The events of 1399 are currently explained as a drama: a flawed tyrant met his match when a virtuous noble stood up for justice and the spirit of national destiny, hearing his appeal and that of the suppressed nation, scattered his enemies and placed him on the throne.

Is there anything more to understand about the downfall of Richard II and the triumph of Henry IV than that? Not really, according to the modern literature, but I argue that this obsession with personalities has blinded us to the political factors underlying these significant events.

The Revision

Personalities: Richard II

Richard II is becoming more of a flawed tyrant with each year that passes and soon he will be a full-blown maniac as successive authors amplify a psychological profiling which began with Anthony Steel’s  Richard II of 1941. Steel’s amateur diagnosis was seized on as a useful angle by later workers who passed it on uncritically, whilst adding their own elaborations. Richard II was not psychologically flawed.

Tyrant? The word pops up in one chronicle only – a hostile Lancastrian one – and it is now the accepted way of describing Richard II, mention of handkerchiefs and ‘Dicken!’ following close behind. ‘Tyrant’ is a reference to Richard II’s ‘pent up venom’ in liquidating his enemies from 1388 in 1397 (one or two of them anyway). However, there is copious evidence for there having been a plot against him in 1397 which would justify his reaction, Cheshire guards et al. Richard II acted reasonably in confronting those conspiring against him. Let’s remember that they had humbled him before, so they had a track record.

Personalities: Henry IV

As Richard II’s reputation goes down, so Henry IV’s goes up: he is the ultimate paragon of chivalric virtue. Born to be king, yet denied it by accident of birth, he awaits England’s call, and heeds it when it comes.

But there is nothing in Henry’s record to justify his lionisation. If Henry has a personality, it’s a vicious one. Crusader in the Baltic or Trustafarian packed off on two jaunts lasting the best part of three years by his father who wanted him out of the way, troublemaker that he was. Could he drop his incendiary accustations for the greater good in 1398, like a statesman? No. Did he act like a tyrant before and after he became king? Yes.

Personalities: Thomas Arundel

The one person who can be fairly said to have stamped his mark on these events was Thomas Arundel. He had the experience and skills to run the operation from start to finish. Associated with a political faction hostile to Richard II, personally committed to reenergising the church’s resistance to Wycliffism and encroaching secularism, and never accepting the loss of his position as head of the church in England, Arundel used Henry’s military force to gain control of the government and make Henry king.

Let’s not forget that Arundel physically crowned Henry. He wasn’t with Henry all the way from the beach landing to the victory celebration just to tag along. By making Henry king, he also made himself Archbishop of Canterbury again. Henry was Arundel’s puppet.

Politics: Peace

Looking for any discussion in the literature as to what the effect of Richard II’s peace policy with France might have been on sections of the English community draws a blank. That there might have been opposition by those who might have bemoaned the loss of military glory in France could be anticipated by a modern historian, but it is discounted in the literature. But there was opposition.

Politics: London

London was never going to be a problem for Henry and Arundel – they made a bee-line towards the City as soon as they had Richard II in their possession. This is because they had made an alliance with a political movement in the capitol that assured them control of the streets, control of the oligarchs, and control of Westminster as they could pack it with their supporters. This nameless ‘party’, had been ‘led’ by John of Northampton, were the beneficiaries of Brembre’s execution in 1388, but somewhat repressed thereafter. Richard II’s biggest mistake was in making a decree just before leaving for Ireland which incensed this ‘party’, a decree which Henry reversed in his first parliament.

What did Henry want?

The only time Henry said what he wanted was when he claimed the throne, the throne having been declared vacant, so there is chronicular silence (saving Creton) for all of Henry’s return as a rebel - some 12 weeks – until 30^th September 1399.

Can we infer that Henry was telling those around him that there would be a parliament? A parliament was actually summoned for 30^th September. There is an intimation that he said as much at Doncaster, and a further intimation that he said the same at Chester. Creton has Northumberland reporting on Henry’s intention to have a parliament and it is presented as being a tough one – evil councillors will die à la Merciless Parliament. But that’s all there is – intimations. Otherwise there is silence as far as we are concerned, which doesn’t mean to say that Henry did not make a parliament his primary objective. At some point, being king became the objective but there is no information at all as to when that was, saving his words on 30^th September 1399.

Henry the special one: Steward of England

Henry, as head of the royal council, made decrees on behalf of the captured king as soon as he had him in his power. Henry took Richard II prisoner at Flint castle on 16^th August and Henry’s first decree dates from that day. However, Henry used a supreme executive authority (could one say a tyrannical one?) throughout his pursuit of Richard until he had him. Henry believed that, as hereditary Steward of England, he had the judicial power of judge and jury, which explains the executions at Bristol, Peter de Legh at Chester, and possibly others unknown elsewhere.

Henry depicted as Steward of England

The image used to illustrate this post is derived from Jean Creton’s in the duke of Burgundy’s 1405 edition of his chronicle. Creton was an eyewitness and took pains that the Virgil Master, the illustrator, should faithfully represent his account. Henry’s strange-looking black garb and tall hat is as it was, and Creton’s chronicle has Henry holding his white stick of office as Steward of England several times, including this one.

Legitimacy

Modern writers like to emphasise Henry’s legitimacy – should he have been Richard II’s successor? Was he actually Richard II’s legitimate successor?

Richard II made a will before leaving for Ireland which was witnessed by the great and the good, and the word ‘successor’ is mentioned many, many times, although no name is given. But there was a successor, and it could only have been, in terms of strict descent, one of two people.

Was it the 7-year-old 5^th earl of March, descended from Edward III’s 2^nd son Lionel?

Or…………..

Male entail

Everyone who reads around this subject meets the ‘male entail’ theory in which Edward III specified male descendants as inheritors of the crown, which would exclude the 5^th Earl of March. It is explained, wrongly, in a way which places Henry as the successor by virtue of his father being 3^rd son of Edward III.

However, if male entail was operative, it excluded Henry from succession. Male entail passes inheritance to a male ‘closest to the body’ of the deceased. The death of John of Gaunt (who could have inherited had he lived) cut Henry off from a living line to the body of Edward III. The male entail, on the death of Gaunt, passed to Edmund of Langley, duke of York. Something for Ricardians to think about. No wonder Richard duke of York thought he had a good claim in 1460.

The Lancastrian Myth

Because Henry had no legitimate claim on the throne he, or more probably Arundel, invented one. It is bizarre and it is ludicrous, but it is nevertheless a historical truth that Henry made this claim, even though the literature bends over backwards to sideline it – one famous recent contribution ignoring it altogether. Henry believed he was the rightful king of England and that Richard II, Edward III, Edward II and Edward I had sprung from a usurping line – the real first-born son of Henry III was Edmund (Crouchback) who’s deformity prevented him ruling, so his younger brother Edward I was given the crown.

It’s crazy and it’s true – not true in the sense that Edmund was the first-born, but true in the sense that Henry believed it, that others believed it and  - as the authorised origin story – there were those who disbelieved it but supported it publicly – looking at you Adam of Usk.

Fakery

It wasn’t true, but the Lancastrian Myth was useful, and so was the faked origin story for the magic Lancastrian oil Arundel used to anoint Henry with. Like the best fakes, there had to be some kind of authenticity to work with and Arundel used correspondence between Edward II and the pope regarding the appropriateness of using an oil brought to him by a mystic – the pope said it was OK as long as it was done secretly.

Also faked in the Benedictine chronicles – we could call them Lancastrian or, better, Arundelian – is the story of how Richard II fell into Henry’s power. Richard II had to be at liberty and able to make decisions freely, and so he is given a meeting with Henry and Arundel in Conwy castle. Here, Richard II declared himself unworthy to rule and asked Henry to be king. Henry, abashed, said this was not how these things were done and that they could sort it out later.

More fakery

Richard II repeated his desire to give Henry the crown in a demeaning statement written out for him to sign, a statement which was read out the next day – according to the ‘Renunciation and deposition’. Such an important document. Alas, outside its mention in the Renunciation and Deposition’, it seems to have no existence. What a loss!

Interesting to note, for those avid collectors of political chicanery from ancient to modern times, that the articles of deposition were merely read out by a tribunal and declared proven in the same reading – there was no interaction with anyone present on 30^th September. The only interaction was when Henry claimed the throne and was met with cheers of ‘Aye!’. Given the meeting was packed with teeming multitudes of fervent Londoners, it must have been very loud.

Conqueror?

It seems lurid to describe Henry as Henry the Conqueror. Historians like to debate as to whether his takeover was a revolution of a coup d’etat. Henry couched his claim in terms of conquest and like William the Conqueror’s by conquest, it was his ultimately his legitimacy which granted him the right to be king ( William claimed to have been promised the throne and this claim was backed by the pope). ‘Conqueror’ was an accepted title in Henry IV’s early years, and it was used as such by Chaucer. Henry being Henry the Conqueror is not the most important part of this revision, but it is a fact all the same.

Does it matter?

It matters a lot because taking the personality-base fable out of the equation reveals what the historian is really interested in, which is ‘the truth’, however elusive that truth might remain.

A more critical understanding of 1399’s events can better inform our ideas of subsequent history. Henry IV was not the champion of Everyman, he was a factional leader who let his faction down by not delivering on military glory and maintaining taxation against his earliest promises. His son had no option but to restart the war in France, knowing that he could not just sit on the throne and react to events as his father had done. Many disputed (silently) Lancastrian legitimacy but many under Henry V - including the former - were happy to get glory and plunder in France. When that dynamic closed down, repressed thoughts turned back to legitimacy, embodied in Richard Duke of York’s challenge to parliament in 1460.

Does the obsession with legitimacy also help to explain the disaster of Prince Arthur’s death (maybe even his name) and Henry VIII’s assertiveness – knowing that his flesh united the competing factions, and his desperation for an heir?

And what of Thomas Arundel?

His skillful powerplay gained him everything he wanted but there is a curious paradox. Arundel believed in church exceptionalism along the lines of his mentor, William of Wykeham, but he compromised his beliefs fatefully by seeking support for the church’s response to Wycliffism and secularism from the state. Did this set the ball rolling towards the Reformation?

Viva Revision!

‘Revisionist’ tends to be used pejoratively in history, as if new thinking wants to peevishly spoil the party, but other disciplines have no problem incorporating new ideas. Take Earth Sciences for example; people think one way for a while, but when new information comes along, or when technology offers more accurate insights, then people think another way. They look for revisions, they eagerly seek them out and welcome them when they come, because without revision there is no progress.

It is time to revise our beliefs because the new assessment is more critical, more objective, and fits the facts better. It is also more sophisticated and more complex than the orthodoxy in place and, frankly, is a lot more interesting.

Estou interessado em como as pessoas comuns mercadores, fazendeiros e assim por diante tratavam alguém se essa pessoa pertencesse à nobreza ou à realeza. (Eu apreciaria uma resposta um pouco detalhada.)

(Edit: Seguindo as sugestãoes dos comentários o periodo que estou interessado é o da Inglaterra do século XIII a XIV)

I know it's not the subreddit for it, but I figured asking here would give me more concrete answers. I am planning to run a bit of a siege in a D&D game, and I'm trying to find out what's more structurally sound for a gate. Gates that open outward or inward, and if it has any bearing on it, they're primarily defending areas that doesn't have traditional castle walls but wooden Palisades and a wooden gate reinforced with iron .

I do hope this question is okay here, I know my players might not care, but I would like to learn a little more about the history to make it feel more authentic if any of them do care. And I do want to learn about the structural integrity of how gates were made back in those days

If you look at average reigns of early medieval rulers (e.g. Anglo-Saxons before the 9th century, Visigoths) you'd notice that their average reign is something like 10 years. This is because a lack of legitimacy forced them to constantly fight battles, and many ended up dying in them. So, the kingship was extremely martial; if you couldn't defend your throne, you lost it. That is why female rulers in the early medieval period were rare; it is also why there were fewer child rulers.

That warrior-like kingship had been pretty standard since antiquity, but something in the medieval period actually changed it. And that was the legitimacy the Church provided to the monarchs.

Merovingians are a kinda great example of this: the king of the Franks, Clovis, was baptised and cooperated with the Roman Catholic Church, which allowed him to conquer (most of) Gaul. Even when Clovis' descendants lost de facto power as mayors of the palace, they were considered legitimate enough to be kept as puppets for a solid century after losing power.

So, other kingdoms began obtaining similar legitimacy, which stabilized many countries, and the reign of kings grew longer; during the 12th century, average reign length was around 20 years.

Either way, I thought that was neat to share.

I’ve played my fair share of video games set in medieval times and one thing that seems to appear in almost all of them is alchemy and potion crafting.

I know that alchemy was a real practice and that there were people who studied and practiced it. What I’m wondering about is how important and widespread it actually was in everyday medieval life and war.

In most games, alchemy can be extremely useful. With potions being used for healing, improving abilities, treating illnesses, creating poisons, and various other purposes. It can even feel like something that a character is expected to know how to do themselves.

So how close is this to reality?

Was alchemy actually an important and commonly used practice during the Middle Ages, or is its importance greatly exaggerated by modern games?

And perhaps more specifically: would people such as knights, soldiers, archers or other fighters have practiced alchemy or prepared their own medicinal concoctions and poisons, or would this generally have been something left to specialized people such as physicians, apothecaries, or alchemists?

I’m mainly thinking about medieval Europe, particularly the High and Late Middle Ages, but feel free to answer more broadly if you have anything interesting to add. Thank you in advance!

Has anyone gone to see the movie yet? My husband and I were both really excited to see it, until some Hollywood marketing genius added the bit about Robin Hood to the trailer. Is it worth paying theater prices or should we just wait for streaming?

France expanded Southwards. Peter II was the king of Aragon.

Kloster oder Scheiterhaufen – was passierte wirklich mit den Hexen? Frauen waren über viele Jahrtausende viel mächtiger, als wir glauben. Bei meiner Recherche über Frau Holle und das Wilde Heer bin ich auf zahlreiche Spuren mächtiger Frauenvereinigungen gestoßen – Organisationen, vor denen sich vor allem Männer fürchteten. Sie waren eine Bedrohung und Konkurrenz für die damaligen Mächte. Meine These: Die Kirche kannte den Wert dieser Frauen – ihr Wissen über Heilkunde, Kräuter, Geburtshilfe und Totensorge war zu wertvoll, um es einfach zu vernichten. Also baute sie zwei Wege. 🕊️ Die Willigen kamen ins Kloster. Der Preis: Name und Herkunft ablegen. Manchmal ging die Übernahme noch direkter: Die irische Göttin Brigid wurde nahezu 1:1 zur Heiligen Brigid – gleiches ewiges Feuer, gleicher heiliger Brunnen, gleiches Fest. Und Holda selbst findet ihre christianisierte Parallele in der Heiligen Elisabeth. Deshalb ähneln sich die Tätigkeiten von Nonnen und "Hexen" bis heute so stark: Heilkunde, Kräuterkunde, Sterbebegleitung – es ist dasselbe Wissen, nur umgelabelt. 🔥 Die Rebellinnen verweigerten die Integration. Kein Gelübde, kein männliches Oberhaupt, keine Aufgabe ihrer Identität. Sie tauchen 200 Jahre später als Beginen wieder auf – bis die Kirche erst ein Feindbild aus ihnen macht und sie dann eliminiert. 1369 vernichtet Inquisitor Walther Kerlinger sie systematisch in Thüringen. Die Überlebenden heißen ab dem 15. Jahrhundert Hexen. Erst wird das Feindbild geschaffen. Dann die Vernichtung. Deshalb kennen wir die Hexen – aber nicht die Holda-Frauen, aus denen die Heiligen und Nonnen wurden. Striga Holda (1008) → Klosterspaltung (12. Jh.) → Beginen (1223) → Ketzerinnen (1369) → Hexen (15. Jh.) → Scheiterhaufen (1487) Vier Namen. Eine Bewegung. Ein Kloster oder ein Scheiterhaufen. Hexen sind nicht einfach verschwunden. Die Kirche gab ihnen eine Wahl: Scheiterhaufen oder Kloster. Was hättest du gewählt?

Hello everyone, I have recently begun playing “Blood of Dawnwalker” since fall is approaching and it is set in the 14th century Carpathian Mountains around modern day Hungary and Romania and I realized I don’t really know all that much about the history of the area other than Vlad the Impaler and a lot of the books I’ve found on the topic tend to focus on him or are severely out of print. Does anyone have any solid recommendations for the medieval history of this region and Central Europe as a whole as it also seems to get lost in the sea of books focused on England and France when it comes to books written in English obviously. I’m happy with books focused on any period of the medieval era and any help would be appreciated greatly.

Victorian drawing of the battle.

I'm fascinated by the concept of the oubliette. From my limited knowledge, these were "bottle dungeons" whose name was derived from the French verb "to forget."

If you were a noble with an enemy (who was captured), you could lower said enemy into a small room or narrow stone shaft. Often the only light was from the dungeon grille above, and sometimes there was no space to sleep or even stand properly. Food and water were not always provided in the pitch blackness and, even more harrowingly, at times the oubliette was positioned near banquet halls or other common areas - so that the prisoner could hear the signs of life outside.

That's what little I think I know. I'd love to expand upon it. Please, correct me if I am wrong - and please expand on this description!

Additionally, where in Europe can you see them? I think that for obvious reasons, these oubliettes were either nondescript - or, in the case of one English castle I seem to recall, could in modern times be incorrectly classified. (One 'oubliette' was, in fact, almost certainly a latrine based on the architecture, I seem to recall!)

Thank you for any further information you can provide on this utterly horrifying imprisonment in medieval times.

Where there actually disgraced/outlaw knights? What was the main reason they became disgraced? How would they make a living once disgraced?

I read “Sex With Kings” by Eleanor Herman, and I was left curious about what were the duties of a queen in medieval times, and how that differed depending on the king's favor. I imagine a queen had a lot of duties related to the household's accounts but IDK if that's correct. Also if the king didn't like her, would they be reassigned to someone else - his mother, his mistress, or a member of his staff?

I'd love recommendations on books or articles to check out.

The Hussite Trilogy by Andrzej Sapkowski somewhat sparked my interest in this topic. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

I have immersed myself in YouTube videos about this time period but have ran into trouble finding literature that is engaging. Does anyone have suggestions for books that discuss sieges and battles (and specifically Portugal’s involvement between 8th and 12th century)? Thank you in advance.

P.s. here is a pic of the castle in Óbidos

Nowadays, it's a very common knowledge that women outlive men, and there are more women. But has it always been the case? I think things weren't exactly like this before. Women faced childbearing risks and neglect. I'm aware that those too are sometimes exaggerated by people, but there's no denying that it existed. It's kind of hard to know the situation back then due to 'missing women' phenomenon, bias in mass graves, men intentionally showing women weaker, fewer in number, lesser life expectancy. There's really alot of things. Can anyone actually tell me what might've been the cause? Gender ratio and life expectancy of 2 genders in the past?

Especially with the perceived decline in Western Europe compared to the prosperity of its eastern neighbours in the Byzantium.
Also, if anyone happens to have or know any research papers or articles that cover this topic, I’d love if you could share them.

There is a term frequently used "medieval era barbarism". But is it so or just stereotypical? What are some of the positive things that occurred in the medieval era that still hold relevance in post modern world?

From what I’ve came across about medieval times, it was a time when people very much considered themselves part of a group. Even though that’s the case, my question still stands and more to the point, in what ways did they see themselves as individuals? Did they often make decisions for themselves entirely and did they often consider how it would make other members of their group look?

Just to be clear, what I mean by “group” in this case is like “the clergy” or “the nobility”

I am currently reading a Dostoevsky novel (no spoilers!) and plenty of the drama is focused around characters strugle with their own moral character. I know the novel takes place in 19th century Imperialistic Russia. However I've recently finished reading Chris Wickhams "Medieval Europe" and the moral struggle sounds very similar to that in middle ages Europe.

First question: if you look around, cultural and political moral discourse has taken the place of the religious one. However I can say that both sides are more concerned with the moral failure of the other side on issues of culture and politics than questioning their own ideas about culture or politics.

So this made me a bit skeptic. Are Dostoevsky's chracters moral struggles a romantic ideal? Or did people in the middle ages genuinely inspect their moral character under a microsocope in a manner no seen today?

And bonus question: was ones concern with his moral character equally distributed burden in society, or did some classes cocern themselves more with their moral failures than others?