This fiasco is infamous, but such situations at the death of a ruler were not unusual. The lines between "King" and "Warlord" are small. At the time, non-violent transitions of power were the exception. When such a person dies it is normal for everyone to panic. Anyone owed money, and the King owed everyone money, would grab what they could in full knowledge that the dead ruler's debts were unlikely to ever be paid. Even stripping the body was not extreme. A king's daily clothing could easily be worth many years wages for a servant. Everyone would retreat to their homes in full knowledge that armies would soon be on the roads. Valuables would be buried and livestock taken to higher pastures out of sight. Ships would put to sea. It was always a time of fear.
> According to the historian Orderic Vitalis, William moaned on his deathbed, "I treated the native inhabitants of the kingdom with unreasonable severity, cruelly oppressed high and low, unjustly disinherited many, and caused the death of thousands by starvation and war, especially in Yorkshire....In mad fury I descended on the English of the north like a raging lion, and ordered that their homes and crops with all their equipment and furnishings should be burnt at once and their great flocks and herds of sheep and cattle slaughtered everywhere. So I chastised a great multitude of men and women with the lash of starvation and, alas! was the cruel murderer of many thousands, both young and old, of this fair people."
This is an interesting contrast with leaders like Genghis Khan, who seemed to think (or at least portray to others) that his actions were not only acceptable but noble and religiously desirable.
It'd be interesting to see a study of regret and non-regret among conquerors throughout the ages. Do we have other examples of this, or does William stand out among his contemporaries and predecessors?
The oration struck me as a little self-serving -- especially since the heir was weak. You'd like the commoners to feel good about the family, and maybe this did the trick.
But, the prison releases do seem to indicate he was in a forgiving mood; I imagine release of the brother couldn't be accomplished without some formal process. "The one jailed for treason? I'd like to see that order in writing."
Would they make it up though? Depends on motives and it is likely he died with many people with different motives around him. Some would want to condemn his violence, but others would want to justify it as their holdings would depend on it.
> This is an interesting contrast with leaders like Genghis Khan, who seemed to think (or at least portray to others) that his actions were not only acceptable but noble and religiously desirable.
Didn’t the Muslims or Christians (or both) think that the Mongols were the Wrath of God? I’d definitely lean into that.
'I am the flail of god. Had you not comitted great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.'
Considering how total the destruction was that the Mongols visited on the conquered, it is almost believable. And likewise, them not invading Europe was considered to be divine intervention.
The Mongols believed the world was meant to be theirs, by divine right. Saying No to a Mongol when he asks you for something (eg your land or daughter) was considered a religious offense.
Atilla was known as the scourge of God, but opinions are still divided on whether the name or the man or tribe was Germanic, Mongol, or other. Seems likely they were a surprisingly heterogenous lot, literally mongrels. Fascinating and surprising how little we know for sure. Source: insomniac Wikipedia binges
Christianity has been reframed in the context of Roman militarism from its very beginning as an official religion. It's in the myth itself, Constantine converting at the Milvian Bridge. The end result being a system of beliefs that's both socially conscious and allows for violence on behalf of the State. Pre-Christian religion in the Empire was weaker in that sense, as it was mostly concerned with ritualizing arbitrary decisions.
It was a good fit for Germanic warriors trying to upgrade to Late Roman land-owners.
> The contrast is likely due to the different religions William and Temujin practiced.
This was my initial gut reaction as well, but then I remembered the incredible violence and devastation that Christian Europeans brought upon themselves and others over the last 1500 years. How many of those kings, popes, and other leaders expressed similar regret on their deathbeds?
On the other hand he did go from being known as "William the Bastard" to being known as "William the Conqueror".
It is also illustrative of the advances in medical science. As one of the richest, most powerful men in the world, William could only wait for the inevitable horrible death which took 5 weeks to happen from the date of injury to when he died. Today, these kinds of injuries and worse are routinely treated in trauma centers all across the world.
"As one of the richest, most powerful men in the world, William could only wait for the inevitable horrible death which took 5 weeks to happen from the date of injury to when he died."
True, but it is also true that the richest, most powerful people of today still die after weeks of agony because of conditions we cannot treat. At best, we can sedate them a bit to make their passing easier.
People from the 23rd century will likely pity us just as much as we pity medieval people.
I have heard that his bloated abdomen needed to be "pierced" to get him into the coffin, which no doubt released a horrible stench. But I like to think that someone had the honor of actually stabbing the King, that someone from the "bastard" line of thinking enjoyed doing so.
A bit OT, but "The Last English King" by Julian Rathbone is an excellent historical novel surrounding the Battle of Hastings, told from a Saxon PoV. It's funny that even now, nearly 1000 years later, Hastings is generally felt from an English view as a defeat, despite being the founding event of the English monarchy. As alluded to in the video above.
Alfred the Great et al. would beg to differ about Hastings being the beginning of the English monarchy rather than the beginning of the Norman monarchy.
Didn't Alfred describe himself as "King of the Anglo-Saxons" rather than "King of England" - a very minor point but it reminds me of the title "King of Scots" - the Scots being incomers to what become Scotland in a similar way that the Anglo-Saxon "English" were incomers to what became England?
On the subject, there's an excellent Youtube channel ran by a medievalist named Dr. Allan Barton dedicated to the very specific subject of aristocratic (in particular royal and British) funeral practices.
Readit News
Deleted Comment
This is an interesting contrast with leaders like Genghis Khan, who seemed to think (or at least portray to others) that his actions were not only acceptable but noble and religiously desirable.
It'd be interesting to see a study of regret and non-regret among conquerors throughout the ages. Do we have other examples of this, or does William stand out among his contemporaries and predecessors?
But, the prison releases do seem to indicate he was in a forgiving mood; I imagine release of the brother couldn't be accomplished without some formal process. "The one jailed for treason? I'd like to see that order in writing."
Didn’t the Muslims or Christians (or both) think that the Mongols were the Wrath of God? I’d definitely lean into that.
'I am the flail of god. Had you not comitted great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.'
Considering how total the destruction was that the Mongols visited on the conquered, it is almost believable. And likewise, them not invading Europe was considered to be divine intervention.
The Mongols believed the world was meant to be theirs, by divine right. Saying No to a Mongol when he asks you for something (eg your land or daughter) was considered a religious offense.
Christianity was an awkward fit to the ethos of the Germanic nobility.
This was my initial gut reaction as well, but then I remembered the incredible violence and devastation that Christian Europeans brought upon themselves and others over the last 1500 years. How many of those kings, popes, and other leaders expressed similar regret on their deathbeds?
It is also illustrative of the advances in medical science. As one of the richest, most powerful men in the world, William could only wait for the inevitable horrible death which took 5 weeks to happen from the date of injury to when he died. Today, these kinds of injuries and worse are routinely treated in trauma centers all across the world.
True, but it is also true that the richest, most powerful people of today still die after weeks of agony because of conditions we cannot treat. At best, we can sedate them a bit to make their passing easier.
People from the 23rd century will likely pity us just as much as we pity medieval people.
A bit OT, but "The Last English King" by Julian Rathbone is an excellent historical novel surrounding the Battle of Hastings, told from a Saxon PoV. It's funny that even now, nearly 1000 years later, Hastings is generally felt from an English view as a defeat, despite being the founding event of the English monarchy. As alluded to in the video above.
https://www.youtube.com/@allanbarton
Deleted Comment