusaders built strong castle fortifications of their own and were able to maintain rule over smaller areas of land along the coast. More crusades would come about, but eventually the Crusader kingdoms would become less influential.

During the high times of the Crusades, when all European Christians believed in the great religious odyssey, many kingdoms or principalities were formed in these heathen lands, colonised by Latin Christian Crusaders. These European invaders held devout conviction in their faithful vanity and what they were attempting seemed very just indeed. The kingdoms that arose and fell were as follows:

1. Edessa – a large area of land which was short lived in the First Crusade; lasting form 1098 – 1149. It was a large landlocked area east of the Euphrates.

2. Antioch – Principality of, lasted from 1098 -1268. This land was smaller than Edessa but lasted longer. This Crusader kingdom generated vast wealth. It was mainly controlled by Italian nobles who set up kingdom here during the First Crusade.

3. Jerusalem – the Kingdom of, the absolute jewel in the crown of the Crusader states. It lasted from 1099 – 1291, but went through a transformation during its almost two hundred years existence. The capitol Jerusalem fell in 1187 to Saladin the Great of the Ayyubid Islamic rulers and much of the Kingdom of Jerusalem came back under Islamic control until King Richard I of England reclaimed much back during the Third Crusade. Though the city of Jerusalem remained in Islamic control. The new capitol became Arce until 1291.

4. Tripoli – County of, lasted from 1109 – 1289. During the final days of this Crusader nation’s existence, they sent Crusaders to ally with invading Mongols. Because of this; the Islamic forces battling the Mongols, attacked and destroyed the County of Tripoli, ending the existence of Crusader rule that had been for one hundred and seventy years.

Pope Urban II Dynamic Speech and the Genesis of the Crusades

In the year of 1095, Pope Urban II (Head of the Holy Roman Empire) went to Clermont in France to stand before the council and the multitude of God fearing people who had flocked to see his holiness the Pope. This was during a time when Europe was divided by many feuding Lords and the Holy Roman church was in conflict with the German Empire. Also, there was the division between the eastern Christian factions of the Byzantine Empire competing against Holy Rome’s Latin western bloc of the Holy Roman Empire. All of this made Europe an unstable place to live compared to the advanced cultures in the Middle East and Asia. The one binding thing that Europe did have was its Christian religion that formed the backbone of all cultural ways – the one binding element of this clashing and fragmented society.

Pope Urban II was able to tap into the one thing that could unite all of these quarrelling factions and bring everyone together on a gargantuan quest. The speech, Pope Urban made, would send shock waves throughout all of Christian Europe and bring masses of people from all walks of life to answer the divine call of God. All Europeans believed such a monumental instruction to be from the Almighty, who spoke to them through the divine Pope Urban II. Everyone had been taught this from birth.

The peoples of Europe had been raised to believe that they were imperfect and that they had to lead a life of devotion to be considered by God in judgement when they died – everlasting paradise in Heaven if they lived well and devoted lives or eternal damnation and torment in the fires of Hell if they did not heed such instruction – depending on how they spent their mortal life was everything to all God fearing Christians. To abide by the Pope’s request was a way of achieving divine absolution and the promise of Heaven, doing God’s work as he spoke to the multitude through a human vassal upon Earth – His Holiness the Pope.

Before attending the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II had received a delegation in the northern Italian town of Piacenza. This delegation was from the Eastern Christian faction of the Byzantine Empire and was led by Byzantine Emperor Alexis I Komnenos and they brought news of Muslim Turks who were over running Byzantine territory and defiling all things Christian. The continuous conquest of Byzantine territory would spread into south Eastern Europe and perhaps extend onwards into the devoutly Christian continent. The one thing that all the feuding Lords had in common was absolute faith in their saviour and God. All heathens were to be resisted and crushed.

Under such belief and devotion one might imagine the small people of Europe gathering excitedly to see such an Iconic figure of a Pope – a man championed by Almighty God, standing before them in the flesh. Anything the Pope said would be true, to these people. If Pope Urban II could offer some form of salvation of their souls before God on judgement day; anyone would be eager to do what ever they could before God. Pope Urban II would not disappoint the crowd as he began to address the masses before him. Part of what he said, is as follows:

Most beloved brethren: Urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God chief bishop and prelate over the whole world, have come into these parts as an ambassador with a divine admonition to you, the servants of God. I hoped to find you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be. But if there is in you any deformity or crookedness contrary to God's law, with divine help I will do my best to remove it. For God has put you as stewards over his family to minister to it. Happy indeed will you be if he finds you faithful in your stewardship. You are called shepherds; see that you do not act as hirelings. But be true shepherds, with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults-, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death. For according to the gospel you are the salt of the earth [Matt. 5:13]. But if you fall short in your duty, how, it may be asked, can it be salted? O how great the need of salting! It is indeed necessary for you to correct with the salt of wisdom this foolish people which is so devoted to the pleasures of this -world, lest the Lord, when He may wish to speak to them, find them putrefied by their sins unsalted and stinking. For if He, shall find worms, that is, sins, in them, because you have been negligent in your duty, He will command them as worthless to be thrown into the abyss of unclean things. And because you cannot restore to Him His great loss, He will surely condemn you and drive you from His loving presence. But the man who applies this salt should be prudent, provident, modest, learned, peaceable, watchful, pious, just, equitable, and pure. For how can the ignorant teach others? How can the licentious make others modest? And how can the impure make others pure? If anyone hates peace, how can he make others peaceable? Or if anyone has soiled his hands with baseness, how can he cleanse the impurities of another? We read also that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch [Matt. 15:14]. But first correct yourselves, in order that, free from blame, you may be able to correct those who are subject to you. If you wish to be the friends of God, gladly do the things which you know will please Him. You must especially let all matters that pertain to the church be controlled by the law of the church. And be careful that simony does not take root among you, lest both those who buy and those who sell [church offices] be beaten with the scourges of the Lord through narrow streets and driven into the place of destruction and confusion. Keep the church and the clergy in all its grades entirely free from the secular power. See that the tithes that belong to God are faithfully paid from all the produce of the land; let them not be sold or withheld. If anyone seizes a bishop let him be treated as an outlaw. If anyone seizes or robs monks, or clergymen, or nuns, or their servants, or pilgrims, or merchants, let him be anathema [that is, cursed]. Let robbers and incendiaries and all their accomplices be expelled from the church and anthematized. If a man who does not give a part of his goods as alms is punished with the damnation of hell, how should he be punished who robs another of his goods? For thus it happened to the rich man in the gospel [Luke 16:19]; he was not punished because he had stolen the goods of another, but because he had not used well the things which were his.

Christian Europe gathers for the Grand Religious Quest

There was, of course, a great deal more to the long speech that captivated the crowd. The word spread and peoples from all parts of Europe flocked to do God’s work upon a grand adventure in the Holy Land where their saviour Jesus Christ had been born and lived – the very place where he was martyred by the Roman overlords and Jewish religious leaders.

In 1096, Lords and Barons across Europe sold their land and possessions to form armies complete with squires and other ranks. All this to fund their campaign in the Holy land. Peasants of all social ranks packed up and marched alongside the grand processions of knights and soldiers and they left towns all over Europe amid cheering crowds who formed to give all a rapturous send of. Men, women and children marched across Europe in scattered processions bound for the Holy Land. Many so poor they could not afford the cost of ship passage across sea. So they walked down through main Europe and towards the Balkans into Greece and finally, the City of Constantinople – the edge of the known Christian world and capitol of the Byzantine Empire. Upon the way they attacked Jewish communities killing and burning property while charged up with religious zeal and fanaticism.

All of these scattered new Christian Crusader armies began to meet at the great Byzantine city and numbered over 100,000 people ready to do the Christian work of God, in whom they all devoutly believed. Of course not all of these travelling people were knights or soldiers. They came from various walks of life and some very humble in social standing. All shared in the belief of doing God’s will in the Holy Land. This was against an enemy believing in the Islamic work of God in whom all Muslim people devoutly believed. Two of the greatest religions in the world believing in God, but with different ways of worship. And then there was the Hebrews too, who also believed in God without prophets. It might be said that the Middle East was already a place of confusion without the arrival of fanatical Christian Crusaders. But then we can look at things today from a liberal perspective. Such a view was beyond these masses of indoctrinated peoples – gathered in their multitude of thousands upon thousands and with more to come in the future – a mass exodus of Christian Europeans flooding into the Middle East to claim their Holy Land above all and to detriment of all else.

The Byzantine Emperor must have looked upon the Latin Christian Exodus, outside of Constantinople’s walls, with great trepidation for he had, in the past, come into conflict with Latin Christians who were not always consolatory to the orthodox Christianity of the Byzantine. Now, in 1097, he had 30,000 plus Christian Crusader soldiers with all manner of others making up the 100,000 camped outside of Constantinople and in need of food and supplies. Emperor Alexios had a serpent by the tail and wanted to be rid of it. He needed a substantial army to fight the Muslim Turks who threatened the Byzantine Empire and the multitude of Latin zealots would do nicely, but he did not want to lead this Crusade of Latin Christian forces that were flocked outside his great city. He needed to ferry them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor and basically let them lose upon the Muslim Turks. In exchange for food and supplies he wanted assurances from the Crusader knights that Byzantine territories, won back from Islamic rule, would be returned into the Byzantine Empire. This was agreed and the efforts of ferrying the multitude across the Bosporus began for control of the Latin Crusaders was getting more difficult as Constantinople’s citizens were becoming vexed and intolerant of the western Crusader immigrants.

When the multitude of Crusaders landed upon the Asia Minor side of the Bosporus, they began their march into the Holy Land with two of Emperor Alexios’ Generals and some Byzantine soldiers. These combined forces of Crusaders and Byzantines marched upon the city of Nicaea – a stronghold that was formally Byzantine but was now (in 1097) under Islamic control. The Muslim king Kilij Arslan I was not present at the time for he was campaigning against another Islamic kingdom and paid little heed to the Crusaders. This Muslim king underestimated the potential of the Crusader invasion force.

The first Crusaders began to arrive before the walls of Nicaea in early May of 1097 and by 16^th they put the city under siege. Forces were stationed all around the city walls but Nicaea was by a lake and the inhabitants could receive supplies this way. Many of the Crusaders lacked food and provisions and requests were sent back to Constantinople for replenishment. By this time many of the Crusaders were falling to sickness and malnutrition while before them stood the first of many quests – a vast stronghold with over 200 towers. Among the Crusaders were Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemund of Taranto, Raymond IV of Toulouse, Robert II of Flanders and a strange priest from Amiens called Peter the Hermit. This also included the two Byzantine Generals and their forces. Nicaea was once in the Byzantine Empire and Emperor Alexios wanted the city back.

An army of Turks rod out of the city to engage the Crusader and Byzantine forces but were driven back with severe losses. The Islamic defenders then sent word to their absent king, Kilij Arslan to return with all haste to Nicaea. When King Kilij Arslan realised the extent of the Christian Crusader forces capability; he hastily returned to attack the enemy. He was met by the Crusaders and defeated in a pitched battle that lasted for some time. Many soldiers were killed on both sides but the Crusaders came away from the confrontation victorious.

Nicaea was left to face the Crusader blockade. A huge siege tower was built by the Crusaders and moved forward to take one of the city’s defence towers. The castle tower was damaged but the Muslim defenders held firm. The Byzantine Emperor Alexios I arrived behind the Crusaders with boats that had been rolled across land. These were put into the lake and were able to obstruct Nicaea from receiving supplies. By this time it was mid-June and the siege had been going on for six weeks and almost seven since the first invading forces arrived.

Secretly, and without Crusader knowledge, Emperor Alexios sent his Byzantine emissaries to Nicaea to parley with the Muslim defenders, persuading them that it would be better to surrender to the Byzantines then the Crusaders. This was done and efforts were made by the Crusaders to attack the city walls. When they breached them alongside Byzantine soldiers they found the city was already surrendered to Byzantine Emperor Alexios I. The Crusaders were not allowed into the city for fear of them taking revenge and causing mass slaughter. Only small accompanied Crusader groups went in on a few occasions. In short, the Crusaders were thanked by the Byzantine Empire and sent on their merry way into the Holy land to take what they wanted in the name of Latin Christian Crusaders and their view of God.

The first Crusaders lacked the later dress code of others that became established in later years, but this first exodus had to endure terrible hardship. After leaving Nicaesa, the Crusader army and its, by now, wretched followers split in two. The Norman led contingent with some of the French knights led one expedition. These two groups (Norman and French) agreed to meet at a place called Dorylaeum. They marched eastwards deeper into today’s Syria.

Finding the Crusader State County of Edessa

The Norman contingent went out first and began to march towards Dorylaeum across harsh terrain. They lacked the water and food needed for the quest. Many of the animals brought along had perished unable to tolerate the type of climate and conditions of the Middle East. A large number of the Knights had lost their mounts because they had died on journey and many of the followers – men, women and children had passed away too. Families that had sought a new life in the Holy Land had fallen to the harsh reality of the immense undertaking of the Crusade. By this time, the Crusaders had become a rag-taggle mob under the guidance of Lords and Barons that had given up land and wealth in Europe to go upon the demanding quest. However, these Crusaders that remained still held true to the one binding thing they had left – their devout belief in the Christian way of worshipping God and that nothing came without harsh penance. The more they might endure, the greater the redemption before God.

The new test before this Norman and French crusade, moving east, would be another Turkish army led by Kilij Arslan who had gathered more Jihadi warriors since his defeat trying to break the Siege of Nicaea. He had gained allies and was able to unleash fine Turkish horse bowmen who could ride swiftly and unleash arrows into the Crusader column as they tried to travel towards Doryleaum. Many hundreds were killed among the Crusaders and eventually, the Norman led Knights were forced to form defencive formations to hold off the Turks, while word was sent back to the French Crusader contingent to make haste and come to their aid.

All of the less well armed Christian foot soldiers and none-fighting citizens (women and children) were able to get inside the shielded Crusader knight formations. The Turkish horsemen galloped in close and unleashed arrows before retiring and coming back to do the same manoeuvre. Because of the Norman defencive arrangement of shield walls was needed to protect the rank and file; the Crusaders were unable to counter attack. The quick hit and run of the Turkish horsemen also made it difficult to inflict casualties upon the Jihadi warriors too. It was developing into a stalemate because the Turks were unable to do much damage to the fighting knights, though they did inflict casualties upon Christian foot soldiers and other Christian civilian migrants – also horses. This type of fighting went on for many hours with Turks galloping in at close range and unleashing arrows then galloping off before the Crusaders could counter attack. The Crusaders would not break ranks and held firm in the blistering heat stubbornly defending their ranks to the best of their ability.

During the day groups of French Crusader knights galloped through the Turkish ranks to reinforce the defencive formation of Norman Crusaders. The relief column was on its way, but small groups galloped ahead in support of their Norman allies and fellow Christian Crusader brethren. Many of the reinforcements were unhorsed and killed by the Turks who tried to prevent the small scattered groups from breaking through towards the besieged Norman defence.

Realising that more Crusaders would be coming to aid the surrounded Crusader army, the Turks became more aggressive and began to push the Crusader Norman defence back into marshes.

While the Turkish Jihadi warriors devoted their efforts to this, the French Crusader contingent arrived in force and attacked the flank of the Muslim horseman. This allowed the Norman contingent to rally while the Turks went into confusion. The Turks did manage to reorganise themselves but only temporarily as another group of Crusaders led by a papal envoy attacked their encampment and put it to the torch.

The Turkish forces retired from the field leaving the Crusaders with victory. The will of the Kilij Arslan and his Muslim soldiers was broken by this staunch Crusader defiance, though the fighting effectiveness of Kilij Arslan and the Turkish horsemen remained.

The Crusaders continued their journey through Anatolia but Kilij Arslan had adopted a scorched earth policy, which caused further hardship upon the Crusaders as they made towards Armenian lands in the Euphrates and a city called Edessa. Among this Crusader force was a man called Baldwin of Boulogne. Through his late wife he had lost all that he owned in Europe and there remained nothing for him to return home to. He decided to acquire a fiefdom for himself in the lands of Armenia. He gained influence among the nobility of Edessa and inherited rule after the mysterious death of the unpopular orthodox ruler. Thus the County of Edessa came about – a Crusader Kingdom principality – others would follow.

The Crusader State Principality of Antioch

A second force that left Nicaea marched south towards the great city of Antioch. This Crusader force was led mainly by Italian nobles though there were Crusaders from other lands too. Because so many of the knights had lost horses, the Christian knights were using all sorts of beasts to carry them – mules, donkeys and ox. The people of Antioch must have thought the Crusaders rather wretched. The city was so vast that the Crusaders could not possibly surround the great walls completely. Therefore it was relatively easy for the city to be resupplied, especially by sea.

For eight months the siege went on and the Christian forces outside of Antioch were suffering from lack of food and water, yet still they remained – hoping for something to come their way – something divine perhaps. During this time, the Crusaders were forced to defeat two Islamic armies sent to relieve Antioch. In these two confrontations the Crusaders were victorious and then in March of 1098, a Crusader fleet arrived with supplies for the Christian troops outside the walls of Antioch.

In the following May, a third Muslim force was moving towards Antioch to relive the people of the great city. They were made up of combined Muslim factions and were led by a man called Kerbogha. However one of the Crusader’s Italian nobles, Bohemund of Taranto, had won over an Armenian orthodox Christian within the ranks of the Muslim defenders inside the City of Antioch. This traitor allowed a small force of Crusaders to climb the walls and dispatch the guards upon the battlements. They then got to the city gates and opened them, allowing the waiting Crusader horde to enter the city during the night. With swords drawn the fanatical Christian zealots charged into the streets of Antioch in their thousands intent on bloody murder of all Muslim and Jews – women and children of the none Christian inhabitants were to be given no quarter either.

What followed was nothing short of vile murder and mayhem as the Christian Crusaders screamed, “God wills it, God wills it.” All that came before them were hideously butchered as the killing and slaughter went on for days. Almost all of the inhabitants perished in the bloody murder and mayhem that ensued.

Then after a few days of taking the city, the Crusaders found themselves under siege by the arrival of Kerbogha and his Islamic army. The Crusaders were now in a dire situation. They had butchered almost everyone and could not negotiate terms. The Muslims wanted to put them to the sword the way, their brethren of Antioch had perished – they wanted bloody revenge upon the Christians Crusaders for what had been done.

Visionary or Charlatan

Among the Christian Crusaders in Antioch was a soldier/mystic/layman named Peter of Bartholomew who claimed to have had visions in his dreams. This Frenchman told of Saint Andrew taking him to the church of Saint Peter in Antioch where the lance that had stabbed Christ upon the cross was buried. Many were sceptical of the mystic’s vision but he and a group of people began to dig within the church of Saint Peter until word came of an incredible find – a spear head that fitted such a vision, though many including a papal envoy, believed Peter Bartholomew had planted the spearhead himself.

In desperation the Crusaders came out of the city of Antioch bearing this Holy relic and they met the Muslim forces of Kerbogha in open battle. Against the odds, the Crusaders won the battle and drove the Muslim army off in disarray. Many historians believe that the Muslims forces were not as united as seemed and that there were different warlords in charge of different factions. These were easily fragmented during the battle and maybe the find of the Holy lance might have spurred the Crusaders on causing a placebo effect and belief in their divine ability. Whatever the reason, another great victory had been won and the Crusaders believed this to be God’s will.

The papal envoy still doubted the authenticity of Peter Bartholomew’s vision and find. In desperation, the Frenchman called for a trial by ordeal – a medieval trail by ordeal. A great bonfire was built and Peter Bartholomew fasted for days leading up to the event. On the night of the trial by ordeal, the bonfire cauldron was lit and Peter Bartholomew entered the gauntlet of flames carrying the lance. There are different points of view written from eye witness accounts; some who believed in Peter Bartholomew and those who did not.

He emerged from the other side of the flaming gauntlet on fire and blistering. He fell to the floor alive but badly burnt and injured from the flaming ordeal. His believers viewed it as a sign of success, even though he died a martyr several days later from his injuries. Of course his doubters needed to say no more. He was a charlatan in their eyes.

Bohemund of Taranto kept Antioch for himself – a fiefdom of his own taken by somewhat dubious means. Perhaps God helped those who helped themselves. Thus the Crusader Principality of Antioch was created with Bohemund as its first Prince.

The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem

Many stayed at Antioch and the remaining Crusader who pushed on towards the prize goal of all, found little resistance along the way. Many towns surrendered on terms rather than fight the Crusaders. They were fed at these places as the pushed on towards Jerusalem, the most holy of all cities.

The depleted forces that arrived in summer 1099 were too few in numbers to surround and lay siege to the large city. The numbers, by now, were just 12,000. Of the original Crusade only one in ten remained. Many had perished, some had gone to Edessa with Baldwin of Boulogne, others remained at Antioch with Bohemund and a great many had perished in the battles and from illness. Those that remained were probably the most fanatical and resilient of all however, and the Fatimid of Egypt, who ruled Jerusalem, would not surrender to the Christian zealots who had marched across the Middle East to stand before the walls of the great ancient city. The Fatimid rulers knew the Crusader’s numbers were reduced and perhaps the fire of faith was less fierce now with so few numbers?

Despite all of this the Crusaders began to stubbornly assault the walls of the great city but were easily repulsed. Engineers arrived with timber to build siege engines, and a holy priest was present too. He told of a vision in which all should walk around the city of Jerusalem in bare feet and wait for the walls to fall down. The way of such a happening to the city of Jericho - a biblical event. The ceremony was performed and ended with an argument concerning such an act in the first place. Then news came of a Fatimid relief force making way from Egypt.

In the mid July, Jerusalem was attacked again by the Crusaders – one force at the gates while another force tried to scale the walls. By now the Christian forces were getting desperate, knowing that the Fatimid Caliphate had sent this new army to relieve the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem. The desperate struggle went on for two days until a force of Crusaders captured a rampart of one of the city walls. Across Jerusalem, the defenders abandoned the walls and retreated into the city streets and dwellings. This allowed the Crusaders to gain access in many parts of the ancient and holy city of Jerusalem.

What followed was a slaughter that reverberated throughout history to this very day. It is believed by most, that the massacre was extremely violent and even Muslims that were talked into surrender were killed the following day. They were offered protection if they surrendered when a Crusader stopped the killings at Al-Aqsa Mosque. The terrified Muslims agreed to this, but all were subsequently murdered on the following day.

Jews were burnt alive in a synagogue, killed in the streets and their dwellings and where ever the wretched and terrified people of Jerusalem walked or ran; the Crusaders could kill indiscriminately with no fear of retribution. This went on for almost two days and those Muslims and Jews, who remained alive, were taken prisoner and ransomed.

From this violent capturing of Jerusalem by the Christian Crusaders; the new Christian Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem came about. There was some argument about how a leader might be chosen. It came to a man called Godfrey after Raymond of Toulouse turned down the offer. He was not called king at first but soon became known as the King of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The first test came within weeks as the Fatimid Army from Egypt consisting of 30,000 Jihadi warriors marched towards Jerusalem. The Crusader Kingdom might perish before it could get started. All attempts at brokering a peace were rejected by the Fatimid Vizier, al-Afdal Shahanshah, who led the Islamic forces.

As the Fatimid Army of Jihadi warriors camped close to the city of Ascalon, they were unaware they had been observed by Crusader spies. Godfrey of Boullion had left Jerusalem to confront the Muslim army with 1,200 knights and 9,000 foot soldiers. His Crusader army came upon the Islamic forces and took them by surprise. The Battle of Ascalon was quick and the Muslim forces were quickly routed though many escaped into the city walls of Ascalon. The Vizier, al-Afdal Shahanshah, escaped back to Egypt aboard a boat.

The Crusaders plundered the abandoned came and returned to Jerusalem, from where they prepared to defend their new and coveted Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over by their grand Crusader Godfrey – King of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

For many of the rank and file foot soldiers that had endured the long and testing quest; they must have finally felt complete before God in Heaven. They had done right according to their Christian doctrines and fore filled Pope Urban II’s great request – the supreme message from God. Many of these laymen would return to Europe sure in the knowledge that God in Heaven would grant them redemption. Many would become Lay priests – not daring to go out into society and become corrupted by wrong. They had achieved their spiritual goal and might maintain it throughout mortal life with further devotion in monasteries, for Crusaders would be respected in all European Christendom’s for many centuries to come. These men that had done bloody murder in the name of Christian God, were pure and would surely go to Heaven for doing such Godly work in the Holy Land.

It is quite frightening when we take a step back and look at things from a liberal point of view. It is an indulgence in this day and age, but we can do this, none the less. Many of these Crusader men thought they were pious and right before God and firmly believed they were doing just things. Many must have been good men, yet they had slaughtered and killed civilian people in faraway cities because they believed them evil and ungodly – entire masses of people indoctrinated to do such things begs belief, yet the achievements of these driven Crusaders was frighteningly immense.

It is all gone now – what remains is dust in the desert wind.

Baibars Destroys the Christian Crusader Kingdoms

2012-09-15T01:18:00.000-07:00

Mumluks were Slave Society of Soldiers

1. The Number of Crusades

Historically listed Crusades usually run from 1^st to 9^th.However, there were other more minor expeditions that historians don’t always count – the reason being that a sub expedition could have formed from one main crusade. Also a small undertaking, of crusader origin, may have gone upon a quest during the time of the 1^st to the 9^th official Crusades. An example might be seen from the 1^st Crusade when the Crusader army split in two after capturing Nicaea for the Byzantine Empire. One group went east into the Euphrates and claimed much of today’s Armenia, while another group went to Antioch and on to Jerusalem. I suppose one might say the First Crusade had two expeditions, but they were all really part of the first. It depends how certain historians report things. Generally, there were nine crusades with many minor ones within, on different quests, over the almost 200 year period of the Christian Crusader Kingdoms existence.

Sometimes the 5^th and 6^th Crusades by Frederick II are counted as one and the 8^th by Louis IX and Prince Edward’s march to Antioch of the same time counts as the 9^th. Sometimes 8^th and 9^th are labelled as one too.

2. Division Among the Crusaders and Gradual Decline of influence.

By the 1260s, the Christian Crusader States were beginning to lose influence. Many of the pilgrims that came to the Holy land on quests to do God’s work (as they believed) would return home after completing their pilgrimage. The new comers were often very indiscriminate when killing. (That’s not to say the coloniser Christians were not) Often the visiting Crusaders left behind captured lands that could not be held. They could not always grasp this reality and did not consider the Christian Europeans that settled in the Holy Land. Some were born and raised in the Crusader Kingdoms and never saw Europe. These Middle Eastern born Caucasian settlers realised that some of the pilgrims from Europe, who sought to do Christian God’s work, could not comprehend the reality of holding some of the possessions gained upon Crusade quests.

The settled Crusader colonists that lived in the Middle East began to develop an understanding of the ways of Muslims and Jews culturally. They even dressed like them and had the same diet. They had become people of the Middle East and to a degree, assimilated themselves to certain understandings. They had developed, where as visiting Crusader pilgrims had not because the newly arrived perspective of the traveller was defined in much more basic ways of Medieval Christian Good and Evil in the European point of view. Their world was narrow and clearly defined. Over decades of time, there would have developed factions among settled Christians. Visiting Crusader Christians were trying to cleanse their sins by doing religious quests before returning to Europe as new pious people – respected and revered by the populations of Europe – even if they had done bloody murder in the name of God.

During the 3^rd Crusade; Richard the Lionheart had this problem when he marched upon Jerusalem in the hope of retaking the city captured by Saladin the Great at the end of the 2^nd Crusade. He was caught by the divisions of Christian colonists and the Crusader pilgrims who were more enthusiastic to take the Holy city of Jerusalem. The settled Christians argued they could not keep hold of Jerusalem when the Crusader tourists went home upon completion of their religious undertaking. The permanent Christian habitants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem wanted to consolidate the gains of the seaport cities like Acre and Jaffa. They were confident of holding the narrow strip by the sea. After two failed moves upon Jerusalem, Richard the Lionheart gave up on the idea of retaking the holy city. He returned to Jaffa and then marched back towards Acre – the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s new Capitol.

Saladin the Great did try to take an initiative. He came out of the city of Jerusalem with his Muslim soldiers and attacked Jaffa to retake the sea port stronghold. Perhaps he thought the Lionheart had lost his enthusiasm. Such was not so for Richard – a touring Crusader. The English king turned and sped back from Acre at the head of an army and defeated the Muslims forces of Saladin at Jaffa. A volatile peace came about and Richard returned home to England – his Crusade complete – his sins gone before God by decree of the Pope. King Richard the Lionheart, would perish fighting in France while Saladin passed away six months after the treaty – his Islamic forces remaining in control of Jerusalem.

The narrow strip of land containing The County of Armenia, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and the Kingdom Jerusalem would carry on in existence into the 13^th century. There would be other Crusades and more trials and tribulations, but during the 1270s other events would come about that Muslims or Christian Crusaders could not have foreseen.

3. The Great Failure of the 7^th Crusade

During the7^th Crusade led by King Louis IX of France the campaign met with a terrible disaster, after some initial success. They attacked Egypt and tried to overthrow ruling Ayyubid Caliphate that had a vast army of slave soldiers called Mumluks. The Crusaders wanted to destroy the effectiveness of the Ayyubid dynasty – removing a source of Muslim aid in the Crusader Kingdoms. This unusual Crusade came about because, in the past, whenever Crusader ventures began to get too successful; the ruling Sultan of the Ayyubid Caliphate would send an Islamic Army to thwart Christian Crusader ambitions.

If Egypt – the richest Islamic land in the Middle East could be destroyed, future Crusades might be much more ambitious and achieve greater gains. A grand plan was derived by the Christian nobles of Europe. King Louis IX of France mortgaged his entire kingdom to go upon this great Crusade to destroy the Caliphate in Egypt. The cost of such a venture was estimated at the equivalent of £2 million in the year 1248. During this time France’s national yearly income was equivalent of £250,000 per year. This 7^th Crusade cost eight years of yearly national French income.

The idea of this grand plan, to attack Egypt instead of driving deeper towards Iraq or Syria seemed sound in theory. Also the cost of the Crusade could be reimbursed by the riches the Ayyubid Caliphate of Egypt would yield, when conquered and made into a Crusader Kingdom. For the Crusades; the Ayyubid Caliphate, which ruled from Egypt to Syria, had always been the stumbling block that countered the success of the Crusades. Under Saladin the Great the Islamic peoples had become united against Christian Crusaders, even retaking Jerusalem in 1187 AD. The Crusader Kingdoms needed to reignite the Crusade quests as interest from Europe began to wane.

This 7^th Crusade became a monumental disaster which resulted in a terrible defeat for the Crusaders. The invasion of Egypt went well preliminary, but as the Crusaders tried to march upon Cairo and met with disaster. The Ayyubid Sultan passed away during this time, but the Egyptian forces had a great army comprised of slave soldiers. They were known as Mumluks and among them was a young soldier that would win renown. He was called Baibars and he led an army that defeated and captured King Louis IX of France at the Battle of Fariskur in 1250. The French king was in a wretched state, suffering from dysentery. His ransom was a vast amount of money and although his Crusade was a failure he was made into a Saint by Rome.

4. Rise of the Mulmluks

The Mumluk Slave soldier society had seized the Caliphate away from the Ayyubids for themselves upon the death of the last Ayyubid Sultan and Baibars was a high ranking soldier within the Mumluk Society. He had been captured by the Mongols as a youngster upon the steppes in Crimea. He was fair skinned and blue eyed. He was sold into slavery at a young age and had risen within the soldier ranks of the Mumluks.

Baibars is hardly known in the West, which is unusual, for this Mumluk would one day become Sultan of the entire Caliphate. The Mumluks had seized power during a time when new unfolding consequences were happening – a new fighting power was invading from the east. The Crusader Kingdom States would be relegated to minor prominence during the new emergency of the Middle East.

The Mongols wanted control of the Middle East and were ambitious enough to attack the new Caliphate of the Mumluks. The Mongols tried to broker peace alliances with the Crusader Kingdoms and so too did the Mumluks. Even though, the Crusader Kingdoms were constantly fighting the Islamic nations, they saw the new Mongol threat as being more serious. They tried to stay out of the fray, allowing the Mumluks to travel through Crusader lands to fight the Mongols. This resulted in the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. Despite heavy losses on the side of the Mumluks; they managed to completely defeat and destroy the Mongol army. This was a gigantic victory and thwarted Mongol ambitions of conquering Egypt.

This prestigious victory by Sultan ad-Din Qutuz also called time on the Christian Crusader Kingdoms. Baibars became Sultan soon after the defeat of the Mongols when Sultan ad-Din Qutuz died in mysterious circumstances while hunting. Baibars became the new Sultan and turned his attention to Acre the Crusader Capitol of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

5. Beginning of the End for the Crusader States.

In 1263, Baibars attacked Acre, the capitol of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but was unable to take it. Instead he moved north to confront a new Mongol army, but the intended invasion never came. Baibars had this vast army at his disposal so he decided to put it to another use – rid the Middle East of all Crusader Kingdoms. The Crusader County of Armenia was closest, and thus in 1266 Baibars decided to invade. He took the Christian fiefdom for Islam.

Many of the Christians captured were put to death. Baibars then moved upon the Principality of Antioch in 1268. He took the great city but despite assurance of fair treatment; he put vast numbers of the stronghold's inhabitants to death. From here he went to the kingdom of Tripoli and tried to do the same in 1271. This siege was brought to a halt when Baibars had to seek a truce to stop the Crusaders allying with the Mongols. He had caused a 9^th Crusade by trying to systematically destroy the Crusader Kingdoms. Christian forces from Europe landed in Acre to combat the Mumluk slaughter in the Crusader Kingdoms. This new truce only protected what was left of the Crusader Kingdoms. This truce would only buy a little more time for the Crusader lands.

These were the last and final bloody times of the Crusader Kingdoms. After Baibars burned and slaughtered his way north to south along the Christian Crusaders coastal strip of Christian colony lands - showing no mercy to anyone that stood in the way of the Mumluk Caliphate; the Crusaders became no more than a declining third party of power. The two big heavy weights were the Mumluk Caliphate and the Mongol Empire.

Tripoli fell in 1289 for showing interest in siding with the Mongols. Islam exacted revenge and stormed the Crusader stronghold ending Christian rule there. Acre, the capitol of the Kingdom of Jerusalem went the same way in 1291. From this time onwards, Christian Crusader rule was virtually none existent – fading away into obscurity throughout the Middle East.

Collections of Rome's Invasion

2012-09-12T13:02:00.002-07:00

Cassivellanus 55 BC

Cassivellanus was a British war chieftain who caused considerable trouble for Julius Caesar’s Roman army while campaigning against Vercingetorix of Gaul. Not much is known of him (Cassivellanus) but his impact is marked by Roman historians who made him famous in ancient history for a short time. He won Julius Caesar’s attention – enough to cause a side show campaign during the vicious Roman conquest of Gaul. It is important to know that Romans often make an opponent immense. This is to make their victories sound more considerable.

From the years of 58 BC to 51 BC, Julius Caesar led his Roman army in a huge campaign against Gaul (Today’s France). This was a long war against (Gaul Chieftain) Vercingetorix. To the north of Gaul was the Celtic island of Britain which was strewn with many small feudal nations like Gaul. The tribes of Gaul had become united under the one Vercingetorix leading the sub chieftains of the Gaul nations against Julius Caesar’s Roman army. For three years this hard fought war had been raging and the Roman Empire appeared to have a difficult task subjugating the Gaul resisters.

In Britain, there was trade with Gaul and a strong affinity with the people. Many of the Druids of Gaul were schooled in the religion in Britain – the cultures of Britain and Gaul were the same and the Roman invasion must have caused the Britons to be extremely weary of this strange Empire. As an island perhaps other Britons had an ill deserved confidence of defence, but maybe men like the strange character called Cassivellanus could see the writing on the wall. He could have wanted to aid Vercingetorix of Gaul, or emulate him. This might have brought Cassivellanus into conflict with many chieftains of the feudal British nations – men that were happy with the continuing trade with Gaul and perhaps the Romans too. These Gaul/British tradesmen must have had some apathy towards Rome while people within Gaul fought the Latin invader. I say this because they seemed to still trade, even when Rome was policing some of the ports. It could also mean that some of the sea traders were not of Gaul but other far flung lands. Whatever the reasons, industry and commerce continued and with this; news and speculation were mixed with the shipping cargoes.

In the third year of the Gaul campaign (55 BC) concern was brought to Julius Caesar’s camp when a group of Britons led by a Chieftain came before him. The chieftain’s Latin name was Mandubracius and he was a feudal leader of a tribe called the Trinovantes. They came from the Essex area of today’s England in the south east and just north of the river Thames. Mandubracius had been usurped from his lands because of a Cassi warrior called Cassivellanus. Although Cassivellanus is believed to have been of the Cassi tribe; other members of the Cassi were with the Trinovante leader (Mandubracius) when he went before Julius Caesar with his news and plea for Roman help. In Britain there was a new man taking charge – one potentially unfriendly to Rome and supportive of Vercingetorix. (Maybe)

It is possible that Cassivellanus might have been a rogue chieftain that sprang up by such means of virtue. Perhaps he won support by voicing the trials and tribulations of Gaul against Rome, and Britain would be next. He may have portrayed other chieftains as being lacklustre in their aid of the Gauls, who were brethren to the Britons. We only have Roman scholar’s writings about the man, but it is fair to assume he was politically motivated rather than an opportunistic conqueror. What was happening in Gaul, at the time, would surely have been big news from the sea traders and perhaps Gaul migrants fleeing the tribulation.

It is also unlikely that the name Cassivellanus was his real name, but one that was attributed to him by the Romans and used by their writing historians of the age. Some believe that his name could have been a title that lends this character; Cassivellanus further peculiarity – a strange enigma of a chieftain. He might have been Vellanus of the Cassi. (Obviously Vellanus is a Latin name and not Celtic). The word ‘vellanus’ can mean good or excellent – something high and meaningful.

It is also important not to confuse this chieftain with Caractacus who would fight the Romans almost one hundred years later, during the invasion of Emperor Claudius. This is 55 BC and the Roman Republic is still in existence.

When Julius Caesar received the Trinovante chieftain Mandubracius, the Celt is believed to have been the head of a group of other British tribesmen from nations like Cenimagni, Seguntiaci, Ancalites, Bibroci and Cassi. These tribal groups were in areas that would have traded with mainland Europe and would know of the war raging in Gaul against the Romans. Perhaps the rise of Cassivellanus and his conquest of different British feudal nations were seen as a similar step to what Vercingetorix was doing in Gaul and the displaced British chieftains decided to ally with Julius Caesar. Maybe Cassivellanus was viewed as a potential ally to the Gauls – more so than the defeated men behind Mandubracius, who had seen his domain over run by Cassivellanus.

For whatever reason, Julius Caesar certainly saw this conquering Cassi-Brit as a threat to his attempts at pacifying Gaul. He needed grateful Celts in Britain – docile ones that might not interfere with his immediate campaign against Vercingetorix. Therefore he launched an invasion/expedition into south east Britain in 55 BC during the late summer. It consisted of two legions. He had an ally chieftain from the Atrebates in Gaul. This chieftain called Commius had not supported Vercingetorix and his kingdom was exempt from occupation and tax. He would negotiate with the Britons. Unfortunately for the Romans, Commius was arrested upon entry into Britain.

This expedition 55 BC may have been a first invasion attempt or a reconnaissance – fact finding mission. It did no more than establish a bridge head in the area of today’s county of Kent. Julius Caesar did enter a dialogue with some Brit-Celtic nations and took hostages back to Gaul.

However, the Romans and Julius Caesar returned in the following year and came into conflict with British warriors under the leadership of Cassivellanus. This undertaking was on a grand scale and a very large number of ships were used to transport the Roman army of five legions to Britain. There was no resistance according to the memoirs of Julius Caesar and it might be assumed that the Britons had never seen such a large flotilla of ships ever. It is probable that they needed time to organise their resistance.

The Romans established another bridge head in Kent, set up all their supply trains and general logistics network. This was left under the command of a Roman soldier called Quintus Atrius while Julius Caesar marched deeper into the island of Britain. He came up against resistance after about fifteen miles in the forest and at a river crossing. The Romans were attacked by a British force, supportive of Cassivellanus, but repulsed them. As the Roman army moved on they came upon a hill fort stronghold where the repulsed Britons had retreated too. This was taken and the defending Britons were mostly able to scatter into the forest. The Romans were unable to peruse because they did not know the terrain. They then suffered a dreadful set back because word came from the bridgehead about a fierce storm in the channel. A great many Roman ships that were anchored had been damaged and also lost. Julius Caesar was forced to return to his bridgehead and make good repairs. He called all his forces back to rectify the situation. It was also believed that the news of his daughter’s death in child birth reached him. She was married to Pompey – a man who would become foe in future years.

It was some time before repairs and other logistical matters allowed Julius Caesar to re-send his army into south east Britain. The Britons seemed to use tactics that were mindful of what the Roman armies could do. These were mainly skirmishes and ambush which, on one occasion, resulted in the death of a Roman Tribune called Quintus Laberius Durus, who was said to have taken a spear to the chest. When this tribune fell, it is feasible that the engagement might have been a heavy encounter, though not a full scale battle. The Britons avoided open conflict and used the forest for cover, trying to fight a guerrilla war. This had limited success as the Romans moved deeper into south east Britain to aid Mandubracius regain the Trinovantes kingdom. The Romans were surprised by the use of chariots among the British tribes. They would be steered with some skill to deliver foot warriors and then retreat a distance and watch before coming forward and aiding Britons to evacuate fighting engagements.

Crossing the River Thames

When Julius Caesar reached the River Thames, Cassivellanus had prepared defences by planting spikes under water and on the banks where the ford was. He had fought a retreating action to slow the Romans advance towards his territory, but this had only been marginally successful. Even with his river defence, the Roman army managed to cross and defeat the Britons. Julius Caesar had entered the chieftain’s territory.

However, Cassivellanus had managed to send another force of Britons to attack the bridgehead where Quintus Atrius was in charge. He hoped to divert Julius Caesar’s forces away to protect the Roman bridgehead and supplies at the channel. The Roman forces at the bridgehead stood firm and repulsed the attack.

Some of Cassivellanus’ allies among the Trinovantes deserted him and sought a separate peace with Julius Caesar, which was achieved on condition that Chieftain Mandubracius became reinstated as leader. This gave Rome a client king in part of south east Britain. With the loss of support, Cassivellanus also sent diplomats to negotiate a peace. Apart from the storm and the forest skirmishes not much was achieved against the Roman force.

Julius Caesar had more pressing matters with his campaign in Gaul and was forced to abandon Britain with hostages from Cassivellanus’ camp and promise of tribute from the British chieftain, plus agreement to stay out of the Trinovantes nation. This was established with the Atrebate ally (Commius) also being returned to the Roman camp before Caesar and his Roman army turned and went back to the conflict in Gaul.

This seems to have been a lightening summer conflict that gave the Romans a marginal victory in thwarting possible support for Vercingetorix and his Gauls from united British tribesmen. Cassivellanus imposed himself into the Roman history books with this summer month’s conflict of 54 BC. I can’t help thinking that Caesar may have had a cheaply won victory because, with hindsight, the Britons could have detained the five legions in Britain with Caesar. Vercingetorix and his Gauls may have had a free hand to do more substantial damage. Julius Caesar and his army would have not been able to stay in Britain when supplies from Gaul were destroyed. They would have been cut off from Rome with all of Gaul between them and their homeland.

If this was a political motivated attempt by Cassivellanus to help the Gauls, it lacked boldness on Britain’s part – almost like the going got too rough for them. Many of us Brits like to imagine bold resistance to the Romans and noble defeat. We revere Queen Boadicea of a later age, but I think this invasion by Julius Caesar may have achieved its aim of stopping Britain aiding the Gauls. If so it was a cheaply won victory and the Gauls went on to pay a hefty price when Rome defeated them. An estimated one in four of the Gaul nation would die in the aftermath of resistance to Rome.

Britain would wait a further ninety years before they would become conquered by Rome under the emperor Claudius.

Caractacus of Catuvellauni (42 AD to 50 AD.)

Caractacus was a British warrior chieftain of the Catuvellauni tribe in Ancient Britain during the time of the second Roman Invasion of Britain in 42 AD – around ninety six years after Julius Caesar sent an expedition in 54 BC. After Julius Caesar left, he had established an immigrant south eastern kingdom of Atrebate in Britain as a type of client kingdom. They were friendly and traded with Roman merchants at the ports of Gaul. This went on fine for around ninety years, but two men of the Catuvellauni kingdom became ambitious and began to acquire further British territory from neighbouring kingdoms.

The main kingdom to fall victim to this was the immigrant British Atrebates west of the Catuvellauni. There was an Atrebates kingdom in today’s Northern France and Belgium too and the British Atrebates were formed by an Atrebates chieftain called Commius, who had aided Julius Caesar when he sent his expedition in 55 BC. Perhaps Commius was awarded territory in Britain because the Atrebates of mainland Europe were loyal to the Roman Empire. The Atrebates of Britain would also have reason to be loyal to the Roman Empire over ninety years later. Trade had been going well for Britain and the Roman Empire.

I may have been that the neighbouring Catuvellauni resented the British Atrebates having a monopoly on Roman goods coming into Britain. This is only speculation, but why would the Catuvellauni upset the way of things and invade areas of Rome’s ally, unless they had reason to resent and under estimate the real reach of the Roman Empire. Perhaps they had memory of the British Atrebates carving out territory for themselves back in 55-54 BC. Maybe historical resentment still flourished and two brother warrior chieftains decided to reclaim territory from mainland European Celts. They may have also believed that Rome might have happily traded with Catuvellauni policed Britain instead of British Atrebates having special treatment. If this was so, then the two brothers, Togodumus and Caractacus were wrong.

The expansion of Catuvellauni territory disturbed Rome and the Emperor Claudius decided to take matters in hand. He ordered a full scale Roman invasion of Britain. Not an expedition to establish client kingdoms, but a landing on British soil to establish a permanent presence in Britain. Contrary to popular belief, a number of the south east British kingdoms were helpful to the Romans and the Catuvellauni bit off more than they could cope with.

The Roman Emperor Claudius sent Aulus Plautius and four legions into Britain. The Emperor himself also came to Britain during the campaign. The legions came up against guerrilla tactics but were able to move deep into the island of Britain. They won two major conflicts at the river Medway and the river Thames. At one of these battles Togodumus was killed but Caractacus was forced to flee while the Catuvellauni kingdom fell to direct Roman rule. The Emperor Claudius watched his victorious Legions march into Camulodunum – today's Colchester, Essex, England. It is worth pointing out that Camulodunum is regarded as being in the Trinovante kingdom during Boadicea’s revolt in 60 AD. So maybe the Trinovante, bordering Catuvellauni’s east may have welcomed the Romans as allies or they may also have been over run. Trinovantes certainly went against Rome in the future coming rebellion of the Iceni Queen, during Emperor Nero’s reign.

Caractacus fled west and remained at large, encouraging British kingdoms like the Silures and Ordovices to fight the Roman invaders. These nations were in today’s Wales. Finally in 50 AD, some six years after the fall of the Catuvellauni territory, Caractacus tried to take on the Roman army again. This was at the Battle of Cear Caradoc.

The old Roman commander, Aulus Plautius had been relieved of the governorship of Britain in 47 AD. The new Roman commander was called Publius Ostorius Scapula and he was confronted by Caractacus and an army of mainly Ordovices and some Silures warriors at Cear Caradoc Hill. They had built an encampment on the summit with stone ramparts and a river below, before the Roman army. The Celtic British warriors had the geographical advantage but the Romans crossed the river with a hail of missiles falling from the sky. The Romans fashioned their tortoise style formations using there shields as an armoured wall. Front, sides, back and top were covered by shield as they advanced up towards the British ramparts. They over ran them and drove the British off, inflicting another major defeat that left Rome in control of all southern Britain. Caractacus, once again, fled leaving his wife and daughter captured by the Roman army.

This time, he made the most monumental of all his mistakes. He fled north to the Brigantes, hoping to find sanctuary in Queen Cartimunda’s client kingdom that was at peace with Rome. Caractacus was bound in chains and taken before the Romans. He was then transported to Rome and paraded before the senate and the Emperor Claudius to be sentenced to death. However, he made a speech that captured the imagination of the Senate and the Emperor and was spared execution. Instead he was taken to a place of seclusion and allowed to live out his days somewhere in Italy. How long he lived, is not known, but he evaded execution.

Campaign in West Britain against Durotriges Tribe.

By 43 AD the Emperor Claudius had designs on bringing Britain into the boundaries of the expanding Roman Empire and to this end he decided to send Roman soldiers to invade the Isle and subjugate Britons to imperial Roman rule. It is fair to say that the Britons had little concept of the might and organisation of the Roman forces and many would learn the hard way as to what mighty Rome was capable of.

To the west of Britain, in today’s county of Dorset, England, UK, the second Roman Legion attacked the British kingdom of the Durotriges. There would have been fighting in many areas of Britain as the Roman conquerors began to systematically take over the lower southern part of the British Isle. This particular campaign was noted because of the siege of Mai Dun Fort, where the Durotriges attempted to secure themselves from the Roman Second Legion, commanded by Vespasian – a man from a noble Roman family who would one day become Emperor during the year of four Emperors in 69 AD. However, this was 43 AD and Vespasian was aged 32 and proving himself as a strong Roman soldier who commanded his men well.

Today Mai Dun Fort is known as Maiden Castle, but its original Celtic name of Mai Dun means ‘Great Hill.’ It was a flourishing centre by the time the Romans arrived and had its beginning back in Bronze Age 1800 BC. For over eighteen hundred years people had come to the great hill fort of Mai Dun and it went through various stages of progression with earth works and ramparts being built. It was a huge centre of attraction – perhaps trade and commerce in the form of a market town. Around 450 BC the Celts built more extensive earthworks and the place became a larger more fortified town of dealing among the Britons. It was certainly attractive to the Romans in 43 AD and the Durotriges Britons seemed to have an ill deserved confidence in their ability to defend Mai Dun against Vespasian and his Second Legion. The Great Hill Fort (Mai Dun) had a huge palisade that was surrounded by various ditches and ramparts that afforded the defenders a good view of any attacking force. They also had thousands of slinging rocks to propel against the Roman Second Legion.

The Roman Ballista weaponry had all types of dart and heavy projectile hurling devices and the Durotriges defenders came up against advanced Roman ballista siege warfare and were unable withstand the modern engineering of Rome’s more precise technology. A great siege ensued and the Durotriges finally fell to Vespasian’s Second Legion of Roman soldiers. It is believed to have been a fierce and bloody battle with Roman Legions eventually marching upon the fort after heavy ballista bombardment of darts, fire and stone projectiles.

In the 1930s excavators found several buried bodies of Durotriges defenders that were killed during the siege and one person had an arrow head embedded in his spine, believed to have been shot from a ballista machine equipped to discharge several darts at a time – like a small magazine of multiple arrows. One might imagine a young Durotriges warrior manning the palisade and being taken out of the action by a scattering of high velocity darts, one of which strikes the young defender in the back and fatally injures him. Perhaps these buried men were killed during artillery attacks and were then laid to rest before the fort fell. So it may have been that the Great Hill fort (Mai Dun) held for a few days, at least, while Roman ballista weaponry softened the fortifications before the soldiers attacked.

There may have been a Roman military presence for a short time afterwards and there was a temple erected in the fourth century that fell into ruin, but mainly, the site of Mai Dun became an apocalyptic place as the many people that inhabited the thriving and commercial fort left after the fall to Rome’s Second Legion lead by future emperor to be; Vespasian. It became a lonely place of abandoned ramparts and remains so to this day.

Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes (About 43AD to 69AD)

Because Celtic society enabled woman to hold more powers then most; Celtic ladies are often made Icons. Much of this is due to legend and fascinations - plus, of course, Queen Boadicea of the Iceni Britons. Not all were as bold as Queen Boadicea, but perhaps some were more successful then given credit for. It is difficult to say if Queen Cartimandua was a traitor or someone trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Cartimandua – Queen of Brigantes probably gets a less kind press then she deserves. I think the reason for this is because she does not have the Boadicea glow of the Celtic warrior queen. Writers of romantic historical fiction and followers of Celtic myth often present her in unkindly ways. On the other hand, she lived in harsh times and perhaps, made tough decisions for the greater good. She was ruling the Brigante long before Boadicea became sovereign of Iceni and ruled for many years after Boadicea’s demise. In all fairness, Cartimandua was more successful than Boadicea – she just did not go out in a blaze of glory. Some say it is better to burn out then fade away, but people should remember that thousands of Iceni and Trinovante paid a heavy price for Boadicea’s monument. Queen Cartimandua’s epitaph is often that of a collaborator.

This Celtic queen of Brigantes was in power from 43 AD to 69 AD. She was regent of the Brigantes during the time of the Catuvellauni King Caractacus. He lost his kingdom to the Romans but remained at large trying to rally support to continue fighting the Roman conquerors. Try as he might, the Romans always defeated him whenever he was able to muster support. Finally in 50 AD he fled from the sanctuary he had found in North Wales to the northern kingdom of the Brigantes - ruled by Queen Cartimandua and her husband Venutius. He arrived before Cartimandua requesting sanctuary. Instead, the queen had him bound in chains and handed over to the Romans. She had established good trust with the Romans and had taken power when some of the Brigantes tribe had tried to resist the original conquest, first started by Emperor Claudius in 43 AD.

Caractacus given to the Romans

The section of Brigante tribesman that did resist were defeated by a Roman leader called Publius Ostorius Scapula in 48 AD. Cartimandua might have aided the Romans in some way by restraining tribesman from joining the fight against Rome, or she might have been in power before, and condemned the Brigante sections that did resist. It is difficult to know if she was seizing an opportunity to rule the Brigantes or trying to play intricate politics in difficult situations when already in power. She was wise to what the Romans could do and so offered to collaborate and remain regent.

If this was so, why did Caractacus take the chance of standing before Cartimandua and asking for sanctuary? He had been fighting the Romans for a number of years and would surely know that she was allied to them. Maybe he was trying to reach Caledonia (Today's Scotland) and was captured passing through - who knows?

This act of betraying Caractacus caused a rift among the Briganties and her husband Venutius became opposed to her. He tried to usurp her power and take the Brigante kingdom for himself. This was in 50 AD.

She was able to count on the friendship of a man called Vellocatus who was once a subordinate of her husband Venutius. Also the Romans sent her aid with an army. With the help of Rome and her loyal followers she was able to defeat and drive Venutius away.

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions her as a friend of Rome and for a further 19 years she would remain in control and collaborating with Rome. When the Iceni Queen Boadicea (Boudicca) led her rebellion, Cartimandua would not send Brigante forces to aid the Iceni queen. It is possible that such requests never came to her.

Cartimandua's exiled husband Venutius remained in his sanctuary watching and waiting. Then in 69 AD - some nineteen years after being driven out of the Brigante lands, Rome was weakened by its own internal political strife. It was the year of four Emperors. Venutius launched an invasion of the Brigante lands and Cartimandua could only get limited help from the Roman administration. She was driven out of Brigante and into the sanctuary of Roman held territory. She never returned and history lost account of what became of her.

It is not known exactly when or if Venutius was brought to account for his anti-Roman campaign, but the Brigantes would remain un-pacified for several decades to come until the early part of the second century.

Cartimandua faded from history and no one is certain what happened to her. She never reclaimed her kingdom and many Celts believed her to be treacherous. Maybe the Romans thought so too. Perhaps she was no longer of use to them once she fled the Brigante lands. With no confidence in her abilities, she might have been persuaded to retire into another region of the Empire and live in anonymity. Perhaps Emperor Vespasian needed her in exile while he used the excuse to attack the Brigante and bring the British fiefdom under direct Roman rule. It would be a campaign that would outlast him and his two sons that would follow him as Emperors of Rome.

Rebellion of Queen Boadicea (Boudicca) 60 -61 AD

Queen Boadicea is sometimes known as Boudicca or Bouddica. She has a lot of different pronunciations and her name is spelt in many ways. For this blog, she is Boadicea because I like that spelling best.

Queen Boadicea conjures up sorts of imaginations to British people. We are very proud of the myth that is Boadicea and are fascinated that she led a revolt against the might of the Roman Empire. She almost drove the Romans off of the island too, but for one final rallying stand of a Roman general in the Midlands of the country. The harsh reality of her rebellion was that many people would brutally die before her forces were put down and the retribution would also be colossal.

It is thought that Boadicea was born in the A.D. 20s decade - what exact year is not known, though some Roman historians think it was A.D. 25 – this is most likely wrong but close. It would mean Queen Boadicea around late 30s or touching 40 at the time of A.D. 61 when she led the Icenian and other British tribes against Roman occupation of Britain.

This was during the time of the Emperor Nero and south Britain had been under Roman occupation for around 20 years. There had been a pact between the Iceni lands (today's Norfolk and Suffolk in South East England) and the Roman occupying forces. The Icenian King Prasutagus had agreed on some sort of pact that he could rule over his Iceni people without Roman interference.

It is believed that Prasutagus would have payed some sort of levy to the Roman governors and would have been forced to allow direct Roman rule upon his death. This was usual Roman law when occupying new territory. Some historians even go as far as to suggest he would have used Iceni slaves as form of payment to maintain control within his kingdom. Also it is believed that he enjoyed borrowing money from the neighbouring Romans in the occupied Trinovantian kingdom (today's county of Essex in South East England.)

When he died, he left half is kingdom to Rome and the other half to his wife Boadicea. He had two daughters by his wife and he was believed to have been some years her senior. The debt he left behind was due payment and the Romans decreed that the Iceni were liable.

The Romans decided to enforce their own law and annexed all of the Icenian lands, confiscating property from prominent chieftains. Boadicea tried to protest but the Romans had her publicly flogged and her two daughters raped before her. This was to show Icenians that Rome, well and truly ruled over them.

At the same time the Roman Governor of Britain named Gaius Suetonius Paulinus led an expedition of soldiers to the island of Mona (today's Anglessy of North Wales.) There was a sacred Druid gathering on the island. The Romans attacked the gathering and massacred many of the Druids in a wooded area of the island.

Warrior Queen of the Iceni

Back in the Iceni lands Boadicea and her subjects were furious at what had been done to them by the Romans. It is not known if the Massacre of Druids on Mona further fuelled the Rebellion about to take place, but Boadicea and the Iceni took advantage of Paulinus' absence. Boadicea seemed to take on powers almost akin to divinity among her Iceni and neighbouring British tribes.

One of the Roman historians (Tacticus) suggests that she pulled a hare from her clothing and performed a ritual in front of an audience of chieftains. This involved watching where the hare ran and from this they were said to have read favourable omens. Of course this is almost certainly not true, but it would not hurt to assume she had presented herself in some divine form to her audience. Divine people are more easily followed and believed in.

In the occupied Celtic kingdom of Trinovantian, the capital had been overtaking by Roman veteran soldiers who were treating the local Trinovi with contempt. They had built a temple dedicated to the late Emperor Claudius who had originally conquered them. The Trinovi had been forced to pay for the building of this temple in the settlement of Camuldunum (today's Colchester, Essex.)

Boadicea and her alliance of other tribes including the Trinovi struck with a vast army of Celts, easily breaching Camuldunum's defences. They ran throughout the streets of the settlement - allowing no quarter to any of the Roman veterans who lived there - many had families, but this was to no avail; women and children were horrifically put to the sword - no Roman or anyone loyal to them was spared. A few, who managed to evade the attack, barricaded themselves in the huge temple dedicated to the late Emperor Claudius.

These wretched settlers tried to hold out - the last remnant of Roman veterans, and the surviving women and children. Their fate was to be the same as those who had fallen before them in the burning blood stained streets, where Roman settlers had been put on gibbets and nailed upon crosses.

Women of the retired veteran’s town were impaled on spikes and had their breasts cut off. The ghastly affair was a frenzied orgy of violence by the Britons towards the Roman occupiers and the few Roman survivors in the temple would have a further two days to dwell upon the fact. Eventually the Celts piled wood and other combustibles about the temple and set light to the building with the occupants still inside. It was a hideous and diabolical slaughter by any standard, but the flames of rebellion had been ignited by the humiliating whipping and raping of a Queen and her daughters. The Romans would pay dearly for this.

Massacre of the Ninth Legion

During Queen Boudicca’s Iceni revolt against the Roman Empire in the years of AD 60 to 61 near Camulodunum (Colchester, Essex – Today’s England) ; a large number of soldiers from Rome’s Ninth Legion was almost wiped out. It was the famous Hispania IX Legion, which has become legendary in stories concerning its time in Ancient Britain. Such stories like; Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff caused many to wonder about the famous Ninth Legion. Some historians know that this Hispania IX was permanently stationed in Britain for a long period of time – around one hundred years, but then it suddenly vanished from record and there was no mention of this Legion any more.

The Rosemary Sutcliff novel is, of course, fictitious but tells the story of the Legion being destroyed in Caledonia (Today’s Scotland.) This is almost certainly not true and the most likely probability is; Rome disbanded the Hispania IX. Some of the high ranking officers of the Ninth are later recorded in other Legions in other parts of the Empire. They are recorded as being in areas of Germany and the Netherlands after Britain.

However, in reality; it is known that a large portion of the Ninth was slaughtered in battle by Boudicca’s Iceni, who were allied with Trinovante warriors during her attack on Camulodunum. This Roman relief force was dispatched to march to the aid of the remaining Roman survivors in Camulodunum. The last wretched inhabitants of Camulodunum – a settlement for discharged Roman soldiers and their families. Some of the ex-Roman soldiers had escaped with women and children from Boudicca’s initial attack. They sought sanctuary in the huge Claudian Temple and were besieged by the Iceni and Trinovante. Here the remaining defenders barricaded themselves in and desperately tried to resist Boudicca’s merciless killing.

The unfortunate people of Camulodunum had been slaughtered in horrific ways. Woman and children who were Roman; or British who worked for the Roman settlers, were slaughtered without any moderation – even slaves. Many were believed to have been impaled as the town was set ablaze. In Colchester today; there is a layer of ash in the ground and archaeologists know that anything below the ash layer is pre-Boudicca attack AD 60.

A Roman soldier named Quintus Petillius Cerialis was legate of the Hispania Ninth Legion and ordered by Suetonius (Roman Governor of Britain) to rescue the last remaining survivors of the besieged Claudian Temple. His forces were spread in various locations around the Cambridgeshire area some 75 miles away from Camulodunum. In surrounding forts of the marshy and flat Fenlands; Quintus commanded around 5,000 troops. He was able to muster about 2,500 Roman soldiers, around fifty percentage of his overall command. Once this was done, Quintus Petillius Cerialis hurriedly set off for Camulodunum. It is believed that the location was just north east of the besieged town where the Iceni and Trinovante Britons lay in ambush along a pathway leading through dense woodland. Their own scouts would have learnt of the relief force and it is thought that 10,000 plus warriors were included in the British force that would confront the advancing Roman cohorts.

The Claudian temple, where the last remaining survivors were, might have fallen already by this time. It held for two days before being set ablaze with everyone inside perishing. This might have given Boudicca more time to prepare for the conflict that would come about. Compared to the massacre of Camulodunum, then the further events of Londinium, Verulamium and the final Battle of Watling Street; the defeat of the Ninth Legion seems to be over shadowed. It was, however, a significant defeat upon Rome as the Britons were up against a more organised resistance. It might have been what led the British tribes to have ill-deserved confidence when they finally faced Giaus Seutonius Paulinus at the Battle of Watling Street.

What the conditions of the conflict with the Ninth Legion were, is not properly known, though the ambush in dense woodland seems plausible. The Roman soldiers could have been rushed while on the march and from close proximity. They would have been spread out along a road carrying their equipment, allowing no time to form organised battle formations. The foot soldiers and other auxiliaries were overwhelmed and slaughtered. Only the troops on horseback escaped – among them Quintus Petillius Cerialis. Around 80% of the 2,500 troops were lost and this left the rest of the Ninth hold up in fortifications in the Fenlands of today’s Cambridgeshire, awaiting new instruction from Suetonius. These events were recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus and the British force that attacked the Ninth Legion was believed to be in excess of 10,000 warriors.

Quintus Petillius Cerialis was able to make some amends by taking part alongside Giaus Suetonius Paulinus during the final confrontation with Boudicca’s warriors at Watling Street. He would later become the Roman Governor of Britain in AD 71, some ten years later. After AD 69 – (Year of four Emperors,) he was seen in the favoured sight of Emperor Vespasian. He would lead campaigns against Venutius of the Brigante and may have destroyed the Great Hill Fort, thus redeeming honour further.

Boadicea calls upon her warriors

Next the vast Celtic alliance under Queen Boadicea marched on Londinium (today's London.) This was a comparatively new settlement that had grown in the past twenty years of Roman occupation. It was full of merchants and other traders - a hive of activity.

The Roman Governor of Britain was marching his men back from North Wales and had tried to gather other armies to his cause. He managed to acquire a force of 10,000 soldiers but he knew this was not enough to combat or defend Londinium (London.) He sent word to evacuate the settlement. Those that were foolish enough to remain felt the anger of Boadicea's forces. Once again there was death and slaughter of all. Again none were spared and the unfortunate Romans and those who served them were put to death in another frenzied ritual of slaughter. Children and women again included in the orgy of killing. The entire settlement was burnt to the ground as the Celts fury was brought to bear. Even to this day when archaeologists dig up London or Colchester, there is a layer of ash from the time of this terrible upheaval.

Attacking Roman settlements

Boadicea then went to the next settlement of Verulamium (today's St Albans.) Here she exacted further revenge on the people at this settlement - crucifixion, gibbet hangings, impaling and burning. There was no mercy shown at any time to any Roman that crossed the rebellious Briton's path. Traitors who had aided the Romans - servants and friends etc were also dispatched in the same brutal way.

Those who did abandon London were hurriedly making for the south coast to flee into Gaul (today's France.) By this time Boadicea had a following of around 200,000 people. Not all of these were fighters - large numbers were women and children following the menfolk - a gigantic caravan of Celts, hell bent on slaughter of anything Roman. Britons across the country were flocking to her cause. Word came of the Roman Governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus and his 10,000 soldiers. Boadicea decided to confront the Roman Governor of Britain and this is where she and her chieftains made their colossal mistake.

In the Midlands of Britain at a destination not known exactly, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was able to choose his ground. Some people believe it was near to today's city of Leicester, but no exact location can be sure. The Roman Governor General was able to choose a gully entrance to form his army. This offered his flanks natural geographical protection. He then arranged his troops in a line of triangular block formations - a line of arrow head shapes.

When Boadicea and her followers arrived they formed a vast arc of wagons so that the many thousands of women and children who followed the Celtic army could watch the battle. The British had such superior numbers that they were confident of fighting the Romans in open formation. It was confidence that was very ill deserved.

The Britons Attack

As the Britons attacked, the Roman formations held firm and the multitude of British warriors were caught - locked by their numbers in the triangular formations of the Roman soldiers. The Romans used their shield walls to contain the squashed Britons who were being pushed by their own forces from behind. The Romans then began their tried and trusted methods of stabbing through and over their large shields - killing Britons with every stab and thrust of their short swords.

In a short time the Britons broke rank and began to flee. Hordes had been killed during the crush. Once the Britons started to flee, the Roman horsemen were let loose to complete the route. They fell upon the encampment of women and children and the slaughter was brought upon all who tried to flee before the horsemen. This time British women and children felt the same anger and vengeance as the Romans had done in Camulodunum, Londinium and Verulamium.

Many of the chieftains fell and it is believed that Boadicea, fearing capture, decided to poison herself. The Britons would have known what Romans did to conquered and defeated Celts. Many would have known the fate of Gaul's Vercingetorix during the time of Julius Caesar.

Boadicea poisoned herself

As the Britons had done to Roman settlers, so too, did Gaius Suetonius allow his Roman soldiers to exact equal revenge upon the Iceni and Trinovante. The rebellious British was ruthlessly put down. A few years later Rome relieved Suetonius, Governor General of Britain, from his post and put in a more lenient Governor to rule Roman Britain.

There is the romantic view of Boadicea which often over shadows the desperate and terrible circumstance that brought about the Iceni rebellion of 60-61 AD.

Massacre of the Ninth Legion

What the conditions of the conflict with the Ninth Legion were is not properly known, though the ambush in dense woodland seems plausible. The Roman soldiers could have been rushed while on the march and from close proximity. They would have been spread out along a road carrying their equipment, allowing no time to form organised battle formations. The foot soldiers and other auxiliaries were overwhelmed and slaughtered. Only the troops on horseback escaped – among them Quintus Petillius Cerialis. Around 80% of the 2,500 troops were lost and this left the rest of the Ninth hold up in fortifications in the Fenlands of today’s Cambridgeshire, awaiting new instruction from Suetonius. These events were recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus and the British force that attacked the Ninth Legion was believed to be in excess of 10,000 warriors.

Cerialis was able to make some amends by taking part alongside Giaus Suetonius Paulinus during the final confrontation with Boudicca’s warriors at Watling Street. He would later become the Roman Governor of Britain in AD 71, some ten years later. After AD 69 – (Year of four Emperors,) he was seen in the favoured sight of Emperor Vespasian. He would lead campaigns against Venutius of the Brigante and may have destroyed the Great Hill Fort.

Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (Boadicea's Nemesis)

Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was a high ranking Roman soldier that peaked in history, though his beginnings and eventual end are not known. He comes to historical attention in the year of AD 41 during the reign of Claudius. At this time, Rome had trouble with the client kingdom of Mauretania.

This client kingdom existed around the borders of modern day Morocco and Algeria and was inhabited by Moorish people. Although the client kingdom had a monarchy of its own; it was subservient to the Roman Empire. In AD 40 it was ruled by King Ptolemy – a puppet ruler for Rome. He was a grandson of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. However, the Emperor Caligula had called the king of Mauretania to Rome and after greeting Ptolemy with proper diplomatic formality, he had him executed. This caused a revolt by the Moorish people of Mauretania. The following year saw the assassination of Emperor Caligula and his uncle Claudius suddenly proclaimed new Emperor of Rome. I suspect that it was the moment for ambitious young men to make their mark and somehow Gaius Suetonius Paulinus had captured some high ranking official’s attention.

It is hard to guess at Suetonius’ age, but I would be inclined to stick my neck on the block and think he was a young man. This is because he would not meet Boadicea – Queen of Iceni Britons until AD 61, twenty years later.

I picture Suetonius to be around mid-twenties to thirty in AD 41 when he was created Praetor to lead a Roman army to the kingdom of Mauretania. Again, I remind the reader, that I’m guessing because of his later involvement in the British rebellion. The Emperor Claudius had just been proclaimed Caesar with the Praetorian Guard firmly behind him. Perhaps Suetonius had friends among the Praetorian Guard or that he was part of that armed body – who knows? What is known is that AD 41 was the big moment for Gaius Suetonius Paulinus.

History would record him as he put down the Moor revolt of Mauretania. Not too much is made of this, but once this was accomplished he led his Roman army over the Atlas Mountains and came through the other side venturing into the Sahara. For what reason he went upon this quest is not clear. Maybe he was perusing a rebel Moor force or perhaps just exploring. His Roman army was said to have reached the Niger River and most believe this to be Northern Mali. His army also came across a number of villages inhabited by black tribesmen.

Eighteen years later, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was given the post of Governor of Britain. The previous governor had died in office. It was AD 59 and five years into the Emperor Nero’s reign. Claudius had died in AD 54. Not too much is known about Suetonius when he returned from his quest beyond the Atlas Mountains and the Sahara, though he would have probably been performing duties of importance for Rome. This new British posting would once again propel him into the history books because he would arrive in Britain during a very turbulent time.

In AD 61, after two years of subjugating British kingdoms, Suetonius led an army into Northern Wales. He led an assault on the Isle of Mona, which is today’s Anglesey. The isle had become a sanctuary for British fugitives who sought protection within the Druid stronghold. There followed great slaughter as the Roman forces attacked the Druids, killing many before forcing the survivors of the attack to agree terms.

Queen Boadicea of Iceni British Celts

However, to the east of Britain, in the Iceni kingdom; a warrior queen named Boadicea had stirred up a vast force of her people and neighbouring tribes. She had led them to destroy Colchester, slaughtering everyone within the settlement. From Colchester she marched her army upon London after destroying a Roman relief force.

Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was upon the moment he would burn his name into the records of history. He wanted to march to London and defend it, but realised he had not enough soldiers to do this. Therefore, he sent orders to evacuate the entire settlement. Most did, but there were some fool hardy enough to remain. These wretched souls suffered the same terrible rape and slaughter that Colchester’s inhabitants had.

Suetonius needed to regroup as many Roman soldiers as possible. He had XIV Gemina, detachments of a force called XX Valeria Victrix and various other auxiliaries. These hurriedly assembled men numbered ten thousand troops. A request for another force stationed at Exeter was not met. The prefect of the Exeter garrison called Poenious Postumus would not allow his Roman soldiers of the II Augusta to go to the aid of Suetonius, who faced the oncoming force of Queen Boadicea and her estimated two hundred thousand Britons. As the British tribesman travelled across country they were attracting more and more followers, even women and children of the warriors she commanded.

The plight of Suetonius was desperate and Roman rule in Britain would be smashed if his force fell against the vastly superior force of Britons. He had one advantage that all other vanquished Romans had not, when faced with Boadicea’s army. He knew she was coming and had time to prepare for the battle. The Iceni Queen would not be able to fall upon the force of Suetonius and take them by surprise. The Roman could choose his ground and this he would do wisely, using the natural elements and the lay of the land to protect the flanks of his mish-mash collection of Roman soldiers. It is believed that Suetonius had a wooded area behind his men and gully inclines to protect the flanks of his soldier’s formations. Also the centurions had lined up in arrow head formations – the manned ranks zigzagged out to a shielded point and back to an inner triangle point. When the Britons attacked they massed into these formations and were crushed in the triangle wedges, making them easy targets as they were squashed into the Roman shields. The short Roman swords viciously stabbed and slashed into the wretched ranks of Britons and as the fell the organised and highly trained Romans stepped over the fallen enemy and advanced inflicting more mutilation upon the panicking British ranks. Eventually the Celtic forces broke and fled. Straight towards the caravans where British women and children had been, watching the battle. The frenzied panic of the Britons was made worse when Roman cavalry completed the route. The slaughter and mayhem that followed was horrendous.

Boadicea is believed to have poisoned herself though no one knows what happened to her corpse. For the surviving Britons; there would be harsh punishment that matched and exceeded the slaughter of Colchester, London and St Albans. Such was the retribution that Suetonius was relieved of his command as Governor of Britain, a short time after. His victory and recognition for saving Roman rule in Britain, no longer counted because of his harsh retribution brought fears of further uprisings.

Again, Suetonius fell into history’s mist for another eight years until reappearing once more in AD 69 during the year of four emperors. Gaius Suetonius Paulinus is recorded as being a senior advisor and general to a force caught up in the civil strife following the death of Emperor Nero. His force was defeated and he was captured. However, he was pardoned and then vanished from history again for the last time.

No one knows when Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was born or died, but parts of his military career found their way into the history books. Mainly his journey across the Atlas Mountains after defeating the revolt of the Kingdom Of Mauretania and his superb victory against Iceni Queen Boadicea of Celtic Britain. His life must have been a grand one, but he may also have been a rather ruthless soldier. I suppose in that day and age a leader had to be capable and mean - win or die.