Group items tagged

The most spectacular of all the 14th century peasants was the English Peasants' War. In 1381, the English peasants revolted, angered over legislation like the Statute of Labourers, which tied them to the land and imposed new taxes. One of these taxes, the poll tax, was particularly troublesome. A whole or head tax is a tax levied on individual simply because he exists. In 1380, the English government issued a new poll tax, the third in just four years. Meanwhile, landlords were constantly increasing rents on their land, lay and to which the peasants was now tied by the Statute of Labourers.

The English Peasants' Revolt of 1381 erupted suddenly, but not without warning. The seeds of dissent fell from the tree that was medieval society itself and were watered by the continuous oppression of the poor in towns as well as the countryside by those in power. Artisans, parish priests, poor city workers, and even small traders rose with the peasants in their call for the abolition of feudal obligations (serfdom) and the resulting economic/social injustice they had endured for so long. The wide variety of rebels indicates the tremendous level of dissatisfaction with the corruption in government and the confines of 14th century English society; this dissatisfaction indicates that the people were thinking and questioning instead of meekly accepting their role as a human beast without hope for a better life. The Revolt may have failed in its immediate goals, but it served as a link in the quest of the poor for emancipation from servitude, controlled wages, and unfair taxes. Their expression of concerns, desires, and demands was an example in courage, courage to challenge the strict boundaries of society.

The conflicts with England's neighbours dragged on, draining the economy. Maintaining the basic border forts in France, Scotland and Ireland cost £46,000 pa and by 1381 three regressive poll taxes had been passed by parliament and extracted from an unwilling population, barely recovering from the ravages of the Black Death.

The plague's influence on art is profound because of the infection's overall impact on many artists and their work. The historical imprint the illness left on Renaissance art is undeniable.

At Hastings, Harold used no archers, and there is no evidence that the Saxons ever really fielded a calvary force.  Horses were used to get from one place to another, but then were typically removed from the field of battle which was then fought on foot.  William's use of both calvary and archers wold show the short-sidedness of the Saxon's tactics.

After an hour of battle, the Norman army suffered heavy casualties. Seeing this, the undisciplined English army were tempted to pursue the enemy. They broke their formations and dispersed. As they were no longer protected by the shield wall, the Norman invaders led by William, could easily attack and kill the Englishmen. By the time, the English army realised that it was counter-attacked, it was too late.

Harold was fighting on foot in the centre of his army. Unfortunately what he gain in moral he lost in control. All the Saxons had to do was hold their position and keep their shieldwall intact. If they could do that, William would be defeated. As the Bretons ran, the Fyrd on Harold's right followed with hoots of victory. They raced down the hill and hunted their enemy all the way behind the original Norman lines. Here they found themselves in the marshy bottom of the valley. Cut off from their fellows and without the protection of the shieldwall, William saw his chance. He brought his cavalry across the battlefield and hit the isolated Saxons in the rear who were slaughtered to a man. Realising that he had the advantage of better discipline, William engineered several fake "retreats" with similar results. Despite this tactic the shieldwall remained.

The Battle of Hastings: sources and interpretations By Stephen Morillo

Harold lost the battle of Hastings for many reasons some say it's because of his men as William had hundreds of TRAINED men with armor and swords and with all the front line of the soldiers being on horse back while Harold had farmers with pitch forks and anything they could get there hands on (and all were on foot so this gave William an advantage of being able to swoop down and kill those below them).

The two armies met at Senlac Hill outside of Hastings with William setting out his army with the archers at the front, then the infantry and the cavalry at the rear. Harold meanwhile had taken up a position on higher ground on a narrow 800 yard long ridge but this was a bad mistake as it restricted his troops movement and made it almost easy for an experienced campaigner like William.

The fight for Senlac Ridge on October 14th 1066 is probably the only battle date that most Englishmen can be expected to remember. Nearly a thousand years after the event, the memory of the resounding defeat of the last native Saxon King and his army rings down the centuries. But why did the battle take place? Why did William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, think that he had a claim to the English throne in the first place. Or was it just an adventure; an enormous gamble that paid off and changed the course of world history in the course of an autumn day?

Harold made mistakes by having two battles in the same period of time, and using the wrong weapons. Harold should have waited before engaging battle with the Normans; The Normans burned the lands they pillaged through and consequently would have eventually had to return back to Normandy in order to get food.

A Genoese Perspective of the Third Crusade

Genoa and the Genoese, 958-1528  Read more about this book at http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/315

The rise of Islam was fundamental to Genoa's own rise. Muslims served as victims of Genoese piracy and eventually as customers of its trade. The Crusades helped to make Genoa as the city sharpened its own piety and identity in centuries of religious warfare against the Muslims. Islam also provides the Mediterranean scope of Genoese history.

The Italian communes of the west coast demonstrate their strength in the 11th century when Genoan and Pisan fleets, often working in alliance, protect Corsica and Sardinia from the depredations of Muslims. Both cities subsequently develop extensive trade in the western Mediterranean. Genoa also plays a large part in the crusades, establishing strong trading links in the eastern Mediterranean and coming into direct competition with Venice.

Richard and the French King, Phillip, slowly broke the city's walls, weakening its defenses while simultaneously starving the occupiers into submission. Finally, on July 12, the Muslim defenders and Crusaders agreed to surrender terms.

In March 1191, the first corn ship to reach the camp outside Acre arrived. As welcome as the food was the news that Richard I of England and Philip II Augustus of France had finally arrived in the east. Philip arrived at Acre first, on 20 April 1191, but it was the arrival of Richard, eight weeks later on 8 June, that made the difference. Luck played a part in his success. Philip had spent his time building siege engines and pounding the walls, but it needed someone of Richard's military background and ability to energize the attackers.

The Siege of Acre was one of the first confrontations of the Third Crusade, lasting from August 28, 1189 until July 12, 1191, and the first time in history that the King of Jerusalem was compelled to personally see to the defence of the Holy Land.[1] It was also the deadliest event of the whole period of the Crusades for the Christian ruling class of the east.[2]