Halloween 2016 Post: The Odenwald Witch

In honor of today, I thought it'd be fun to do a post on something spooky. I had quite a few options, many of them inspired by my childhood in southwestern Germany, the birthplace of many of Grimm's fairy tales. I've decided to cover an incident which actually occurred to me in the spring of 2011.

I'll start with a few statements and caveats. Firstly, this story IS true to the best of my memory; I've simply omitted or consolidated a couple of points to keep things brief-ish. Secondly, in general I am not particularly superstitious and my belief in ghosts and the paranormal can be considered, at best, skeptical. I personally think that there's some sort of logical explanation for this incident, though what it would be I have never quite worked out for myself satisfactorily.

The Trip

In 2011 I took a year in between college and grad school to work and save some money. I also decided to use some of this cash to take a nice trip to Europe; the original plan was to spend nearly 2 months there. I would spend a week in my hometown of Heidelberg, Germany, and the rest of the time in France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. I grew up in a military family, and as a kid we moved a lot. Until I was almost a teenager we didn't spend more than a year or two anywhere, except for Heidelberg, and for that reason I have always considered it my childhood home. For reasons I will not get into here, I was forced to cut the trip down to a paltry two weeks shortly after arriving in Germany. I decided to cash in my rail pass, rent a car, and spend my time simply driving around southern Germany visiting friends, places we used to vacation when I was a kid, and generally relaxing.

Odenwald Fog (None of my photos of the day were this clear!)

The third full day of the trip, I had my plans squared away, and decided I'd venture into the Odenwald (more on that below). It's the region that Heidelberg sits in, and the more rural parts of it are full of small towns, castles, and some excellent hiking. My plan was to spend the day driving slowly along back roads from Heidelberg to the village of Michelstadt, a medieval town deep in the region that my family would often visit when I was a child. Along the way I had determined to stop at any locations or towns I thought looked interesting, get a little hiking in in the abundant woodland and small mountains, and generally enjoy myself.

My Odenwald road, just outside of Heidelberg. The fog grew thicker as the morning wore on

Odin's Forest

The Odenwald is a fascinating region of Germany, occupying a small patch covering several German states in the southwest of the country, near the French border. It's quite close to the Black Forest, and many people consider it a less touristy version of that region. It is mountainous and heavily forested, and the canopy, like that of the Black Forest, is so dense that the forest is often dark even in daylight hours. It's extremely beautiful, and if you like small villages, hiking, and medieval history I recommend visiting if you ever find yourself in the Frankfurt area.

The region has an extensive history; for nearly 100 years it made up the edge of the Roman Empire, and was one of the few regions of Germany settled by them. Several forts, camps, and bases there made up a section of the Lime Germanicus, the line of fortifications protecting the Romans from Germanic invasion. It was otherwise sparsely inhabited, until the Franks showed up and began building the regions first permanent towns and villages.

Me looking dopey in Michelstadt's town center, in front of the old guildhall.

The region has quite a history of violence; it's near the modern French border, sat in a border region between numerous small rival constituent states of the Holy Roman Empire, and due to the rivers, streams, mountains, and thick forests in the region it was highly defensible and ideal to build fortifications in. Towns in the region were frequently besieged, stormed, or sacked from the medieval period on, and saw fighting as late as the Second World War. This attention brought further dangers, and the region saw several outbreaks of plague and other diseases.

The origin of the region's name is a mystery, but there are several theories. Probably the most prominent, and the one I was told as a child by locals, is that the name mean's "Odin's Forest". Before the Romans came the area was supposedly sacred to Germanic barbarians who worshiped Wodan, the Germanic version of the Norse Odin. Local legend says that these early Germans sacrificed humans to their gods in the sacred forest by nailing them to or hanging them from the trees, and avoided the area for settlement due to its religious importance. This theory is hotly debated by modern local historians, but I think it adds another special layer of creepiness!

Anglo-Saxon depiction of Wodan/Woden, the Germanic version of Odin.

The region is also FULL of ghost stories and stories of the supernatural. The brothers Grimm mined the area for their work on folklore, and every town and hamlet has its own local legends. One says that a ghostly knight named Rodenstein rides through the forests at night with a band of barbarian berserkers whenever a war is going to break out. Others tell of appearances of the devil, who is said to rest on a particular rock or tree stump, beguiling travelers, making satanic deals, and leading people to their doom. The German mythological figure Siegfried was supposedly murdered in the area, and rumors of his ghostly curse abound. And of course, like any rural area in Germany, there are the stories of witches, the Hexen  who haunt the forests eating children and generally being a menace. Of particular Odenwalder flavor are the Wildweibchen, wild women who live in the forests. They are said to have power over men and animals and may be nature spirits, demons, witches, or some combination of all three.

The Ghostly Rodenstein begins his ride foretelling doom. 

Medieval Depiction of a Wild Woman

The Wildweibchen

It was early spring, and it was quite cool; I wore a light coat and pants, and it was both very rainy and very foggy. The road I took followed the Neckar river, and was dotted with castles and villages. I was in the Odenwald, and I was in a great mood. The fog was low along the river and the towns, but thinned near the mountain and hilltops, where castles frequently appeared in the mist. Around 10 the rain lightened, and I saw an empty carpark and sign indicating a local tourist attraction. I pulled off, grabbed my beat up old camera, and started trekking on the small trail that led up the side of the mountain towards several castles I could see which sat on the slopes above me.

One of the castles I could see from the road, the Schwalbennest, or Swallow's Nest Castle. I took this photo on the day this story takes place, you can see how foggy and eerie it was outside!

The fog was heavy, but the rain was light and the temperature was perfect for a hike. I was totally alone, and figured I could get some great photos and enjoy the solitude. I was soon in front of one of the castles, a ruined husk of a building with only a small sign featuring the castle's name and a brief timeline. I spent several minutes looking around the abandoned ruins, my curiosity fired.

My castle. I modified this photo to remove some of the fog, and can not find an original unaltered copy. 

I later found out the town was called Neckarsteinach, It's a small, cozy town which straddles the Neckar and has four castles (in the fog, I could only see two). It's a neat little medieval town across the river from the somewhat Dilsberg Castle, and in nicer weather is apparently somewhat popular with hikers and tourists. It also has its fair share of ghost and other supernatural stories, most of which like those described above (it's also one of the towns claiming to be the murder site of Siegfried).

The Castle. The Golden sign is an information plate that I somehow missed on my exploration of the ruins, 

At the time though I knew little of this. After a few minutes, it began to rain through the fog, and I figured nobody would be along to answer any of my questions, so I headed back to the forest path. Just as I got back to it, I saw an older elderly lady walking up the path towards me. Even with the inclement weather, this wasn't surprising; Germans of all ages love hiking and walking, and if anything I was more surprised that this was the only person I'd seen.

I should note here that my spoken German isn't fantastic, mostly due to disuse. I read and write it well enough, and I can understand speakers just fine, but my own speaking is broken and halting. Despite this, I asked the woman (in German), if she knew the anything about the castle. It's called the Hinterburg (the hind or rear castle) and is now state owned, and the sign I mentioned above game a few bulletpoints on a timeline, but no information of major substance.

The woman, somewhat shyly responded slowly that she couldn't remember; she said there were many castles nearby and she frequently confused their names and didn't want to give me bad information. I thanked her, and turned to snap a final picture as she began to walk away.

A creepy statue near the ruins, apparently by a local artisan

As I focused my camera I heard her speak behind me from maybe a dozen feet away. She told me to be careful, there were dangers in the woods. Only half listening (the camera I was using was a cheap digital I was having difficulties using) I asked her what kinds of things? Nonchalantly, she said "There are boars..." and a moment later in a much more icy voice added "...and other things." The way she said this took me off-guard, it had been said almost mischievously and I was taken aback. As I turned I asked in my halting German, "what things?". As I finally turned she was gone, nowhere to be seen. she had been speaking from only a few long strides behind me on the mud path, but now she was gone.

I ran down the trail several dozen yards in the direction she had been walking, but there was no sign of her. I ran in the other direction, and again no sign. This woman was probably in her 60's and had been using a hiking stick, and I doubt she could have outpaced me (I'm over 6 feet tall and a fairly experienced hiker). I feverishly searched both directions for several seconds, but there was nothing. It didn't look like any of the mud-filled footprints on the trail were fresh (except for mine), and I could see no branch paths or areas where the trail forked. The mist was thick. but I had good visibility for around a hundred meters, but she was just gone.

I ran. I'm not afraid to admit, but without thinking I panicked and bolted as quickly as I could back down the hill to the car. Arriving exhausted, I got in and started the car. And that's when I realized there were no other cars in the park, and none had been there when I had arrived an hour earlier. I peered at the trail map on the trail head (I was parked no more than a few feet from it), and it indicated this trail had no official branch paths and lopped back to my current location. I was alone.

And so I drove as quickly as I could on down the road as the rain picked back up. Did I see a Wild Woman? The Devil? A mean old lady messing with an American tourist? I don't know, and honestly, I don't want to know.

Happy Halloween!

My First DNA Test

In general, I try not to post anything personal here, but this is tangentially related to history and so I thought I'd share! Today I got in the results of my first DNA analysis which determined by ethnic makeup. I'd been curious to do this for some time; I don't speak to a large portion of my family for personal reasons, and so there have been many gaps and assumptions in my personal genealogical research. Before I get any further, I should note (and caution anyone getting one of these tests done) that they still have a relatively high standard of deviation and margin of error.  I have not yet taken multiple tests with other companies, which will help me narrow down this deviation, but I found the initial results had a few surprises in store.

Firstly, and primarily, a bit of background. When I first started seriously studying history I, like many of my colleagues, sharpened my skills by putting together a family history for myself. On my mother's side this was quite easy; my maternal grandmother came from an upper-class Anglo-Welsh Catholic family, for whom records were easy to find. My maternal grandfather was a bit trickier, but I still got along fairly well. His family was an undistinguished mix of German and English, most of whom settled in Kentucky to become minor subsistence farmers.

 However, on my paternal things were quite difficult. I haven't spoken to my father in many years, and I fell out of contact with my family on that side around the same time. To further complicate matters, most of that side of the family have always (since arriving in America, at least) lived in the rural Appalachian Mountains. This region was historically (and in fact remains) the poorest, poorly-literate, and badly documented region of America. Just for some perspective, at least when I was a teenager, I still had family who had no running water in their home and for whom the only access to electricity was from a diesel generator. As a result of this isolation, records can be quite difficult to come by and historians of this region depend on oral history to a far greater degree than in many other communities of the United States. I knew that my Grandmother was Anglo-German, but aside from that knew little specifically. My Grandfather was a huge mystery, made even more complicated by this test.

The assumption when I was a teenager, and that I carried until today, was that my paternal Grandfather was largely of native ancestry. He had a dark complexion, jet black hair, high cheek bones, and many other physical characteristics shared by many American Indians. More importantly thought, he always claimed to have been raised as a child in Cherokee, North Carolina on the Qualla Boundary, and he was known while alive to have spoken at least some of the Cherokee language. As a kid (we are not sure at exactly what age, but probably his early teens, and so probably the late 1940s or early 1950s) he fled this region, and was adopted by a family. He adopted their last name (now my legal last name) and left his old life entirely behind. We were never able to get more than this; my Papaw was a quiet man and refused to speak about his childhood, except to hint perhaps that there had been abuse in his home. To further complicate matters, as a kid I remember having family from near the tribal land in North Carolina present at large family gatherings, but never learned anything about them (as a result of living in Germany I never saw any of them past a very young age, and upon returning to the states my parents divorced and I ceased seeing much of that side of the family).

So as a result, I had always believed that I was some mix of German, Anglo-Welsh (with distant ancestors who were Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, as well as Norman French), and Cherokee. It turns out that my research was good on every point but the last one, assuming the DNA results are correct. So let's take a look!

Firstly, at least according to this test, I have no indigenous American, African, or East Asian ancestry. The last two are no big surprise, but the first was  a shocker. If he wasn't a Native American, then what was my Papaw?

1. 40% Western European 
This is settled on Germany, but may also include Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and France. This is not surprising; both my maternal Grandfather and paternal Grandmother are heavily German, and this came as nothing but a confirmation of my prior research.

2. 34% Great Britain
The site I used breaks down the British Isles a bit oddly; "Great Britain" includes all of the Islands but is centered and most heavily focused on England and lowland Scotland. Again, no surprise here.

3. 11% "Irish"
This was a bit surprising at first, until I realized that "Irish" on the site I used also includes Wales ("Great Britain" above does also). When combined this makes me roughly 45% "British" and more or less confirms what I already knew. There's probably a few Irish ancestors in my family's distant past somewhere, but I have never discovered any in my research.

4. 7% Iberian Peninsula
This is where things got crazy. Nothing in my research had indicated that I had any Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. This set also includes Moroccans and other Berbers, but to a lesser degree than Spanish or Portuguese. It seems likely that my Papaw was largely Portuguese or Hispanic, and he or his family hid this fact for reasons that I am unable to ascertain. I won't speculate here on the why, mostly because for the reasons described above I have no real way of finding out. It's possible that his later adoption in Kentucky wasn't his first, and he had been adopted by people of native descent as an infant. This would help explain those mystery relatives at the family functions as a young child, but again, I now have no way of knowing. Either way it's extremely interesting!

5. Trace Amounts
According to the test, I'm also 3% Italian or Greek, 3% Scandinavian, 1% Finnish, and 1% West Asian (Either Turkish, Arab, Persian, or Caucasian).  The Scandinavian and Finnish make sense; the upper classes of Great Britain were largely made up of the descendants of Normans, who in turn were the descendants of Vikings. There was also quite a bit of exchange between the German states and Scandinavia, so this all makes sense (and I can finally formally claim to have at least some Viking in me!).

The Italian or Greek was a surprise, and the West Asian even more so. If I had to make a wild guess, I would say the Italian or Greek comes from one or two distant ancestors who married Germans or Englishmen. The West Asian was very surprising. My guess is that it's either just a weird outlier, or that it comes from that Iberian branch of the family. After all, Iberia was ruled to some degree by Berber and Arab groups until the renaissance, and populations of those groups remain in the country to this day. It's also possible I just have a Turkish, Persian, or Caucasian ancestor or two way back.

But that's it! I am hoping the next test I have done more or less confirms this series, particularly the Iberian bit as it will help to make this new mystery a lot more clear. That's it for today!

Opinion: The Arab Revolt as Portrayed in Battlefield One

I've just finished Dice's latest game, Battlefield 1. Overall, I have to say that I enjoyed it; it went out of its way to humanize the First World War and honor all of those who gave their lives during that conflict. The game has... a LOT of inaccuracies to put it bluntly. Experimental, prototype, or limited-production weapons and equipment are shown as being commonplace, many events being portrayed are inaccurate or unrealistic, and sometimes in an effort to be fun the game goes totally crazy. Most of this I can forgive or write off as simple artistic license and an effort to make the game or balanced, cinematic, and fun. If there's interest, I may dig deeper into the game overall, but for now I'll leave it at that.


What I DO want to talk about is how the game portrays the Arab Revolt. As an undergraduate, my focus was on Ottoman history, I am currently a military historian, and I've always had a fascination with T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), and so I was looking forward to this part of the game more than any other. And woo-boy did I get let down. What bothers me about this section is that, compared to the other liberties taken with the history, this segment goes all out and because the front is little known (aside from the film Lawrence of Arabia which in itself is deeply historically flawed) I worry that some people will interpret it as being an actual representation of the conflict.

The game's female Bedouin protagonist, Zara. Armed with a German Blucher Pattern saber
instead of an Arab weapon. For some reason.

 
This portion of the game takes place during 1918, during the Arab campaign against the Ottoman rail network. With the help of British and French officers, the Arabs conducted numerous raids and attacks on Ottoman rail lines and trains, disrupting the flow of supplies, killing Ottoman soldiers, and tying up huge numbers of Ottomans that may have been of more use elsewhere. In this story you play as Zara Ghufran, a female Bedouin fighter and one-person army killing Ottomans, destroying outposts, etc. The campaign, fittingly, ends with a note about how the Franco-British promises of Arab independence were reneged upon at the end of the war.

At one point you destroy an armored train from horseback essentially single-handedly. Seriously. 

I have a few big problems. The first one is the main character, Zara. As far as I am aware, women took no direct part in the fighting during the Arab revolt. In Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, his account of the campaign, women are mentioned only around 70 times in a 600+ page volume, usually as wives, servants, or victims of Ottoman or Arab attacks. As a note, the edition that I'm using is the 1991 Anchor Books edition and it clocks in at 661 pages not counting indexes etc. In fact, Lawrence comments on the differences between women in Bedouin culture compared to those in the west on a few occasions. And in chapter 13 while discussing the Arab distaste for Turkish tactics, he specifically notes:

The Bitter taste of the Turkish mode of war sent a shock across Arabia; for the first rule of Arab war was that women were inviolable... (Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Page 93).

I've also never seen women fighting during the revolt in any other work on the subject, unless you count the exception of women fighting off attackers during raids on trains and villages and the like. Zara is also portrayed throughout wearing western-looking clothing. This is something that many of the Bedouin fighting in the revolt were deeply distrustful of, and it's the reason we see the famous pictures of Lawrence wearing Bedouin dress during the conflict. He noted a request made to him by Prince Faisal, then the leader of the Arab revolt in the areas of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria:

Suddenly Feisal asked me if I would wear Arab clothes like his own while in the camp. I should find it better for my own part, since it was a comfortable dress in which to live Arab-fashion, as we must do. Besides, the tribesmen would then understand how to take me. The only wearers of khaki (Referring to western-style desert uniforms worn by most armies during the conflict) in their experience had been Turkish officers, before whom they took up an instinctive defence. If I wore Meccan clothes, they would behave to me as though I were really one of their leaders... (Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Page 126).

Lawrence in Arab clothing given to him by Prince Faisal. Interestingly, according to Lawrence himself, this garment
which was pure white and highly ornate, was given to Faisal by a relative who was hoping to get the Prince to settle down
and wear the garment to his wedding ceremony.

I understand the urge to include a playable female character in the game, but the fact that they chose to do so during the Arab revolt is mind boggling. The Bedouin were (and remain) a deeply patriarchal society for whom women weren't even supposed to be touched by an honorable man in the course of a raid. Now I would like to note here that is is POSSIBLE there were female Bedouin fighters during the war; female Arabs took part in other conflicts in the area after the war, including during the 1936 revolt against the British who took the area over after WWI. However, as far as I am aware these later women didn't become politically or militarily active until after various Arab feminist organizations began to be formed in the late 1920s by figures like Tarab Abdul Hadi. Before this, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. If you know of any, PLEASE let me know! I'd love to read about it!

What makes this especially perplexing is that there WERE some women who took an active part in the fighting during the war. Both the Russians and the Serbs had a small number of female fighters, some of whom became quite famous either during or after the war. In 1917 the Russian Provisional Government formed battalions made up solely of women, and there were some female Russian soldiers even before this. These included Eugenie Mikhailovna Shakhovskaya (who served as a recon pilot for the Russian military starting in 1914) and Marina Yurlova who served with a Cossack unit while still a teenager. Yurlova won several awards, including the Cross of St. George 3 times for bravery, and after the war wrote a famous book of her experiences.

Marina Yurlova after being wounded

 The Serbs also employed female fighters; in 1914 a British woman, Flora Sandes arrived in Serbia to serve as a non-combatant ambulance driver. After being separated from her unit she joined a unit of Serbs for her own safety, and soon began taking an active part in the fighting. She attained the rank of Sergeant Major and won numerous awards, including the Order of the Karadorde's Star, equivalent to their Medal of Honor. She was wounded  in hand to hand combat in 1916 and spent the rest of the war running a hospital, but at the close of the conflict she was commissioned as an officer, the first to do so in the Serbian military. This of course, makes the exclusion of the eastern front from the game even more obvious, another niggle I had with Battlefield 1.

Flora Sandes in Serbian dress uniform

The other issue that I had was the Arab revolt is made out in the game to be about oil, an implication which is insulting to the Arab nationalists who fought and died during the conflict. After the war the European interest in the area was certainly based on this, but during the conflict military commander and especially fighters weren't thinking especially about it. The revolt was fought for two primary reasons, one both for the Europeans and the Arabs themselves. On the European side, the conflict would drain resources from the Ottoman empire, one of the main belligerents during the war. A weakened Turkish state would be unable to press an already badly pressed Russia, and more importantly they would be unable to take and hold the Suez canal, Britain's link with India, Australia, and New Zealand.

Ottoman troops during the war

On the Arab side, the big reason for the revolt was Arab nationalism and the desire for an independent state. The Arabs had begun to be repressed in recent years by the Ottomans, and the desire for an independent, Arab-led state in Arab-majority areas was already on the rise before the war broke out. With the outbreak of war, and encouraged by the British, the Arabs finally went into open conflict. It proved to be mutually-beneficial on the surface; the British would hamper their enemy and protect their assets in Egypt, while the Arabs gained funding, equipment, training, and diplomatic support for their revolution. Of course the European powers did about-face on their promises after the war, and this was largely motivated by the precieved ease of oil exploration in the area if it was under European control. But during most of the revolt itself this was not really a primary aim at all, and the game implying otherwise seems to me to be a comment on the modern politics of the region. If you've been with me from the beginning you know how much I dislike the politicization of history, and I dislike it just as much here as I do elsewhere.

Prince Faisal at teh Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. The Gentleman behind him in the kepi is a French adviser, Captain Pisani. Lawrence stands to Faisal's left (the short man in western uniform but Arab head dress). The black man in the rear of the picture is one of Faisal's slaves whose name is unknown. 

Finally, there's a quote at the end of the mission which just makes no sense at all. Lawrence, talking to Zara, mentions going to the Suez canal and asks her what she knows about battleships. What? The Ottomans made two attempts to take the Suez, one in 1915 (ironically, using many Bedouin levies and mercenaries which would later turn on them) and one in 1916, neither of which was successful. The Suez was held by the British throughout the conflict, so I'm not sure why Lawrence implies that he wishes for an attack there. Also, a minor note, but during the war the Ottomans possessed only a few battleships. Two were captured by the British almost immediately with the outbreak of the war in August 1914. One was sunk in 1915 by a British submarines, one wasn't even a battleship (the Germans had given the Turks the SMS Goeben, a Moltke-class Battlecruiser in 1914) which spent 1918 either in port or in the Aegean, and the final one was badly damaged in January 1918 and sat out the remainder of the war in port. So what is Lawrence referring to? I honestly have no idea.

To close, I should note that Lawrence's accounts of the campaign are frequently criticized, especially in regards to his personal role in the fight. The game sort of rolls with his interpretation, and portrays him as the leader of the whole revolt. I would have at least liked to see the Arab leaders referred to, and a nod to the other European advisers would have been nice too.

That's it, though. Several people have asked me what I think of the game, and I tell them it's fun, with a few caveats. These, along with the exclusion of the Eastern, African, and Pacific theaters of the war are my biggest complaints, and I'm hoping these other fronts will be covered by some DLC in the future. The other big complaint that I have is that the Entente are shown as the "good" guys, though the pre and post-level narration nullifies this to a certain degree. I would have loved to have played as an Ottoman defender and Gallipoli, a German during the Brusilov offensive, or another of the central powers, but again, I think DLC may eventually fix this. Let me know what you think of the game, and if you're having fun with it shoot me a message so we can play some multiplayer!

For more reading on the Arab revolt:

T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom is Lawrence's account of the conflict, and inspired the acclaimed film Lawrence of Arabia. For the abridged version, check out Revolt in the Desert. 

David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace discusses the aftermath of the revolt and the European backbiting on promises made to Arabs during the conflict.

James Barr, Setting the Desert on Fire: T.E. Lawrence and Britain's Secret War in Arabia, 1916-1918 and the sequel, A Line in the Sand: The Anglo-French Struggle for the Middle East, 1914-1948. 

That's it, see you next time!

Hastings: 950 Years Ago

I like anniversaries. They're a great way to mark important dates in human history, and the big ones are a great way to bring attention to our past through re-enactments, celebrations, and special events. So far I've covered the Battle of the Somme, and today I'm covering another major landmark in the history of western Europe involving the English and the French.

Today marks the 950th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. There are a lot of "seminal" events in human history; the development of agriculture, the French revolution, etc. But perhaps at no other time in history did the outcome of a single battle have such massive consequences for world history. Hastings never fails to make lists of most important battles, and for good reason.

Norman knights charge Anglo-Saxon Huscarls in a shield wall during the battle,
from the famous Bayeux Tapestry. 

The battle itself was fascinating, and I'll provide a very brief summary here. Anglo-Saxon England was in the middle of a succession crisis and it's Wittan, the democratic parliament of the kingdom, had elected Harold Godwinson as king. This caused two rival claimants, King Harald Hardrada of Norway and William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy to launch invasions of England. I won't get into all of the messy political details of the claimants legitimacy and such, except to say that it was complicated. To further complicate things, King Harald had the support of Tostig, King Harold's brother. Tostig had been earl of Northumbria, Tostig had fomented a rebellion during the reign of a previous king, Edward the Confessor. Harold was a major adviser to Edward, and convinced him to outlaw Tostig and take his property. Tostig went into exile, and eventually made contact with King Harald, convincing him to invade.

King Harold was handsome, strong,
intelligent, and apparently well-
regarded by his nobles and his subjects. 

Initially Harald's invasion was successful; at the Battle of Fulford on September 20th the viking army defeated an outnumbered Anglo-Saxon force at the Battle of Fulford and occupied York.  Meanwhile, King Harold had summoned his army. This was made up of three groups; at its core were the Huscarls, personal retainers to the king made up of the best professional warriors in the kingdom. The bulk of the army was made up of the Fyrd; this was a militia made up from across the lower classes. Most were armed only with a long knife, spear, and shield, but a few of the wealthier ones may have been able to afford a helmet and perhaps a leather or hide shirt for armor. Supplementing these forces were the Thegns, landowners who were well equipped and armed and who fought either alongside the king's Huscarls or as part of a noble's retinue. This force, consisting mostly of the militia fyrd, sat in the south of England waiting for William's invasion when Harald invaded.

One the 8th of September, King Harold was forced to disband his army; the fyrd was composed mostly of farmers, and the harvest was coming in with no sign of Duke William's promised invasion. Without the harvest the kingdom would starve, and so the king sent his men home. However, he soon learned of Harald's success in the north, and King Harold rushed north  with his Huscarls, gathering and Fyrd and Thegns he could as his army rode north. On September 25 the Anglo-Saxons crushed the viking army at the Battle of Stamford bridge. Harald and Tostig were both killed in the battle, and very few of the Norwegian vikings survived. This event brought a close to the viking age, and secured the north. However, the Anglo-Saxons had taken heavy casualties, and the men were exhausted.

Anglo-Saxon Huscarls fought with large two-handed
axes, as well as with spears, swords, and shields
By this time they may have used kite-shaped shields
similar to those carried by Norman Knights. 

Norman knights fought on horseback with
javelines, lances, shields, swords, and maces. They
were the finest heavy cavalry in Western
Europe at the time. 

Unsure of what was happening, Duke William finally launched his invasion. Bad weather had kept his fleet at anchor, but they were able to cross and landed in England on September 28. His fleet was scattered during the launch, and if it hadn't been for Harald's invasion the Anglo-Saxons most likely would have swept the Normans away with little difficulty. As it was Duke William was forced to establish a fort near the town of Hastings, where he reorganized his army and raider the local countryside for supplies.

After Stamford Bridge, Harold moved south with part of his army; the rest remained behind to gather more forces and secure the area in preparation for Duke Williams promised invasion. While traveling south Harold learned of Duke William's landing, and he gathered some forces while en route south. His army made exceptional speed, nearly 27 miles a day for an entire week. This is especially impressive when you consider that very likely only the Huscarls, Thegns, and Nobles were mounted. The fyrd were marching on foot, across land with few roads, carrying their weapons and equipment the whole way after a long march north and having fought a major battle. Harold stopped at London for nearly a week to make sure the government was secure, then continued his march.

On October 13 Harold camped approximately 8 miles from from the Norman fort at Hastings. Emissaries were likely exchanged between the two armies, but the talks came to nothing. Having failed at diplomacy and with his army's position spotted by Norman scouts, King Harold positioned his army at the top of a hill, Senlac Hill, 6 miles from the Norman fort and challenged the invaders to battle. It's likely that the Anglo-Saxons were heavily outnumbered; estimates range from as much as a a few thousand to being outnumbered 2-1, but we can't be sure for certain. What is known is that the Anglo-Saxon army was exhausted and disorganized after its battle and long marches, and was fighting against a larger army. The Norman army relied heavily on crossbowmen and heavy cavalry (early versions of knights), while the entire Anglo-Saxon army fought as dismounted heavy infantry backed up by some archers and other light skirmishers.

The corssbowmen used by the Normans were professional, well-equipped household troops or mercenaries, while the skirmishers employed by the Anglo-Saxons were mostly members of the fyrd armed with hunting weapons and slings. 

Duke William launched the attack by sending in archers, which had little effect on the Anglo-Saxons. They had formed a shield wall, a literal wall made by interlocking their shield which was nearly impervious to most kinds of attacks. Frustrated, Duke William deployed his infantry. As these men advanced up the hill, the Anglo-Saxon shield wall opened and men hurled axes and spears at the advancing Normans, who became disorganized and unable to break the shield wall. Duke William then unleashed his heavy cavalry, hoping to simply run through the Anglo-Saxons.

A shield wall was difficult to crack. Huscarls armed with two-handed Danish Axes would have been used to kill enemy horsemen and to destroy the shields of enemy infantry. 

However, the discipline of the Anglo-Saxons at this stage was astonishing. They held their line, knowing that horses will not blindly charge a solid position of infantry bristling with spears. A rumor spread through the lines that Duke William had been killed, and the Normans began to retreat, pursued closely by some of the Anglo-Saxons. Duke William, who had stayed at the rear of his lines, rode forward, and seeing him alive his men rallied and turned on the English. Many were killed, including King Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine. Their bodies were probably moved to near the King, who mourned them briefly before reasserting command and rallying his army.

At this point a lull happened. The Anglo-Saxons reformed their wall and rested, while the Normans came up with a new plan. He realized that while they had the discipline to stand, the Anglo Saxons were eager for victory by pursuing a defeated foe. The Normans then launched a series of attacks, with archer support, whereby they would attack and then feign retreat, causing some of the Anglo-Saxons to follow them. Outside of their wall they were easier to kill, especially by archers. We don't know how many of these attacks and retreats were made, but it was probably several. This tactic couldn't break the shield wall, but it did result in the death of many Huscarls and Thegns, who were then replaced in the line by the poorly equipped and disciplined Fyrd.

Modern reenactment of Norman knights trying to find a weakness in the shield wall

Finally, late in the Battle King Harold was slain. We don't actually know how this happened. He was probably fighting in the shield wall, shoulder to shoulder with his men in the ancient tradition. Norman sources claim that he was killed by being shot through the eye with an arrow, but this was a common trope in Norman chronicles (someone killed like this was implied to be somehow cowardly) and can't really be trusted. All we know is that he died, and his army fell into a panic and began to collapse. They fyrd and many of the thegns began to flee, but it was at this moment that one of the most inspiring moments in English history occurred. The Huscarls were sworn to their king to the death, and refused to leave his body. They surrounded Harold's (and probably his brothers') remains and fought to the last man to protect them.

After the battle the Normans built an abbey to mark the spot of the battle, which is now in ruins. This stone allegedly marks
the spot where King Harold fell and died. 

Elsewhere rearguard actions occurred. One, led by an unknown figure, formed an ambush near a ditch called the "Malfosse" or "evil ditch". We don't know exactly what happened here, but it seems that many Norman knights were lured into attack the Anglo-Saxons behind a ditch. The ditch caused many horses to fall, and their riders were surrounded and hacked down. Eustace of Boulogne, a Norman Noble and one of Duke William's commanders, was badly injured here, and many men were killed, but the Normans eventually overran the position. For the following days groups of Normans pursued the broken English, who continually ambushed and harried their pursuers. Despite this, the battle was over and Duke William had won.

Most of the Anglo-Saxon bodies were stripped, looted, and dumped in a mass grave, but what happened to Harold's remains is unclear. The Wittain attempted to proclaim a boy, Edgar, as king, but Duke William marched on London and seized the government. While rebellions and low-level fighting would continue for years, Duke William became King William the Conqueror and Norman England was born.

Victorian depiction of Hereward the Wake, an Anglo-Saxon resistance leader after the Norman Conquest who
is now an English national hero and a central figure in English Nationalism. 

This battle may not read as particularly interesting to you, but its importance is hard to overstate. Firstly, William was now both an independent king and a vassal of the King of France for his lands in Normandy. This would sow the seeds for the Anglo-French rivalry which dominated so much of western history for the next 800 years. This rivalry, and their associated wars, would have a huge impact on everything from the Protestant reformation to determining the borders of many of the modern nations of Europe. It spurred England to build the British Empire, and France to dominate the continent. Ultimately it led to the bankruptcy of both kingdoms after the Seven Years War. To pay for it, Britain (England's successor) imposed heavy taxes on its North American colonies leading to the American Revolution. In France it triggered the French revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and ultimately events which would help to unify Germany .

Frenchman fighting Englishmen, as is tradition

The battle brought England back into the fold of Europe in a way it hadn't been since the fall of the Roman Empire hundreds of years before. Norman-English goods would begin to be traded again with Europe and vice versa. English soldiers and Norman knights would fight in the crusades, and the politics of England suddenly became of interest to people as far afield as the Islamic Caliphate. By extension, the Normans establishment of a kingdom in England would bring Wales, Scotland, and Ireland onto the European stage; until now they had been at best minor backwaters, but with Norman conquests and wars there they too became important in a global sense.

At its height during the Angevin Empire, Norman England controlled all of Britain, Ireland, and half of France
either directly or through vassal or tributary states. 

England itself was changed forever. Normans ruled England until 1485, when the Welsh Tudor Dynasty came to power. Since then England (and Britain) have also had Scottish and German dynasties, but no native-English ones. This further entangled England and Britain into European politics and trade. Anglo-Saxon and Norman law began to mesh , and from this was ultimately born English common law, upon which the laws of many countries, including the United States, are based today. It would be decades before an English kind would learn English at all, and centuries until it was the first language of a monarch, but Norman French had a big influence on the English language. Old Anglo-Saxon English eventually became middle English, which then became our modern English.  The battle itself was so important that it's often considered the beginning of the Middle Ages proper. With Harald Hardarda's death and the establishment of an independent Norman kingdom (the Normans were descendants of vikings after all) the Viking Age came to a close. There were more raids, even in England, but Scandinavia slowly lost influence after this battle.

So many parts of not only English or European, but world history depended on the outcome of Hastings.  The British Empire, the English language spoken as the modern global Lingua Franca, colonial races, law, global politics; so much of it would have been and would continue to be different if it weren't' for a wet day on October in 1066.

There are so many good sources on this battle that I can't even name them all. The standard introductory narrative used today is David Howarth's 1066: The Year of the Conquest . For a wider look at 1066, Marc Morris recently published his The Norman Conquest: The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England.  I haven't picked it up yet, but it has been getting great reviews and Morris is one of my favorite English historians working today.

That's it for now, see you next time!

Opinion: My Beef With Cleopatra

Whenever I'm asked who my favorite historical figure is, I often try to deflect the question: I have a lot of them, and they seem to jockey back and forth in position constantly while new ones are always being added to the list. But when asked who my least favorite is, my answer is always the same: Cleopatra VII Philopator. Yes, THAT Cleopatra.

That said, I an now and forever will be in love with
Elizabeth Taylor

My issue isn't that I necessarily dislike her personally (obviously I never met her). When it comes to studying historical figures, I think it's important to do so objectively and with as little bias as possible. It doesn't matter how "bad" or "good" that person may have been; my job as a historian is to rationally analyze the person and their actions, look at why they did what they did,  what effects those actions had, and what outside forces where working on, with, or against that person.

Where I have a problem with Cleopatra is the near constant need to make her into a role model. History is FULL of people, all flawed, who make excellent role-models, but she isn't one in my mind. In part, I think a lot of the glamorization of her comes from the romanticized caricature of her in popular culture; Shakespeare and Elizabeth Taylor's depiction of her are particularly prominent. But that's the issue: these aren't objective looks at a historical figure, they're dramatized depictions created for entertainment and not education.

Don't even get me started on this garbage

Cleopatra did have certain admirable qualities. She was the first of her dynasty to actually learn the Egyptian language, to better know her people. This is important; for around 300 years her family, the Macedonian Ptolemaic Dynasty, had ruled Egypt and all of them spoke only Greek. While government continued to operate in this language, and it was probably the one she spoke on a daily basis, she did put in the effort. She had some level of political skill, and was able to secure the throne for herself alone without having to share it. She seems to have cared about her people and her kingdom, and was willing to go to extremes to protect them.

At the end of the day though, she simply wasn't a very good ruler. If I were to ask you, what did Cleopatra actually accomplish, what would you say? Seducing two different Roman Generals? Securing the throne for herself? In the end, all she really accomplished was to grossly overplay her hand and underestimate her opponents. She was the last of her dynasty; at the end of her reign her kingdom became simply a province of a foreign Empire.She underestimated the Romans and believed that her personal charms would be a strong enough weapon in a political (and ultimately military) struggle against them. She was grossly over-matched; it's the equivalent of being offered a prize for being Mike Tyson in any contest of YOUR choosing, and picking boxing because you've been hitting the gym lately. She was able to win Marc Antony over to her side, but her influence constantly eroded his position within the Roman Republic. She had been a solid player in her own realm, but the complexities and subtleties of Roman politics completely overwhelmed her and make her efforts seem, frankly, a bit naive. Once the actual war came, things got even worse. At the Battle of Actium she panicked and fled; Antony believing she was in danger followed, and the loss of their commanders resulted in the fleet's destruction.  She pretty clearly wasn't very popular by the end of her reign; this became obvious when  her army simply deserted to Octavian in August of 30 BCE. Ultimately, she died with her kingdom in possession of her enemies, and committed suicide while a prisoner of the Romans.

What do you mean this isn't what you aspire to?!

However, I don't like having a post that's all negative. Because she is often depicted as a female role model from history, I thought I'd briefly discuss a few historical women who I do think are worthy of the distinction. This list is, of course, not even remotely comprehensive, but I do have a bit of a space limitation here. I should also point out that all of these women had flaws; they were people, and none of us are perfect. If you have your own personal historical heroine, let me know!


Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians

Here's a tip: If the statue of a person shows them
holding a sword, they were probably awesome.

Æthelflæd was an Anglo-Saxon, the daughter of King Alfred the Great of Wessex. She was married to the ruler of the Kingdom of Mercia during the viking invasions of England, and became in essence co ruler of that realm. While her husband was alive they seem to have worked together; he was functionally answerable to Alfred (though technically he was an independent ruler) and her good relationship with her father seems to have made her an excellent intermediary. Where she really started to shine though was after her husband's death; usually, a new ruler would have been selected at a council, but Æthelflæd was popular and Mercia granted more power to women than the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. She was proclaimed leader of the Mercians, and led her realm to her death. This was extremely unusual; she's the only known female ruler of an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. She established burghs (forts) throughout her kingdom after seeing how successful they had been when her father had done the same, and contributed to Mercia being the most stable realm in Britain in the viking period. She was also a war-leader; she was probably present in the field with her army on different occassions, and her strategic command saw off several enemies of Mercia, including viking armies and Welsh raiders. She died a popular queen, and her daughter succeeded her. However, Wessex soon annexed Mercia, and we are told that the deposition of their queen angered the Mercians. To understand why Æthelflæd was so amazing, you have to understand the Anglo-Saxons; they were an EXTREMELY patriarchal society. Women were of a lower social rank at every level of society, to the point that most Anglo-Saxon realms didn't even allow the wives of the king to call themselves queen. Æthelflæd isn't well-known outside of some parts of modern England, but she should be!


Tomyris, Queen of the Massagetae

Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling
that this Medieval depiction isn't a
historically accurate representation
of an ancient Indo-Iranian
warrior...

If you read my last post on the leaders in the upcoming Civilization VI video game, you are now probably somewhat familiar with Tomyris. Tomyris was the leader of the Massagetae, a group of Scythians living in modern Central Asia. All of our sources on her come from Ancient Greek historians, but these guys usually focused on other men and Tomyris is somewhat unique in being portrayed as not only a strong female ruler, but also as a strong "barbarian" (non-Greek) leader in general.  As the story went, Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire, invaded her lands. Initially he was successful because of a trick. His army pretended to retreat, and left behind large quantities of wine. The Massagetae were unused to alcohol, and quickly became drunk upon encountering the sweet liquid. The Persians then turned and killed many of the Massagetae. The son of Tomyris was captured, and committed suicide in captivity. Tomyris challenged the Persians to battle, and this time won. In the fight Cyrus was either killed or captured, and Tomyris ordered his body decapitated. She filled a skin with human blood taken from the field, and had Cyrus' head sewn into it. Supposedly, she remarked that "I promised you that I would quench your thirst for blood, and so I have." Tomyris became something of the archetype for the powerful, barbarian warrior queen, and her legacy continues on to this day. She is frequently depicted in art, and her name is common for girls in Central Asia and Turkey. 

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Eleanor pictured here above the Rolling
Stones. 

Eleanor might be my favorite lady on this list; I've always thought if I had a daughter I'd like to name her for Eleanor. I like her so much, I found it impossible to keep my biography of her brief, and it kept growing out of control. So I'll just give you some of the highlights. From 1137 she was Duchess of Aquitaine and personally controlled one of the largest, wealthiest regions of Western Europe. She personally took the cross, and accompanied her husband (the king of France) during the Second Crusade. After divorcing the King of France, she quickly became Queen of England by marrying Henry II. She was influential while queen, and even helped her son Henry the Young King in his revolt against his father, for which she was imprisoned. When released by her son Richard I "The Lionheart," her power grew even more; she served as Regent of England when he was out of the country, including during the Third Crusade. When he was captured in Austria, she personally negotiated the terms of his release and managed to gather the funds for his ransom from a country which was already basically bankrupt. During her son John's reign she seems to have been a moderating influence, and things really didn't start to go badly downhill for him until after her death. Throughout this whole period she was also responsible for negotiating marriages between the royal family and foreign dynasties; this might sound a bit domestic, but in an era when national politics was all conducted at the personal level between nobles in meant that she was partially responsible for choosing England's political and military allies. Her courts were centers of art and entertainment, and her court in Aquitaine in particular became a center for Troubadours.  At her death she'd led an amazing life; she had been queen of two great realms, duchess in her own right to a third, a crusader, a diplomat, regent of England, and had been mother to 3 Kings, 2 Queens, a duke, a duchess, two countesses, and a count.  

Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia

And because I know you're dying to know: the horse
story is a myth spread by opponents of Catherine
after her death. It came about when servants reported
her love for fine horses and the amount of time she
spent at the royal stables. It has no basis in reality ya
weirdos! 

Catherine is one of the few female leaders in world history with "the Great" title; at the time of writing Wikipedia lists only Catherine and Tamar of Georgia as females with the title. There are a lot of myths built up around Catherine, and in a lot of ways she was similar to Cleopatra. She was considered beautiful, and was known both in her own time and today for her lovers and perceived feminine charms. Under her Russia expanded to a massive extent, and achieved military victories against several powers of the day, including Poland and the Ottoman Empire. Russia had a golden age during her rule, and became powerful and wealthy. Until the Bolshevik Revolution Russian czars attempted to emulate the success of Catherine's reign, but none succeeded. Catherine was a fine diplomat and was excellent at picking ministers and subordinates, many of whom (such as Grigory Potemkin) became famous, stellar military and political leaders in their own right. She had Alaska and parts of Central and Eastern Asia colonized and brought Russia onto the world stage in a way that it hadn't really been before her. She founded towns and cities and reformed the administration of both the state and the military. Her patronage of the arts became semi-legendary, and her love of the Enlightenment brought new scientific and artistic ideas to her country. She founded the first state institution of higher learning for girls in Europe, and the Russian nobility gained freedoms they had never before enjoyed. Her reign wasn't perfect; her policies ultimately further entrenched serfdom in Russia and increased the state's reliance on it. The lower classes were continued to be repressed, and many of Catherine's policies only benefited the nobility. This led to intermittent rebellions which began in her reign and ended with the rise of the Soviet Union. Despite this, she's often considered one of the most successful leaders in Russian history. She was so interesting, there's even a wiki article that talks about legends and myths revolving around her!

Theodora, Empress of Byzantium

I'm a little jealous of all that bling...

Maybe you like Cleopatra because you find the idea of a woman using her sexuality and charm to gain power in a male-dominated warm interesting. If that's the case, you'll be interested to know that there was another famous ancient woman known for this, but who was actually a successful ruler. In fact, she was SO successful, that she is now considered a saint! Theodora was born at the lowest rung of society; her father was a bear trainer and after his death she was forced to become an actress and prostitute. She eventually came to the attention of Justinian, the heir to the Byzantine Empire, who was so in love with her that he convinced his father to repeal a law preventing actresses from marrying into the royal family (until the modern period Actors and Actresses were considered the lowest dregs of humanity, and were socially no better than beggars and thieves). As empress Theodora was unsurpassed. In January of 532 the infamous Nika riots exploded across Constantinople, threatening to destroy the capital. Rioters proclaimed a new emperor, and the royal family and their followers were in real danger. Justinian and his advisers prepared to flee, but Theodora made a speech which shamed all of them, convincing them to stay. She knew that had they fled, their power would be gone, but if they stayed and survived they would be able to eventually re-assume control, which is exactly what happened. Justinian and many of his advisers considered her the hero of the riots, and this was true. In the aftermath of the riots the city was rebuilt bigger and better before. Theodora took an active role in government, appointing her own advisers, personally supervising imperial officials, and grooming people to take positions of power ranging from generals to simple bureaucrats. She was also, unusually for the time, active in religion. I won't get into details, but to oversimplify things there were two groups of Christians in the empire, Chalcedonians and Monophysites. Her husband and the empire at large were officially Chalcedonians, and the Monophysites were persecuted. However, Theodora herself was a Monophysite, and she was able to constantly outmaneuver both church leaders and her husband to increase the influence and standing of her religious brethren.  Her work to increase understanding between the two groups was remembered; when her husband was made a saint by the Orthodox church she received the same honor. They are both commemorated by a feast on November 14th of each year.

Hatshepsut, Pharaoh of Egypt

Lots of depictions of Hatshepsut remain, but this
one looks the most like an alien, and I think that's
pretty cool. 

Cleopatra's legacy is even less impressive when you look at another female Pharaoh, Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut is the second female pharaoh we know existed for sure; there may have been others but the records are too unreliable to be sure. Exact details of her reign are somewhat spotty (she did reign nearly 3,500 years ago) and we are even positive of the exact length of her reign, but nearly everyone agrees that she was an extremely successful monarch. She established trade networks with a number of partners, most famously the rich kingdom of Punt. We aren't sure of that kingdom's exact location, but I'm partial to the theory that it was somewhere in or near modern Somalia. Even more notable, she was an extremely prolific builder, even by ancient Egyptian standards. Her buildings rate amongst the most famous in Egypt, second only to the Great Pyramids constructed a thousand years before her reign. The Karnak temple complex was built during her reign, as were numerous other temples throughout Egypt. Her mortuary temple near the valley of the Kings is one of the most famous in the world, and it's clear that under her rule Egypt was wealthy and prosperous (it could fund these projects, after all). She was a master of propaganda, and made it clear that she was a ruler in her own right. Thanks in part to this, we know more about her reign than many of the other Pharaoh's an indirect achievement but one none the less. 

Hatshepsut's mortuary temple has served as an inspiration for architects for decades
and has appeared in media frequently. Check out any documentary on Egypt made by the History Channel and you'll spot it at least once!

This is a short list, and I could add to it near-infinitely. I've only included queens: you could add pirates, warriors, scientists, and artists to this list, but I think just looking at leaders makes the comparisons and contrasts with Cleopatra much easier. I haven't even included obvious choices, like Elizabeth I or Victoria. We are spoiled for choice when it comes to finding historical female role models, and it makes the constant emphasis on Cleopatra all the more frustrating.