# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All the conditions were right for an . Doctors were powerless against infectious disease. People were weakened by war and harvest failures. Germs, the fleas which carried them, and the rats which carried the fleas, flourished in the dirty towns. Busy trade routes carried the plague from one place to another.

The plague arrived at Melcombe Regis in Dorset in June 1348 and it spread throughout the south of England. In 1349 it reached Wales, Ireland and the north of England. By 1350, it had made it to Scotland. Estimates suggest as much as half the population died.

The Black Death affected the way people thought about life in many different ways. Some lived lives perceived to be wild or immoral, others fell into deep despair, whilst many chose to accept their fate.

Historians suggest that the Black Death helped to cause a religious movement in the shape of the , the end of the and the .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A summary of the Black Death - The Black Death - KS3 History Revision - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All the conditions were right for an . Doctors were powerless against infectious disease. People were weakened by war and harvest failures. Germs, the fleas which carried them, and the rats which carried the fleas, flourished in the dirty towns. Busy trade routes carried the plague from one place to another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To Muslims, Jerusalem is the third most holy city, as Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from there. Arab Muslims conquered the Holy Land in 638. The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque are sites of pilgrimage for Muslims.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre had to be rebuilt after it was destroyed by the Caliph of Egypt, Al-Hakim, in 1009. Following this time, Christian pilgrims were free to visit the church. However, around 1077 Muslim Seljuk Turks took control of the Holy Land.

It became harder for Christian pilgrims to visit as various Muslim groups struggled for power. Rumours of mistreatment of local Christians and pilgrims spread. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, fearing the spread of Seljuk rule towards his own lands and a threat to the Christian city of Constantinople, appealed to the Pope for help.

Therefore in 1095, Pope Urban II promised the knights of Europe forgiveness of their sins if they went on a Crusade to win back Jerusalem for Christianity. Many responded by taking the cross and showed this act by cutting out red crosses before sewing them into their tunics.

After a long seige they captured Jerusalem in 1099. The attack was brutal, with thousands killed. A Christian source from the time claimed that The slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Crusades - Revision 1 - KS3 History - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To Muslims, Jerusalem is the third most holy city, as Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from there. Arab Muslims conquered the Holy Land in 638. The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque are sites of pilgrimage for Muslims. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre had to be rebuilt after it was destroyed by the Caliph of Egypt, Al-Hakim, in 1009.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Medieval monks portrayed King John as an evil monster. Modern historians portray him as an energetic king who tried to increase his power in difficult circumstances.

John's brother, Richard I, caused problems

John's brother, Richard I, had spent all the money in the on his . The Crusades were a series of military campaigns over hundreds of years to take sole control of Jerusalem for the Christian faith. Richard also let the become too powerful whilst he was in the .

King John was unpopular

John collected taxes, modernised the government and exerted his power over the Church, Scotland and Ireland. This made him unpopular with the barons. In 1201-2, helped by King Philip of France, the lords of Lusignan, a powerful alliance of French nobles, rebelled against John. John mounted a huge campaign to re-conquer Normandy, but was badly defeated at the Battle of Bouvines (1214). John was forced to pay the huge sum of 20,000 marks and concede some lands in France in order for King Philip to recognise him as the heir to Richard I. John was exposed as diplomatically weak.

Rebellions and Magna Carta

The reign of King John shows what often happened in the Middle Ages when a lost a war - his authority was completely undermined. The barons rebelled and, on 15 June 1215, they forced John to agree to Magna Carta (The Great Charter) - a set of demands by which the barons tried to limit the power of the king to their advantage.

The reign of King John was a turning point in the history of England's government. The barons - successfully - had said 'no' to the king, and made him do as they wanted. The charter only spoke about and not the majority of people who were peasants. No of England ever had unrestricted, or , power again and within a century England saw the beginnings of .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
King John and Magna Carta - Revision 1 - KS3 History - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Medieval monks portrayed King John as an evil monster. Modern historians portray him as an energetic king who tried to increase his power in difficult circumstances. John's brother, Richard I, had spent all the money in the on his .

# data[].attributes.body
More challenging read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The disastrous mortal disease known as the Black Death spread across Europe in the years 1346-53. The frightening name, however, only came several centuries after its visitation (and was probably a mistranslation of the Latin word 'atra' meaning both 'terrible' and 'black)'. Chronicles and letters from the time describe the terror wrought by the illness. In Florence, the great Renaissance poet Petrarch was sure that they would not be believed: 'O happy posterity, who will not experience such abysmal woe and will look upon our testimony as a fable.' A Florentine chronicler relates that,

All the citizens did little else except to carry dead bodies to be buried [...] At every church they dug deep pits down to the water-table; and thus those who were poor who died during the night were bundled up quickly and thrown into the pit. In the morning when a large number of bodies were found in the pit, they took some earth and shovelled it down on top of them; and later others were placed on top of them and then another layer of earth, just as one makes lasagne with layers of pasta and cheese.

The accounts are remarkably similar. The chronicler Agnolo di Tura 'the Fat' relates from his Tuscan home town that

... in many places in Siena great pits were dug and piled deep with the multitude of dead [...] And there were also those who were so sparsely covered with earth that the dogs dragged them forth and devoured many bodies throughout the city.

The tragedy was extraordinary. In the course of just a few months, 60 per cent of Florence's population died from the plague, and probably the same proportion in Siena. In addition to the bald statistics, we come across profound personal tragedies: Petrarch lost to the Black Death his beloved Laura to whom he wrote his famous love poems; Di Tura tells us that 'I [...] buried my five children with my own hands'.

The Black Death was an epidemic of bubonic plague, a disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis that circulates among wild rodents where they live in great numbers and density. Such an area is called a 'plague focus' or a 'plague reservoir'. Plague among humans arises when rodents in human habitation, normally black rats, become infected. The black rat, also called the 'house rat' and the 'ship rat', likes to live close to people, the very quality that makes it dangerous (in contrast, the brown or grey rat prefers to keep its distance in sewers and cellars). Normally, it takes ten to fourteen days before plague has killed off most of a contaminated rat colony, making it difficult for great numbers of fleas gathered on the remaining, but soon- dying, rats to find new hosts. After three days of fasting, hungry rat fleas turn on humans. From the bite site, the contagion drains to a lymph node that consequently swells to form a painful bubo, most often in the groin, on the thigh, in an armpit or on the neck. Hence the name bubonic plague. The infection takes three-five days to incubate in people before they fall ill, and another three-five days before, in 80 per cent of the cases, the victims die. Thus, from the introduction of plague contagion among rats in a human community it takes, on average, twenty-three days before the first person dies.

When, for instance, a stranger called Andrew Hogson died from plague on his arrival in Penrith in 1597, and the next plague case followed twenty-two days later, this corresponded to the first phase of the development of an epidemic of bubonic plague. And Hobson was, of course, not the only fugitive from a plague-stricken town or area arriving in various communities in the region with infective rat fleas in their clothing or luggage. This pattern of spread is called 'spread by leaps' or 'metastatic spread'. Thus, plague soon broke out in other urban and rural centres, from where the disease spread into the villages and townships of the surrounding districts by a similar process of leaps.

In order to become an epidemic the disease must be spread to other rat colonies in the locality and transmitted to inhabitants in the same way. It took some time for people to recognize that a terrible epidemic was breaking out among them and for chroniclers to note this. The timescale varies: in the countryside it took about forty days for realisation to dawn; in most towns with a few thousand inhabitants, six to seven weeks; in the cities with over 10,000 inhabitants, about seven weeks, and in the few metropolises with over 100,000 inhabitants, as much as eight weeks.

Plague bacteria can break out of the buboes and be carried by the blood stream to the lungs and cause a variant of plague that is spread by contaminated droplets from the cough of patients (pneumonic plague). However, contrary to what is sometimes believed, this form is not contracted easily, spreads normally only episodically or incidentally and constitutes therefore normally only a small fraction of plague cases. It now appears clear that human fleas and lice did not contribute to the spread, at least not significantly. The bloodstream of humans is not invaded by plague bacteria from the buboes, or people die with so few bacteria in the blood that bloodsucking human parasites become insufficiently infected to become infective and spread the disease: the blood of plague-infected rats contains 500-1,000 times more bacteria per unit of measurement than the blood of plague-infected humans.

Importantly, plague was spread considerable distances by rat fleas on ships. Infected ship rats would die, but their fleas would often survive and find new rat hosts wherever they landed. Unlike human fleas, rat fleas are adapted to riding with their hosts; they readily also infest clothing of people entering affected houses and ride with them to other houses or localities. This gives plague epidemics a peculiar rhythm and pace of development and a characteristic pattern of dissemination. The fact that plague is transmitted by rat fleas means plague is a disease of the warmer seasons, disappearing during the winter, or at least lose most of their powers of spread. The peculiar seasonal pattern of plague has been observed everywhere and is a systematic feature also of the spread of the Black Death. In the plague history of Norway from the Black Death 1348-49 to the last outbreaks in 1654, comprising over thirty waves of plague, there was never a winter epidemic of plague. Plague is very different from airborne contagious diseases, which are spread directly between people by droplets: these thrive in cold weather.

This conspicuous feature constitutes proof that the Black Death and plague in general is an insect-borne disease. Cambridge historian John Hatcher has noted that there is 'a remarkable transformation in the seasonal pattern of mortality in England after 1348': whilst before the Black Death the heaviest mortality was in the winter months, in the following century it was heaviest in the period from late July to late September. He points out that this strongly indicates that the 'transformation was caused by the virulence of bubonic plague'.

***

Another very characteristic feature of the Black Death and plague epidemics in general, both in the past and in the great outbreaks in the early twentieth century, reflects their basis in rats and rat fleas: much higher proportions of inhabitants contract plague and die from it in the countryside than in urban centres. In the case of English plague history, this feature has been underlined by Oxford historian Paul Slack. When around 90 per cent of the population lived in the countryside, only a disease with this property combined with extreme lethal powers could cause the exceptional mortality of the Black Death and of many later plague epidemics. All diseases spread by cross-infection between humans, on the contrary, gain increasing powers of spread with increasing density of population and cause highest mortality rates in urban centres.

Lastly it could be mentioned that scholars have succeeded in extracting genetic evidence of the causal agent of bubonic plague, the DNA-code of Yersinia pestis, from several plague burials in French cemeteries from the period 1348-1590.

It used to be thought that the Black Death originated in China, but new research shows that it began in the spring of 1346 in the steppe region, where a plague reservoir stretches from the north-western shores of the Caspian Sea into southern Russia. People occasionally contract plague there even today. Two contemporary chroniclers identify the estuary of the river Don where it flows into the Sea of Azov as the area of the original outbreak, but this could be mere hearsay, and it is possible that it started elsewhere, perhaps in the area of the estuary of the river Volga on the Caspian Sea. At the time, this area was under the rule of the Mongol khanate of the Golden Horde. Some decades earlier the Mongol khanate had converted to Islam and the presence of Christians, or trade with them, was no longer tolerated. As a result the Silk Road caravan routes between China and Europe were cut off. For the same reason the Black Death did not spread from the east through Russia towards western Europe, but stopped abruptly on the Mongol border with the Russian principalities. As a result, Russia which might have become the Black Death's first European conquest, in fact was its last, and was invaded by the disease not from the east but from the west.

The epidemic in fact began with an attack that the Mongols launched on the Italian merchants' last trading station in the region, Kaffa (today Feodosiya) in the Crimea. In the autumn of 1346, plague broke out among the besiegers and from them penetrated into the town. When spring arrived, the Italians fled on their ships. And the Black Death slipped unnoticed on board and sailed with them.

***

The extent of the contagious power of the Black Death has been almost mystifying. The central explanation lies within characteristic features of medieval society in a dynamic phase of modernisation heralding the transformation from a medieval to early modern European society. Early industrial market-economic and capitalistic developments had advanced more than is often assumed, especially in northern Italy and Flanders. New, larger types of ship carried great quantities of goods over extensive trade networks that linked Venice and Genoa with Constantinople and the Crimea, Alexandria and Tunis, London and Bruges. In London and Bruges the Italian trading system was linked to the busy shipping lines of the German Hanseatic League in the Nordic countries and the Baltic area, with large broad-bellied ships called cogs. This system for long-distance trade was supplemented by a web of lively short and medium-distance trade that bound together populations all over the Old World.

The strong increase in population in Europe in the High Middle Ages (1050-1300) meant that the prevailing agricultural technology was inadequate for further expansion. To accommodate the growth, forests were cleared and mountain villages settled wherever it was possible for people to eke out a living. People had to opt for a more one-sided husbandry, particularly in animals, to create a surplus that could be traded for staples such as salt and iron, grain or flour. These settlements operated within a busy trading network running from coasts to mountain villages. And with tradesmen and goods, contagious diseases reached even the most remote and isolated hamlets.

In this early phase of modernisation, Europe was also on the way to 'the golden age of bacteria', when there was a great increase in epidemic diseases caused by increases in population density and in trade and transport while knowledge of the nature of epidemics, and therefore the ability to organise efficient countermeasures to them, was still minimal. Most people believed plague and mass illness to be a punishment from God for their sins. They responded with religious penitential acts aimed at tempering the Lord's wrath, or with passivity and fatalism: it was a sin to try to avoid God's will.

Much new can be said on the Black Death's patterns of territorial spread. Of particular importance was the sudden appearance of the plague over vast distances, due to its rapid transportation by ship. Ships travelled at an average speed of around 40km a day which today seems quite slow. However, this speed meant that the Black Death easily moved 600km in a fortnight by ship: spreading, in contemporary terms, with astonishing speed and unpredictability. By land, the average spread was much slower: up to 2km per day along the busiest highways or roads and about 0.6km per day along secondary lines of communication.

As already noted, the pace of spread slowed strongly during the winter and stopped completely in mountain areas such as the Alps and the northerly parts of Europe. Yet, the Black Death often rapidly established two or more fronts and conquered countries by advancing from various quarters.

Italian ships from Kaffa arrived in Constantinople in May 1347 with the Black Death on board. The epidemic broke loose in early July. In North Africa and the Middle East, it started around September 1st, having arrived in Alexandria with ship transport from Constantinople. Its spread from Constantinople to European Mediterranean commercial hubs also started in the autumn of 1347. It reached Marseilles by about the second week of September, probably with a ship from the city. Then the Italian merchants appear to have left Constantinople several months later and arrived in their home towns of Genoa and Venice with plague on board, some time in November. On their way home, ships from Genoa also contaminated Florence's seaport city of Pisa. The spread out of Pisa is characterized by a number of metastatic leaps. These great commercial cities also functioned as bridgeheads from where the disease conquered Europe.

In Mediterranean Europe, Marseilles functioned as the first great centre of spread. The relatively rapid advance both northwards up the Rhône valley to Lyons and south-westwards along the coasts towards Spain - in chilly months with relatively little shipping activity - is striking. As early as March 1348, both Lyon's and Spain's Mediterranean coasts were under attack.

En route to Spain, the Black Death also struck out from the city of Narbonne north-westwards along the main road to the commercial centre of Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast, which by the end of March had become a critical new centre of spread. Around April 20th, a ship from Bordeaux must have arrived in La Coruña in northwestern Spain; a couple of weeks later another ship from there let loose the plague in Navarre in northeastern Spain. Thus, two northern plague fronts were opened less than two months after the disease had invaded southern Spain.

Another plague ship sailed from Bordeaux, northwards to Rouen in Normandy where it arrived at the end of April. There, in June, a further plague front moved westwards towards Brittany, south-eastwards towards Paris and northwards in the direction of the Low Countries.

Yet another ship bearing plague left Bordeaux a few weeks later and arrived around May 8th, in the southern English town of Melcombe Regis, part of present-day Weymouth in Dorset: the epidemic broke out shortly before June 24th. The significance of ships in the rapid transmission of contagion is underscored by the fact that at the time the Black Death landed in Weymouth it was still in an early phase in Italy. From Weymouth, the Black Death spread not only inland, but also in new metastatic leaps by ships, which in some cases must have travelled earlier than the recognized outbreaks of the epidemic: Bristol was contaminated in June, as were the coastal towns of the Pale in Ireland; London was contaminated in early August since the epidemic outbreak drew comment at the end of September. Commercial seaport towns like Colchester and Harwich must have been contaminated at about the same time. From these the Black Death spread inland. It is now also clear that the whole of England was conquered in the course of 1349 because, in the late autumn of 1348, ship transport opened a northern front in England for the Black Death, apparently in Grimsby.

***

The early arrival of the Black Death in England and the rapid spread to its southeastern regions shaped much of the pattern of spread in Northern Europe. The plague must have arrived in Oslo in the autumn of 1348, and must have come with a ship from south-eastern England, which had lively commercial contacts with Norway. The outbreak of the Black Death in Norway took place before the disease had managed to penetrate southern Germany, again illustrating the great importance of transportation by ship and the relative slowness of spread by land. The outbreak in Oslo was soon stopped by the advent of winter weather, but it broke out again in the early spring. Soon it spread out of Oslo along the main roads inland and on both sides of the Oslofjord. Another independent introduction of contagion occurred in early July 1349 in the town of Bergen; it arrived in a ship from England, probably from King's Lynn. The opening of the second plague front was the reason that all Norway could be conquered in the course of 1349. It disappeared completely with the advent of winter, the last victims died at the turn of the year.

The early dissemination of the Black Death to Oslo, which prepared the ground for a full outbreak in early spring, had great significance for the pace and pattern of the Black Death's further conquest of Northern Europe. Again ship transport played a crucial role, this time primarily by Hanseatic ships fleeing homewards from their trading station in Oslo with goods acquired during the winter. On their way the seaport of Halmstad close to the Sound was apparently contaminated in early July. This was the starting point for the plague's conquest of Denmark and Sweden, which was followed by several other independent introductions of plague contagion later; by the end of 1350 most of these territories had been ravaged.

However, the voyage homewards to the Hanseatic cities on the Baltic Sea had started significantly earlier. The outbreak of the Black Death in the Prussian town of Elbing (today the Polish town of Elblag) on August 24th, 1349, was a new milestone in the history of the Black Death. A ship that left Oslo at the beginning of June would probably sail through the Sound around June 20th and reach Elbing in the second half of July, in time to unleash an epidemic outbreak around August 24th. Other ships that returned at the end of the shipping season in the autumn from the trading stations in Oslo or Bergen, brought the Black Death to a number of other Hanseatic cities both on the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. The advent of winter stopped the outbreaks initially as had happened elsewhere, but contagion was spread with goods to commercial towns and cities deep into northern Germany. In the spring of 1350, a northern German plague front was formed that spread southwards and met the plague front which in the summer of 1349 had formed in southern Germany with importation of contagion from Austria and Switzerland.

***

Napoleon did not succeed in conquering Russia. Hitler did not succeed. But the Black Death did. It entered the territory of the city state of Novgorod in the late autumn of 1351 and reached the town of Pskov just before the winter set in and temporarily suppressed the epidemic; thus the full outbreak did not start until the early spring of 1352. In Novgorod itself, the Black Death broke out in mid-August. In 1353, Moscow was ravaged, and the disease also reached the border with the Golden Horde, this time from the west, where it petered out. Poland was invaded by epidemic forces coming both from Elbing and from the northern German plague front and, apparently, from the south by contagion coming across the border from Slovakia via Hungary.

Iceland and Finland are the only regions that, we know with certainty, avoided the Black Death because they had tiny populations with minimal contact abroad. It seems unlikely that any other region was so lucky.

How many people were affected? Knowledge of general mortality is crucial to all discussions of the social and historical impact of the plague. Studies of mortality among ordinary populations are far more useful, therefore, than studies of special social groups, whether monastic communities, parish priests or social elites. Because around 90 per cent of Europe's population lived in the countryside, rural studies of mortality are much more important than urban ones.

Researchers generally used to agree that the Black Death swept away 20-30 per cent of Europe's population. However, up to 1960 there were only a few studies of mortality among ordinary people, so the basis for this assessment was weak. From 1960, a great number of mortality studies from various parts of Europe were published. These have been collated and it is now clear that the earlier estimates of mortality need to be doubled. No suitable sources for the study of mortality have been found in the Muslim countries that were ravaged.

The mortality data available reflects the special nature of medieval registrations of populations. In a couple of cases, the sources are real censuses recording all members of the population, including women and children. However, most of the sources are tax registers and manorial registers recording households in the form of the names of the householders. Some registers aimed at recording all households, also the poor and destitute classes who did not pay taxes or rents, but the majority recorded only householders who paid tax to the town or land rent to the lord of the manor. This means that they overwhelmingly registered the better-off adult men of the population, who for reasons of age, gender and economic status had lower mortality rates in plague epidemics than the general population. According to the extant complete registers of all households, the rent or tax-paying classes constituted about half the population both in the towns and in the countryside, the other half were too poor. Registers that yield information on both halves of the populations indicate that mortality among the poor was 5-6 per cent higher. This means that in the majority of cases when registers only record the better-off half of the adult male population, mortality among the adult male population as a whole can be deduced by adding 2.5-3 per cent.

Another fact to consider is that in households where the householder survived, other members often died. For various reasons women and children suffer higher incidence of mortality from plague than adult men. A couple of censuses produced by city states in Tuscany in order to establish the need for grain or salt are still extant. They show that the households were, on average, reduced in the countryside from 4.5 to 4 persons and in urban centres from 4 to 3.5 persons. All medieval sources that permit the study of the size and composition of households among the ordinary population produce similar data, from Italy in southern Europe to England in the west and Norway in northern Europe. This means that the mortality among the registered households as a whole was 11-12.5 per cent higher than among the registered householders.

Detailed study of the mortality data available points to two conspicuous features in relation to the mortality caused by the Black Death: namely the extreme level of mortality caused by the Black Death, and the remarkable similarity or consistency of the level of mortality, from Spain in southern Europe to England in north-western Europe. The data is sufficiently widespread and numerous to make it likely that the Black Death swept away around 60 per cent of Europe's population. It is generally assumed that the size of Europe's population at the time was around 80 million. This implies that that around 50 million people died in the Black Death. This is a truly mind-boggling statistic. It overshadows the horrors of the Second World War, and is twice the number murdered by Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union. As a proportion of the population that lost their lives, the Black Death caused unrivalled mortality.

This dramatic fall in Europe's population became a lasting and characteristic feature of late medieval society, as subsequent plague epidemics swept away all tendencies of population growth. Inevitably it had an enormous impact on European society and greatly affected the dynamics of change and development from the medieval to Early Modern period. A historical turning point, as well as a vast human tragedy, the Black Death of 1346-53 is unparalleled in human history.

Ole J. Benedictow is Emeritus Professor of History at the Universtiy of Oslo, Norway.

Further Reading:

The Black Death, 1346-1353. The Complete History (Boydell & Brewer, 2004)

Ole J. Benedictow, 'Plague in the Late Medieval Nordic Countries', Epidemiological Studies (1996)

M.W. Dols,The Black Death in the Middle East (Princeton, 1970)

J. Hatcher,Plague, Population and the English Economy 1348-1530 (Basingstoke, 1977)

J. Hatcher 'England in the Aftermath of the Black Death' (Past & Present, 1994)

L.F. Hirst, The Conquest of Plague (Oxford, 1953).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Black Death: The Greatest Catastrophe Ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ole J Benedictow calculated that the Black Death, or bubonic plague, killed 50 million people in the 14th century - or 60 per cent of Europe's entire population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Black Death was a devastating global epidemic of bubonic plague that struck Europe and Asia in the mid-1300s. Explore the facts of the plague, the symptoms it caused and how millions died from it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Death | Definition, Cause, Symptoms, Effects, Death Toll, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black Death, pandemic that ravaged Europe between 1347 and 1351, taking a proportionately greater toll of life than any other known epidemic or war up to that time. The Black Death is widely thought to have been the result of plague, caused by infection with the bacterium Yersinia pestis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DK Find Out! | Fun Facts for Kids on Animals, Earth, History and more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit DK Find Out! to learn about dinosaurs, space, animals, nature & more. Fun learning activities for kids with videos, quizzes & galleries at DKFindOut.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
Start at 5:00 minutes in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The past, present, and future of the bubonic plague - Sharon N. DeWitte

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The name the Hundred Years' War has been used by historians since the beginning of the nineteenth century to describe the long conflict that pitted the kings and kingdoms of France and England against each other from 1337 to 1453. Two factors lay at the origin of the conflict: first, the status of the duchy of Guyenne (or Aquitaine)-though it belonged to the kings of England, it remained a fief of the French crown, and the kings of England wanted independent possession; second, as the closest relatives of the last direct Capetian king (Charles IV, who had died in 1328), the kings of England from 1337 claimed the crown of France.

Theoretically, the French kings, possessing the financial and military resources of the most populous and powerful state in western Europe, held the advantage over the smaller, more sparsely populated English kingdom. However, the expeditionary English army, well disciplined and successfully using their longbows to stop cavalry charges, proved repeatedly victorious over much larger French forces: significant victories occurred by sea at Sluys (1340), and by land at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356). In 1360, King John of France, in order to save his title, was forced to accept the Treaty of Calais, which granted complete independence to the duchy of Guyenne, now considerably enlarged to include almost a third of France. However, his son Charles V, with the help of his commander in chief Bertrand du Guesclin, by 1380 had succeeded in reconquering almost all the ceded territory, notably by a series of sieges.

After a hiatus, Henry V of England renewed the war and proved victorious at Agincourt (1415), conquered Normandy (1417-1418), and then attempted to have himself crowned as the future king of France by the Treaty of Troyes (1420). But his military successes were not matched by political successes: although allied with the dukes of Burgundy, the majority of the French refused English domination. Thanks to Joan of Arc, the siege of Orleans was lifted (1429). Then Paris and the lle-de-France were liberated (1436-1441), and after the French army had been reorganized and reformed (1445-1448), Charles VII recaptured the duchy of Normandy (the Battle of Formigny, 1450), and then seized Guyenne (the Battle of Castillon, 1453). The end of the conflict was never marked by a peace treaty but died out because the English recognized that the French troops were too strong to be directly confronted.

English territory in France, which had been extensive since 1066 (see Hastings, Battle of) now remained confined to the Channel port of Calais (lost in 1558). France, at last free of the English invaders, resumed its place as the dominant state of western Europe.

The Reader's Companion to Military History. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The name the Hundred Years' War has been used by historians since the beginning of the nineteenth century to describe the long conflict that pitted the kings and kingdoms of France and England against each other from 1337 to 1453.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hundred Years War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The causes, key events and effects of this pivotal conflict in English history, by Maurice Keen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Charles IV of France died without a son in 1328, Charles's first cousin was chosen to succeed, becoming King Philip VI. Yet Edward III of England, as the deceased king's nearest male relation, was considered by some to have the stronger claim. When Phillip VI confiscated the duchy of Aquitaine from England in 1337, Edward III responded by pressing his claim to the French throne, beginning the Hundred Years' War. The conflict saw major developments in military strategy and technology and the final French victory at Castillon in 1453 was the first major field engagement of the war to be decided by gunfire. Here, historian David Green, author of The Hundred Years War: A People's History, shares seven lesser-known facts about the series of conflicts...

The first thing anyone usually learns about the Hundred Years' War is that it did not last 100 years. Tradition dates it from 1337 to 1453, but in some ways it is more helpful to view this longest of European wars as one phase of an even longer struggle between England and France, stretching perhaps from the Norman Conquest of 1066 until the 1904 Entente Cordiale [a series of agreements signed between Great Britain and France that marked the end of hundreds of years of intermittent conflict between the two states.]

Conflict with the 'ancient enemy' has shaped the identities of both countries, and memories of the war remain long on both sides of the Channel. Charles de Gaulle remarked in June 1962: "Our greatest hereditary enemy was not Germany, it was England. From the Hundred Years' War to Fashoda, she hardly ceased to struggle against us... she is not naturally inclined to wish us well."

The legend that the origins of the 'v' sign can be found in the Hundred Years' War is, sadly, just legendary. There are no contemporary sources that suggest English archers, as an insult, raised to the French the two fingers with which they drew their longbows, nor that the French dismembered captured archers - removing those same fingers and thus preventing them from ever firing a bow again.

There is, however, an account of the French 'mooning' a detachment of English troops during the campaign that led to the battle of Crécy. This so enraged the English that they launched an ill-advised attack on a well-defended position and were beaten back with heavy losses.

We are often told that 'total war' is a sad product of the modern, industrial age. It is, however, difficult to find any section of English or French society that was not affected by the Hundred Years' War.

The peasantry in both countries, for example, were central to the war effort and suffered greatly as a consequence. Indeed, its members were targeted directly: because of the connection between taxation (paid chiefly by the peasantry) and military defence, the status of 'non-combatants' became very uncertain during the war. So, by attacking taxpayers, the English also attacked French military resources.
It seems certain that since the war against the French king began, there has never been such destruction in a region as in this raid. For the countryside and towns which have been destroyed... produced more revenue for the king of France in aid of his war than half his kingdom... as I could prove from authentic documents found in various towns in the tax-collectors' houses.
Furthermore, as the war unfolded it became a consciously 'national' struggle and, consequently, there were few reasons non-combatants should be immune from its effects. This policy and its brutally sophisticated implementation are clear from a letter written in 1355 by Sir John Wingfield, who served in the retinue of Edward the Black Prince (1330-76):

Wingfield served as 'governor of the prince's business' (essentially his business manager), and he wrote in the aftermath of the so-called grande chevauchée (a raid across southern France in which an army of around 6,000 soldiers destroyed 500 settlements of various sorts - villages, castles, towns, hamlets - and may have devastated up to 18,000 square kilometres of territory).

The Black Prince, however, was not content merely to orchestrate and witness the destruction, he wished to determine its exact extent, and so he brought officials such as Wingfield with him to calculate the precise cost to the French treasury. The psychological cost of this sort of raiding - the fear and insecurity it surely engendered - is more difficult to measure, but as the war drew on in France the ringing of church bells might as easily mean an impending raid as a call to prayer.

The battle of Agincourt began at about 11am on 25 October 1415 (the feast day of Saints Crispin and Crispian). It had not been a pleasant night: heavy rain had turned the ploughed field between the two armies into something approaching a quagmire. The English and French forces had deployed in the cold before dawn, and hours had passed without either side making any move. Finally, King Henry V (r1413-22) ordered an advance.

But before they moved forward, a fascinating and seemingly extraordinary act took place: each man knelt - archers and men-at-arms alike - kissed the ground, and took a little earth in his mouth. This collective and yet deeply personal ritual seems to have been sacramental; a ceremony that combined elements of the Eucharist with the burial service. It served as a blessing, a purification, and a preparation for death.

Throughout the Anglo-French war, battles had enormous religious and symbolic significance. Not only was victory or defeat an indication of divine judgement, but for many it might bring one decidedly closer to divine judgement of a very personal nature.

While chronicle accounts allow us to reconstruct the narrative of the battle of Agincourt with some precision, the size of the opposing forces remains a matter of contention. Shakespeare would have us believe that in 1415 the English were outnumbered at least 10-to-one. Such a number was shaped by dramatic necessity and also by various contemporary and near-contemporary English sources that suggested the French army totalled between 60,000 and 160,000 men.

Such numbers are patently absurd given what we know of the possibilities of military recruitment at this time; they were grossly inflated with the aim of exaggerating the scale of Henry's victory. Recent work makes it clear that the Valois army was considerably more modest in size, perhaps 20,000-30,000 troops. And, indeed, in her 2005 account of the battle, Anne Curry argues that the French army was smaller still, numbering no more than 12,000 soldiers.

By comparison, Henry commanded between 6,000 and 9,000 soldiers - the anonymous author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti (The Deeds of Henry V), who witnessed the battle, suggested he led 5,000 archers and around 1,000 men-at-arms (although the numbering is not precise). The French, therefore, outnumbered the English by two to one, but probably no more.

Some other aspects of Shakespeare's account of the battle closely accord with contemporary accounts, and there is good reason to believe them to be accurate. When Sir Walter Hungerford (1378-1449) bemoaned the lack of archers in his company, Henry is said (again by the author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti) to have reprimanded him in a speech remarkably similar to that familiar from Shakespeare: "That is a foolish way to talk", the king said, "because by God in Heaven... I would not, even if I could, have a single man more than I do. For these I have here with me are God's people... Do you not believe that the Almighty, with these His humble few, is able to overcome the opposing arrogance of the French".

The Hundred Years' War saw some major developments in military strategy and technology. Indeed, some historians have argued that these changes amount to a 'military revolution'.

Among such developments, the evolution of gunpowder weaponry was particularly significant. That evolutionary process was, however, a slow one. At Agincourt, for example, it appears that French artillery accounted for a solitary English archer during the battle, and in 1431 Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, fired 412 cannonballs into the town of Lagny and succeeded only in killing a chicken.

Nonetheless, as the war entered its final phase such weapons were becoming increasingly effective. They played important roles in a number of Joan of Arc's battles and sieges, and the 'Maid' was considered particularly adept in aiming the weapons. Then, in the late 1430s, Charles VII (1422-61) took steps to put in place a professional artillery train under the command of the Bureau brothers - John, the king's Master Gunner, and his brother, Gaspard.

Thereafter, the weapons available to the French grew in number and efficiency, and they proved their worth in successive sieges. Gunpowder weapons allowed the French to eject the English from Normandy and Gascony with astonishing speed. In 1437, the castle of Castelnau-de-Cernès in Gascony was "broken down... by cannon and engines, and a great part of the walls were thrown to the ground". In some cases, as at Bourg in 1451, the mere presence of guns was sufficient to bring about an immediate surrender.

Around this time, gunpowder weapons also began to be used effectively as field artillery. Formigny in 1450 (a decisive victory for the French) may have been the first battle decided by gunpowder artillery. The engagement began with a cavalry assault on the English infantry and longbowmen, which was repulsed. Soon afterwards, however, the Bureau brothers arrived with two breechloading culverins on wheeled carriages.

These were capable of a high rate of fire and could outdistance the English archers. Although it required the arrival of further reinforcements to decide the battle, the artillery clearly played a telling role.
David Green is senior lecturer in British studies at Harlaxton College and the author of The Hundred Years War: A People's History (Yale University Press, 2014; paperback edition 2015).This article was first published by History Extra in October 2015 Anne Curry will be speaking about 'Henry V: A Life of Transformations' at our Kings and Queens Weekend in March 2019. Find out more here
This was also the case at Castillon in 1453 (a decisive French victory), the final engagement of the Hundred Years' War. This was, undoubtedly, determined by artillery, and, as a consequence, the battle marks a deeply significant point in the history of European warfare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) was a series of conflicts fought between England and France over succession to the French throne. It lasted 116 years and saw many major battles - from the battle of Crécy in 1346 to the battle of Agincourt in 1415, which was a major English victory over the French.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Hundred Years' War was fought between France and England over the French throne from 1337 to 1453 which is even longer than 100 years. The war, however, was not fought continuously but in phases which initially evolved in the English favor. But the tide of war lastly turned in the French favor. By 1453, the French throne was secured by the House of Valois (a cadet branch of the extinct House of Capet), while all English possessions in France with the exception of Calais were lost. Nevertheless, the English won three of five most significant battles of the Hundred Years' War.

Battle of Crecy (August 26, 1346)

The battle which was fought at the village of Crecy in northern France went into history for the disastrous defeat of the French despite the fact that they had a considerable numerical superiority. The Genoese mercenary crossbowmen and later the elite force of French knights proved to be an easy target for the English longbowmen. Victory at Crecy enabled Edward III of England to lay siege to Calais and force the city defenders to surrender one year later.

Battle of Poitiers (September 19, 1356)

Son of Edward III of England, Edward the Black Prince heavily defeated the superior French army near Poitiers, the today's capital of the French region of Poitou-Charentes. Again, the English longbowmen played the decisive role in the outcome of the battle. The French king John II was captured during the battle and taken to England. He was released in 1360 after he promised to pay an enormous ransom.

Battle of Agincourt (October 25, 1415)

The battle marked the last of the three brilliant English victories in the Hundred Years' War against France. The English, commanded by King Henry V decisively defeated the numerically superior French army and conquered much of France. The English, however, failed to achieve a decisive victory in the war which entered into a new phase after the Battle of Agincourt and gradually turned in the French favor.

Lifting of the Siege of Orleans (May 8, 1429)

Joan of Arc, a 17-year old French peasant girl who claimed divine guidance lifted the Siege of Orleans which marked the turning point in the Hundred Years' War. One of the greatest successes of the French army during the entire war enabled Charles VII to travel to Rheims to be crowned as King of France but it also significantly increased the morale among the French soldiers. In 1430, Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians who handed her over to the English. She was burned at the stake for heresy in the same year.

Battle of Castillon (July 17, 1453)

The battle which ended with the French victory marked the end of the Hundred Years' War between France and England although a peace treaty was never signed. The English who achieved several major victories during the course of the war lost all their possession in France except for Calais which was recaptured by the French only in 1558. The battle, however, also went into history as the first battle in Europe in which cannons played a decisive role.

We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze traffic on our website. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Please review our Privacy Policy for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of 5 Most Significant Battles of the Hundred Years' War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Hundred Years' War was fought between France and England over the French throne from 1337 to 1453 which is even longer than 100 years. The war, however, was not fought continuously but in phases which initially evolved in the English favor. But the tide of war lastly turned in the French favor.

# data[].attributes.body
Interactive map.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Key Moments in the Crusades: An Interactive Map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read more about Key Moments in the Crusades: An Interactive Map

# data[].attributes.body
An introduction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to the Crusades (video) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Crusades begin in reaction to Pope Urban II's call to help the Byzantine Empire reclaim land from Muslim rule (especially Jerusalem).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Crash Course World History #15

# data[].attributes.body
Image collection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. The Crusades took place from 1095 until the 16th century, when the advent of Protestantism led to the decline of papal authority.

# data[].attributes.body
History and timeline.

# data[].attributes.body
The Middle Ages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Middle Ages: Europe - Middle Ages - Medieval Europe - Flocabulary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn all about the Middle Ages in Europe, the Crusades and the Magna Carta with Flocabulary's educational rap song and lesson plan.

# data[].attributes.body
Five things you probably didn't know about The Crusades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here, Dr Aysu Dincer Hadjianastasis from the University of Warwick brings you five lesser-known facts about the Crusades...

1) When caught in the crossfire, women didn't hesitate to don arms and armour

Whether women took active part in battle during the crusader period is a much-contested issue. While there is some evidence that corpses of Latin women wearing armour were spotted among the dead on the battlefield, historians have queried whether precious war gear would be 'wasted' on women who were unlikely to receive military training.

However, in desperate situations, whether the women had an interest in fighting or not, they simply had to find ways to defend and protect themselves. Thomas of Beverley's poem on the deeds of his sister Margaret offers a fascinating insight to a female pilgrim's fight for survival in a dangerous place. Margaret had travelled to the Holy Land on pilgrimage and was in Jerusalem when it was besieged by Saladin in 1187. The poem tells us that she was able to avail herself of a breastplate but in the absence of a helmet she simply improvised with a cauldron!

On the Muslim side, Usamah talks about an instance when a castle owned by his family was attacked and conquered by the Ismailis. The Ismaili leader tells Usamah's cousin Shahib that he will turn a blind eye if he goes back home, gathers his belongings and leaves the castle. As Shahib goes back home to collect his valuables he is startled by a figure who enters the house wearing a mail hauberk and a helmet, a sword and shield. The figure throws off the helmet, and lo and behold, it's Shahib's aging aunt. She berates Shahib for his cowardice and for letting down the family honour by considering running away and leaving all the women behind.

It is interesting that both sources were written by men, who praise women for their ingenuity without the slightest trepidation - despite the fact that these women's actions dealt a sound blow to accepted medieval gender roles!

2) During the crusader period medical knowledge was highly valued and constituted one of the crucial points of contact between eastern and western cultures

The memoirs of Usamah ibn Munqidh (1095-1188), The Book of Contemplation, are a goldmine of information about daily life in the Holy Land and include many anecdotes (some serious, some less so) on various forms of cultural exchange between the Latin crusaders and the natives of the Holy Land.

It would be fair to describe Usamah as a person who was 'born' to the crusades. Born on 4 July 1095, he spent his long and adventurous life living side-by-side with the residents of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. In one anecdote, Usamah talks about an artisan from Shayzar named Abu al-Fath, whose son was suffering from scrofula [a tuberculosis infection of the lymph nodes in the neck]. While Abu al-Fath was in Antioch on a business trip with his son, a Frankish man noticed the sores on the boy's neck and offered them a remedy ("burn some uncrushed leaves of glasswort, soak the ashes in olive oil and strong vinegar").

While the anonymous Frankish man seemed to be genuinely motivated by his wish to cure the boy, he was also keen to keep the 'copyright': Abu al-Fath had to swear by his religion that he wouldn't make money out of anyone that he cured using the recipe.

It appears that the remedy was indeed new to the Muslims, and as it cured Abu al-Fath's son its success ensured further circulation. The remedy was passed on to Usamah, who tells us that he himself used it on a number of sufferers. Through his memoirs, the remedy found its way to future generations.

c1275, a knight of the crusades in chain mail is kneeling in homage, his helmet being held above his head. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

3) Some crusader medical advice included remedies that were hardly palatable

For instance, the 14th-century anatomist and royal physician Guido da Vigevano offered slug soup as antidote to aconite poisoning. In 1335 da Vigevano produced a text ( Texaurus Regis Francie) urging the French king Philip VI to launch a new crusade. The text includes technical plans, drawings for siege engines and a wind-propelled chariot, as well as medical advice, including the above-mentioned solution to aconite poisoning - which despite sounding unpleasant, is actually very ingenious.

Aconite, commonly known as monkshood and still found in cottage gardens, is a highly poisonous plant and during the crusader period it was used by the Muslims against the crusaders. Why slugs, though? On noticing some slugs that were feeding on aconite leaves, da Vigevano seems to have experienced a light-bulb moment. He collected and boiled the slugs, concocting a soup out of them, which he first tested on animals. After achieving satisfactory results he took some aconite and tried the antidote himself.

Da Vigevano proudly reported that while the first two doses made him vomit, by the third dose he was free of the poison. Sadly, he never found out whether it was worth going through this nasty trial, as Philip VI's crusade failed to materialise.

4) When all was lost and they were taken hostages, negotiation skills were all that mattered to crusaders

These skills undeniably came to the fore during the Seventh Crusade (1248-54). Initiated, led and largely financed by King Louis IX of France, the Seventh Crusade was one of the most logistically sophisticated expeditions to the East. While it held great promise at the start, it ended in abject failure.

Louis IX's acts during the crusade were documented by his close friend Jean de Joinville, who was privy to most of the negotiations and decision-making. Joinville provides us with one of the liveliest and interesting accounts in crusader history: he was obsessed with detail, blessed with a prodigious and photographic memory and had a passionate interest in clothing. To top it all, he had a barely concealed crush on Louis IX's wife, Queen Marguerite of Provence, who was also on crusade. Most chronicles of the crusades offer their audiences countless tales of individual bravery and sacrifice - Joinville does this too, but also gives us a king battling a bout of dysentery so severe that a hole has to be cut in his drawers.

Louis IX of France was captured in Egypt during the Seventh Crusade in April 1250. (Photo by Ann Ronan Pictures/Print Collector/Getty Images)

After a doomed expedition up the Nile to take the town of Mansurah, the crusaders try to retreat to Damietta but are forced to abandon the attempt. Joinville's party realise that they are running out of options and have to surrender. A crusader among the group clearly sees this as an act of cowardice and argues that rather than giving themselves up as hostages they should all let themselves be slain and go to paradise. Joinville bluntly reports: "but we none of us heeded his advice".

Instead, once he is taken hostage Joinville does everything he can think of so that his life will be spared: he strikes a kinship with a Muslim man, lies to his captors that he is the king's cousin, fabricates a relationship to Emperor Frederick II and quotes Saladin when it suits him ("never kill a man once you had shared your bread and salt with him"). In the end it's Queen Marguerite's powers of negotiation that save them: she hands Damietta over to the Mamluks in exchange for her husband's life and Louis pays 400,000 pounds for his army to be released.

5) The royal women of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem played crucial roles in political life, which sometimes meant that they had to endure successive marriages

Royal marriage was an important political tool in the survival of the kingdom. The prize for the highest number of marriages goes to Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem, who married four times. All her husbands, bar one, were eliminated from the picture quite dramatically. She was forced to divorce her first husband, Humphrey of Toron, who was not only extremely reluctant to step up to the throne but also perceived to be too young, too intellectual and somewhat effeminate by the nobility. The divorce meant a loss of face for Humphrey, but at least he remained alive.

Isabella's second husband, Conrad of Montferrat, was not so lucky: he was assassinated by the much-feared Assassins, an Ismaili sect. Isabella married her third husband, Henry of Champagne, while heavily pregnant with Conrad's child and just a week after his death. This marriage lasted for five years and ended when Henry died falling from a castle window. Isabella's final husband, Aimery of Lusignan, died of "a surfeit of white mullet": quite a preventable death.

How do we explain these serial marriages and what do we know about the woman who endured them? Was Isabella a helpless, romantic victim who was simply acting as a vessel in the transmission of legitimacy? Indeed, her life corresponds to the most turbulent period in the history of the crusader states: she witnessed the rise of Saladin and the fall of Jerusalem; she saw the Third Crusade come and go and Cyprus conquered, colonised and turned into a new kingdom.

The man who married Isabella would be king, so he had to be an experienced political ruler and an exceptional military leader. The decision wasn't Isabella's to make, however, as the barons were the active kingmakers, but she appears to have accepted their choices. By the end of her reign the kingdom had found stability and her eldest daughter's right to rule was secure.

Similar to Margaret of Beverley's cauldron-come-helmet in 1187, Isabella's marriages can be seen as improvisations to protect the kingdom. The cauldron saved a pilgrim; Isabella's marriages ensured the survival of the kingdom at a perilous time.
Dr Aysu Dincer Hadjianastasis is a teaching fellow in medieval and early modern history at the University of Warwick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 things you (probably) didn't know about the Crusades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beginning in the late 11th century, the Crusades were a series of military expeditions mounted by western European Christians in a bid to conquer the Holy Land.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Magna Carta Lesson for Kids- Defini..., Facts, Summary & History | Study.com.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
study.com transcript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Horrible Histories Song - Magna Carta 800 Years - CBBC

# data[].attributes.body
study.com transcript

# data[].attributes.body
This is the link to History.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By 1215, thanks to years of unsuccessful foreign policies and heavy taxation demands, England's King John was facing down a possible rebellion by the country's powerful barons. Under duress, he agreed to a charter of liberties known as the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) that would place him and all of England's future sovereigns within a rule of law. Though it was not initially successful, the document was reissued (with alterations) in 1216, 1217 and 1225, and eventually served as the foundation for the English system of common law. Later generations of Englishmen would celebrate the Magna Carta as a symbol of freedom from oppression, as would the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, who in 1776 looked to the charter as a historical precedent for asserting their liberty from the English crown.

Background and Context

John (the youngest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine) was not the first English king to grant concessions to his citizens in the form of a charter, though he was the first one to do so under threat of civil war. Upon taking the throne in 1100, Henry I had issued a Coronation Charter in which he promised to limit taxation and confiscation of church revenues, among other abuses of power. But he went on to ignore these precepts, and the barons lacked the power to enforce them. They later gained more leverage, however, as a result of the English crown's need to fund the Crusades and pay a ransom for John's brother and predecessor, Richard I (known as Richard the Lionheart), who was taken prisoner by Emperor Henry VI of Germany during the Third Crusade.

Did you know? Today, memorials stand at Runnymede to commemorate the site's connection to freedom, justice and liberty. In addition to the John F. Kennedy Memorial, Britain's tribute to the 35th U.S. president, a rotunda built by the American Bar Association stands as "a tribute to Magna Carta, symbol of freedom under law."

In 1199, when Richard died without leaving an heir, John was forced to contend with a rival for succession in the form of his nephew Arthur (the young son of John's deceased brother Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany). After a war with King Philip II of France, who supported Arthur, John was able to consolidate power. He immediately angered many former supporters with his cruel treatment of prisoners (including Arthur, who was probably murdered on John's orders). By 1206, John's renewed war with France had caused him to lose the duchies of Normandy and Anjou, among other territories.

Who Signed the Magna Carta and Why?

A feud with Pope Innocent III, beginning in 1208, further damaged John's prestige, and he became the first English sovereign to suffer the punishment of excommunication (later meted out to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). After another embarrassing military defeat by France in 1213, John attempted to refill his coffers-and rebuild his reputation-by demanding scutage (money paid in lieu of military service) from the barons who had not joined him on the battlefield. By this time, Stephen Langton, whom the pope had named as archbishop of Canterbury over John's initial opposition, was able to channel baronial unrest and put increasing pressure on the king for concessions.

With negotiations stalled early in 1215, civil war broke out, and the rebels-led by baron Robert FitzWalter, John's longtime adversary-gained control of London. Forced into a corner, John yielded, and on June 15, 1215, at Runnymede (located beside the River Thames, now in the county of Surrey), he accepted the terms included in a document called the Articles of the Barons. Four days later, after further modifications, the king and the barons issued a formal version of the document, which would become known as the Magna Carta. Intended as a peace treaty, the charter failed in his goals, as civil war broke out within three months.

After John's death in 1216, advisors to his nine-year-old son and successor, Henry III, reissued the Magna Carta with some of its most controversial clauses taken out, thus averting further conflict. The document was reissued again in 1217 and once again in 1225 (in return for a grant of taxation to the king). Each subsequent issue of the Magna Carta followed that "final" 1225 version.

What Did the Magna Carta Do?

Written in Latin, the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) was effectively the first written constitution in European history. Of its 63 clauses, many concerned the various property rights of barons and other powerful citizens, suggesting the limited intentions of the framers. The benefits of the charter were for centuries reserved for only the elite classes, while the majority of English citizens still lacked a voice in government. In the 17th century, however, two defining acts of English legislation-the Petition of Right (1628) and the Habeas Corpus Act (1679)-referred to Clause 39, which states that "no free man shall be...imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed]... except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Clause 40 ("To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice") also had dramatic implications for future legal systems in Britain and America.

In 1776, rebellious American colonists looked to the Magna Carta as a model for their demands of liberty from the English crown on the eve of the American Revolution. Its legacy is especially evident in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere more so than in the Fifth Amendment ("Nor shall any persons be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"), which echoes Clause 39. Many state constitutions also include ideas and phrases that can be traced directly to the historic document.

Where Is the Original Magna Carta?

Four original copies of the Magna Carta of 1215 exist today: one in Lincoln Cathedral, one in Salisbury Cathedral, and two in the British Museum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 1215, thanks to years of unsuccessful foreign policies and heavy taxation demands, England's King John was facing down a possible rebellion by the country's powerful barons. Under duress, he agreed to a charter of liberties known as the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) that would place him and all of England's future sovereigns within a rule of law.

# data[].attributes.body
From History.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims started primarily to secure control of holy sites considered sacred by both groups. In all, eight major Crusade expeditions occurred between 1096 and 1291. The bloody, violent and often ruthless conflicts propelled the status of European Christians, making them major players in the fight for land in the Middle East.

What Were the Crusades?

By the end of the 11th century, Western Europe had emerged as a significant power in its own right, though it still lagged behind other Mediterranean civilizations, such as that of the Byzantine Empire (formerly the eastern half of the Roman Empire) and the Islamic Empire of the Middle East and North Africa.

However, Byzantium had lost considerable territory to the invading Seljuk Turks. After years of chaos and civil war, the general Alexius Comnenus seized the Byzantine throne in 1081 and consolidated control over the remaining empire as Emperor Alexius I.

In 1095, Alexius sent envoys to Pope Urban II asking for mercenary troops from the West to help confront the Turkish threat. Though relations between Christians in the East and West had long been fractious, Alexius's request came at a time when the situation was improving.

In November 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, the Pope called on Western Christians to take up arms to aid the Byzantines and recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. This marked the beginning of the Crusades.

Pope Urban's plea was met with a tremendous response, both among the military elite as well as ordinary citizens. Those who joined the armed pilgrimage wore a cross as a symbol of the Church.

The Crusades set the stage for several religious knightly military orders, including the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, and the Hospitallers. These groups defended the Holy Land and protected pilgrims traveling to and from the region.

Did you know? In a popular movement known as the Children's Crusade (1212), a motley crew including children, adolescents, women, the elderly and the poor marched all the way from the Rhineland to Italy behind a young man named Nicholas, who said he had received divine instruction to march toward the Holy Land.

First Crusade (1096-99)

Four armies of Crusaders were formed from troops of different Western European regions, led by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois and Bohemond of Taranto (with his nephew Tancred). These groups departed for Byzantium in August 1096.

A less organized band of knights and commoners known as the "People's Crusade" set off before the others under the command of a popular preacher known as Peter the Hermit.

Ignoring Alexius' advice to wait for the rest of the Crusaders, Peter's army crossed the Bosporus in early August. In the first major clash between the Crusaders and Muslims, Turkish forces crushed the invading Europeans at Cibotus.

Another group of Crusaders, led by the notorious Count Emicho, carried out a series of massacres of Jews in various towns in the Rhineland in 1096, drawing widespread outrage and causing a major crisis in Jewish-Christian relations.

When the four main armies of Crusaders arrived in Constantinople, Alexius insisted that their leaders swear an oath of loyalty to him and recognize his authority over any land regained from the Turks, as well as any other territory they might conquer. All but Bohemond resisted taking the oath.

In May 1097, the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies attacked Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey), the Seljuk capital in Anatolia. The city surrendered in late June.

The Fall of Jerusalem

Despite deteriorating relations between the Crusaders and Byzantine leaders, the combined force continued its march through Anatolia, capturing the great Syrian city of Antioch in June 1098.

After various internal struggles over control of Antioch, the Crusaders began their march toward Jerusalem, then occupied by Egyptian Fatimids (who as Shi'ite Muslims were enemies of the Sunni Seljuks).

Encamping before Jerusalem in June 1099, the Christians forced the besieged city's governor to surrender by mid-July.

Despite Tancred's promise of protection, the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of men, women, and children in their victorious entrance into Jerusalem.

Second Crusade (1147-49)

Having achieved their goal in an unexpectedly short period of time after the First Crusade, many of the Crusaders departed for home. To govern the conquered territory, those who remained established four large western settlements, or Crusader states, in Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli.

Guarded by formidable castles, the Crusader states retained the upper hand in the region until around 1130, when Muslim forces began gaining ground in their own holy war (or jihad) against the Christians, whom they called "Franks."

In 1144, the Seljuk general Zangi, governor of Mosul, captured Edessa, leading to the loss of the northernmost Crusader state.

News of Edessa's fall stunned Europe and caused Christian authorities in the West to call for another Crusade. Led by two great rulers, King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany, the Second Crusade began in 1147.

That October, the Turks annihilated Conrad's forces at Dorylaeum, the site of a great Christian victory during the First Crusade.

After Louis and Conrad managed to assemble their armies at Jerusalem, they decided to attack the Syrian stronghold of Damascus with an army of some 50,000 (the largest Crusader force yet).

Damascus' ruler was forced to call on Nur al-Din, Zangi's successor in Mosul, for aid. The combined Muslim forces dealt a humiliating defeat to the Crusaders, decisively ending the Second Crusade.

Nur al-Din added Damascus to his expanding empire in 1154.

Third Crusade (1187-92)

After numerous attempts by the Crusaders of Jerusalem to capture Egypt, Nur al-Din's forces (led by the general Shirkuh and his nephew, Saladin) seized Cairo in 1169 and forced the Crusader army to evacuate.

Upon Shirkuh's subsequent death, Saladin assumed control and began a campaign of conquests that accelerated after Nur al-Din's death in 1174.

In 1187, Saladin began a major campaign against the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. His troops virtually destroyed the Christian army at the battle of Hattin, taking back the important city along with a large amount of territory.

Outrage over these defeats inspired the Third Crusade, led by rulers such as the aging Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (who was drowned at Anatolia before his entire army reached Syria), King Philip II of France, and King Richard I of England (known as Richard the Lionheart).

In September 1191, Richard's forces defeated those of Saladin in the battle of Arsuf, which would be the only true battle of the Third Crusade.

From the recaptured city of Jaffa, Richard reestablished Christian control over some of the region and approached Jerusalem, though he refused to lay siege to the city.

In September 1192, Richard and Saladin signed a peace treaty that reestablished the Kingdom of Jerusalem (though without the city of Jerusalem) and ended the Third Crusade.

Fourth Crusade: The Fall of Constantinople

Though Pope Innocent III called for a new Crusade in 1198, power struggles within and between Europe and Byzantium drove the Crusaders to divert their mission in order to topple the reigning Byzantine emperor, Alexius III, in favor of his nephew, who became Alexius IV in mid-1203.

The new emperor's attempts to submit the Byzantine church to Rome was met with stiff resistance, and Alexius IV was strangled after a palace coup in early 1204.

In response, the Crusaders declared war on Constantinople, and the Fourth Crusade ended with the devastating Fall of Constantinople, marked by a bloody conquest, looting and near-destruction of the magnificent Byzantine capital later that year.

Final Crusades (1208-1271)

Throughout the remainder of the 13th century, a variety of Crusades aimed not so much to topple Muslim forces in the Holy Land but to combat any and all of those seen as enemies of the Christian faith.

The Albigensian Crusade (1208-29) aimed to root out the heretical Cathari or Albigensian sect of Christianity in France, while the Baltic Crusades (1211-25) sought to subdue pagans in Transylvania.

A so-called Children's Crusade took place in 1212 when thousands of young children vowed to march to Jerusalem. Although it was called the Children's Crusade, most historians don't regard it as an actual crusade, and many experts question whether the group was really comprised of children. The movement never reached the Holy Land.

In the Fifth Crusade, put in motion by Pope Innocent III before his death in 1216, the Crusaders attacked Egypt from both land and sea but were forced to surrender to Muslim defenders led by Saladin's nephew, Al-Malik al-Kamil, in 1221.

In 1229, in what became known as the Sixth Crusade, Emperor Frederick II achieved the peaceful transfer of Jerusalem to Crusader control through negotiation with al-Kamil. The peace treaty expired a decade later, and Muslims easily regained control of Jerusalem.

From 1248 to 1254, Louis IX of France organized a crusade against Egypt. This battle, known as the Seventh Crusade, was a failure for Louis.

The Mamluks

As the Crusaders struggled, a new dynasty, known as the Mamluks, descended from former slaves of the Islamic Empire, took power in Egypt. In 1260, Mamluk forces in Palestine managed to halt the advance of the Mongols, an invading force led by Genghis Khan and his descendants, which had emerged as a potential ally for the Christians in the region.

Under the ruthless Sultan Baybars, the Mamluks demolished Antioch in 1268. In response, Louis organized the Eighth Crusade in 1270. The initial goal was to aid the remaining Crusader states in Syria, but the mission was redirected to Tunis, where Louis died.

Edward I of England took on another expedition in 1271. This battle, which is often grouped with the Eighth Crusade but is sometimes referred to as the Ninth Crusade, accomplished very little and was considered the last significant crusade to the Holy Land.

The Crusades End

In 1291, one of the only remaining Crusader cities, Acre, fell to the Muslim Mamluks. Many historians believe this defeat marked the end of the Crusader States and the Crusades themselves.

Though the Church organized minor Crusades with limited goals after 1291-mainly military campaigns aimed at pushing Muslims from conquered territory, or conquering pagan regions-support for such efforts diminished in the 16th century, with the rise of the Reformation and the corresponding decline of papal authority.

Effects of the Crusades

While the Crusades ultimately resulted in defeat for Europeans and a Muslim victory, many argue that they successfully extended the reach of Christianity and Western civilization. The Roman Catholic Church experienced an increase in wealth, and the power of the Pope was elevated after the Crusades ended.

Trade and transportation also improved throughout Europe as a result of the Crusades. The wars created a constant demand for supplies and transportation, which resulted in ship-building and the manufacturing of various supplies.

After the Crusades, there was a heightened interest in travel and learning throughout Europe, which some historians believe may have paved the way for the Renaissance.

Among followers of Islam, however, the Crusaders were regarded as immoral, bloody and savage. The ruthless and widespread massacre of Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians resulted in bitter resentment that persisted for many years. Even today, some Muslims derisively refer to the West's involvement in the Middle East as a "crusade."

There's no question that the years of bloody conflict brought by the Crusades had an impact on Middle East and Western European nations for many years, and still influence political and cultural views and opinions held today.

Sources:

Timeline for the Crusades and Christian Holy War to c.1350: United States Naval Academy.
The Crusades: A Complete History: History Today.
The Crusades: LordsAndLadies.org.
Crusades: New Advent.
What Were the Crusades and How Did They Impact Jerusalem?: Bible History Daily.

Knightfall, coming soon on HISTORY.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims started primarily to secure control of holy sites considered sacred by both groups. In all, eight major Crusade expeditions occurred between 1096 and 1291. The bloody, violent and often ruthless conflicts propelled the status of European Christians, making them major players in the fight for land in the Middle East.

# data[].attributes.body
From history.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Black Death was a devastating global epidemic of bubonic plague that struck Europe and Asia in the mid-1300s. Explore the facts of the plague, the symptoms it caused and how millions died from it.

# data[].attributes.body
From History.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The name the Hundred Years' War has been used by historians since the beginning of the nineteenth century to describe the long conflict that pitted the kings and kingdoms of France and England against each other from 1337 to 1453. Two factors lay at the origin of the conflict: first, the status of the duchy of Guyenne (or Aquitaine)-though it belonged to the kings of England, it remained a fief of the French crown, and the kings of England wanted independent possession; second, as the closest relatives of the last direct Capetian king (Charles IV, who had died in 1328), the kings of England from 1337 claimed the crown of France.

Theoretically, the French kings, possessing the financial and military resources of the most populous and powerful state in western Europe, held the advantage over the smaller, more sparsely populated English kingdom. However, the expeditionary English army, well disciplined and successfully using their longbows to stop cavalry charges, proved repeatedly victorious over much larger French forces: significant victories occurred by sea at Sluys (1340), and by land at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356). In 1360, King John of France, in order to save his title, was forced to accept the Treaty of Calais, which granted complete independence to the duchy of Guyenne, now considerably enlarged to include almost a third of France. However, his son Charles V, with the help of his commander in chief Bertrand du Guesclin, by 1380 had succeeded in reconquering almost all the ceded territory, notably by a series of sieges.

After a hiatus, Henry V of England renewed the war and proved victorious at Agincourt (1415), conquered Normandy (1417-1418), and then attempted to have himself crowned as the future king of France by the Treaty of Troyes (1420). But his military successes were not matched by political successes: although allied with the dukes of Burgundy, the majority of the French refused English domination. Thanks to Joan of Arc, the siege of Orleans was lifted (1429). Then Paris and the lle-de-France were liberated (1436-1441), and after the French army had been reorganized and reformed (1445-1448), Charles VII recaptured the duchy of Normandy (the Battle of Formigny, 1450), and then seized Guyenne (the Battle of Castillon, 1453). The end of the conflict was never marked by a peace treaty but died out because the English recognized that the French troops were too strong to be directly confronted.

English territory in France, which had been extensive since 1066 (see Hastings, Battle of) now remained confined to the Channel port of Calais (lost in 1558). France, at last free of the English invaders, resumed its place as the dominant state of western Europe.

The Reader's Companion to Military History. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The name the Hundred Years' War has been used by historians since the beginning of the nineteenth century to describe the long conflict that pitted the kings and kingdoms of France and England against each other from 1337 to 1453.