The English Empire: The predecessor of the British Empire

In 1485, the last Plantagenet king of England fell in battle. His name was Richard the Third, and he was killed on the battleground of Bosworth Field. The winner of the battle was a young man named Henry, who then became “Henry the Seventh.” He was the first of the Tudor rulers of England. Henry had been on the Lancastrian side of the “Wars of the Roses.” But, when he married a Yorkist lady in 1486, the two factions from the civil war were finally united, since he was marrying someone from that faction. Her name was Elizabeth of York, and she would eventually give birth to a son in 1491. The boy was the future “Henry the Eighth,” who would eventually form the new “Church of England.” (More about that here.) But, at that time, the boy’s birth signaled a formal end to the “Wars of the Roses.” The following year was 1492, the year that Christopher Columbus was arriving in the Americas. Spain and Portugal would soon be creating massive overseas empires, in which they spread their longtime Catholic faith to distant shores. Henry the Seventh was still the king of England in 1496, when he commissioned John Cabot to sail to Asia. Cabot sailed in 1497, but instead landed on the coast of Newfoundland – in what is today Canada. They did not yet attempt to found a colony there. Cabot later made another voyage to the Americas, but did not return. To this day, no one knows what happened to Cabot’s ships.

A replica of John Cabot’s ship the Matthew

A review of the BBC’s “The Plantagenets”

“No scutage nor aid [i.e. forms of medieval taxation] shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom [which is the beginning of Parliament], except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.”

– English translation of Magna Carta (1215), originally written in Medieval Latin, which was forcibly signed by King John, one of the Plantagenet kings

Backstabbings, assassinations, and civil wars: The story of Britain’s bloodiest dynasty

“The story of the Plantagenets,” says the box for this DVD, “is the real Game of Thrones.” Although I’ve not seen the show “Game of Thrones,” I know its reputation, and so this may actually be a good comparison – although this program, thankfully, has no sex scenes in it; while the show “Game of Thrones” does. The Plantagenet story is filled with violence, both on the personal and national levels. On the personal level, kings were murdered by those in their own families who were next in line for the throne – sometimes in clear ways, and other times in ways that were merely suspicious; but which raised more than a few eyebrows at the time. And on the national level, the struggles to control the throne often sucked in the rest of the country as well, dragging England into multiple civil wars. This was one of the surprises for me, that there were multiple civil wars just during the Plantagenet reign. The most well-known are the fifteenth-century “Wars of the Roses,” which I cover in a different blog post. But there were others as well, showing that monarchy is actually a fairly unstable form of government. Ironically, the supporters of monarchy have often defended it as the most stable form of government imaginable, but the story of the Plantagenets tends to suggest otherwise, with a fairly high body count by the time that their reign was concluded in 1485.

Edward the First

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of Shakespeare”

He had more influence upon the English language than any other individual – perhaps even more than the Biblical translator William Tyndale. Shakespeare’s plays are still read and performed today, more than three centuries after their author’s death. Even literary ignoramuses like me can recognize lines like “Brevity is the soul of wit,” or “To be or not to be” – an oft-parodied line, even in comic strips like “Calvin and Hobbes.” Relatively few of us have ever bothered to read a Shakespeare play when it’s not assigned, partly because the original language can seem rather inaccessible to us today. Yet he left an influence upon the way that we speak, which is still felt right down to the present day.

William Shakespeare

The best way to learn about Shakespeare is probably to read his sonnets and plays, or watch some of his plays performed on stage – or in certain good film adaptations. But this documentary approach will still tell you much about his life. It is a biography of the man – a man whose life has long been shrouded in mystery. In the documentary world, this may be the most in-depth biography of Shakespeare that you’re likely to find. To find something more in-depth, you’d probably have to turn to the world of books. I freely admit that I’m no expert on Shakespeare, since I never even bothered to read one of his plays in the original. The closest that I came was to watch the 1953 film adaptation of his play “Julius Caesar,” starring James Mason as Brutus. This, at least, is closer to him than watching “West Side Story” in my youth – an adaptation of his famous play “Romeo and Juliet.” Incidentally, I turned on the Spanish subtitles for that DVD of Julius Caesar. I had an easier time understanding the Spanish than the Shakespearean English, and I’m a native speaker of English (but not of Spanish).

Garlanded statue of William Shakespeare in Lincoln Park, Chicago

Some thoughts on Thomas More’s “Utopia”

Note: By writing the work “Utopia,” Thomas More created a new literary genre: utopian and dystopian fiction. This genre is still popular today.

During the Renaissance, Sir Thomas More wrote a satirical book called “Utopia”

In the year 1516, Sir Thomas More published a book in Latin which has since become famous. He titled his book “Utopia,” and this word is now used as a popular word for idyllic and perfect places. But people have long debated about the extent to which More believed that this kind of society could actually exist. That is to say, people debate about whether the work is satirical or not. It is one of the most influential “utopias” ever to appear in fiction, and some attempts at real-life utopias have been modeled on the state that he presents therein. Some would argue that this is the first utopia ever to appear in a work presented as “fiction,” although Plato’s “Republic” offers the first utopia in a work presented as “non-fiction.” Interestingly, there are explicit mentions of Plato’s “Republic” in Thomas More’s “Utopia” – more than one of them, in fact.

Sir Thomas More, the author of “Utopia”

“Utopia” has two possible meanings in Ancient Greek: “happy place” and “no place”

But did Sir Thomas More really believe that this “ideal state” could exist in reality? There are a number of arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one side, for example, a website referenced by Wikipedia quotes More as saying that “Wherfore not Utopie, but rather rightely my name is Eutopie, a place of felicitie.” (see source) “Eutopie” is an interesting spelling to me, because it turns out that the Ancient Greek word εὐτόπος (rendered as “eutopos” or “eutopia”) literally translates to “good place.” But some have wondered whether More actually intended a second meaning for this word, possibly in addition to the other meaning that I have already mentioned. This is because an alternative origin of the word in Ancient Greek would be οὐτόπος (rendered as “outopos” or “outopia”), a word that literally translates to “no place” – possibly implying that this kind of “good place” could not exist in reality.

Illustration for the 1516 first edition of “Utopia”

A review of David Starkey’s “Henry VIII: Mind of a Tyrant”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to discuss them tastefully, there’s no way to take them out of this story – it’s Henry the Eighth, after all.

It is one of the great soap operas in history. When he divorced his first wife, Henry the Eighth also changed England from Catholic to Protestant – the most prominent aspect of the story. But presenter David Starkey had already covered this particular soap opera eight years earlier in 2001. Why, then, did he return to this subject in 2009? I’m sure that his fascination with Henry the Eighth must have been part of it. After all, this topic was the subject of David Starkey’s dissertation, making him a true expert on this area. But there is one other reason, which was that his previous film was called “The Six Wives of Henry VIII.” Thus, it is mainly focused on the wives. Mr. Starkey thus hadn’t gone into as much depth on Henry the Eighth himself. But now, as Mr. Starkey says in this film, he was finally ready to write Henry the Eighth’s biography. And he tells the story with such human interest that it will be likely to appeal to a wide audience.

Henry the Eighth

A review of the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga”

There’s a reason that 1066 is the best remembered year in British history. In that year, the Normans invaded England. They are the last people ever to do so successfully. Others have tried since then (notably Napoleon and Hitler), but none of them have succeeded. This is known in English history as “the Norman Conquest” – or sometimes, just “the Conquest.” But who were the Normans? Where did they come from? How did they come to be in France – and then, later, in England? Did they engage in conquests elsewhere in the world? And why, after all of their successes, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

These are complicated questions, and researching them brings a number of surprising answers. But two documentaries are especially good at delving into this subject. They are the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga.” I considered reviewing them separately in two different blog posts, but the overlap between them is quite considerable. Thus, it may make sense to cover them together here, and show their relative advantages and disadvantages. Each of them covers some things that the other doesn’t, and brings a unique perspective to some of the events that both of them cover.

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Dark Ages”

During the Dark Ages, there were a number of invasions of what is today “England.” Some of them were before the state of England was created, while others of them happened long after its formation. But if you want a good television overview of these invasions, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better one than Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Dark Ages,” made for the BBC in the late seventies and early eighties.

A review of “The Germanic Tribes”

Warning: This blog post contains a picture of an actual human skull from centuries ago.

What is this film about, and why should I care about it?

In the fifth century AD, three Germanic tribes invaded the British Isles. They were called the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes. Two of them are sometimes lumped together into the term “Anglo-Saxons,” a major group for British history. It is from the word “Angles” that the word “England” itself comes – and, by extension, “English,” the name for the language in which I’m writing this. But this documentary doesn’t just cover the Early Middle Ages – it also covers the earlier “classical antiquity” period, focusing especially on the time of the Roman Empire. The first three episodes focus on the antagonistic relationship between the Romans and the Germanic tribes. Later on, they talk about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and Europe’s resulting transition into its “Dark Ages” period. Thus, they talk about the bridge between the classical period and the medieval period in this film.

Latest reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet, a famous Anglo-Saxon helmet

A review of Neil Oliver’s “Vikings: The Real Warriors” (BBC)

In the year 793, the Vikings attacked a monastery on the English island of Lindisfarne. It was the beginning of the Viking invasion of England – or, at least, the first Viking invasion. Thus, many historians mark this raid as the beginning of the “Viking Age.” It was then that they first became important players on the world stage. But who were the Vikings? Where did they come from? Why did they act as they did? Were they just a kind of “medieval terrorist,” or is there more to the story than that? And why, after all that they accomplished, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

A review of Frank Delaney’s “The Celts” (BBC)

In 1987, the BBC released a television series called “The Celts,” which was more like two series. In all, the two series had a total of ten episodes, but this DVD set contains only the last of the two series. That is to say, it contains the last six episodes, and omits the first four of them. Why the BBC released it in this way, I don’t know. But as far as I know, the British websites that offer this series all seem to have the same problem as the American websites offering it – including those that mistakenly advertise themselves as having “The Complete Series.” I don’t have enough interest in the first four episodes to search far and wide for them, so I’ll just review the last six here – the ones that I have actually seen. These are sold in a DVD set entitled “The Celts: Rich Traditions and Ancient Myths.” They are good, but they could have been so much more.

Reconstruction of a late La Tène period settlement in Havranok, Slovakia (2nd/1st century BCE)

A review of “The Wars of the Roses: A Bloody Crown”

So why is this conflict known as “The Wars of the Roses”?

In fifteenth-century England, there was a conflict between two families for the throne of England. This conflict lasted for 32 years, and claimed thousands of lives by the time it was over with. But this conflict carries the strange name of “The Wars of the Roses.” Why do historians call it that? The reason is that the House of York was symbolized by a white rose, while the House of Lancaster was symbolized by a red rose. These were the two families that were battling each other for the throne of England. Technically, they were two rival branches of the same family - namely, the Plantagenets.

The Wars of the Roses were not really about ideas, but about who controlled the throne …

It is important to be clear on this: In contrast to later wars like the “English Civil War,” this was not a war about ideas. Rather, it was just a war about which family would control the throne, both during their lifetimes and beyond. Although I know that thousands perished during the “Wars of the Roses,” I have no information about whether it was bloodier than the later “English Civil War.” But one thing is clear: both wars were civil wars. And something else is clear, too: the “Wars of the Roses” lasted far longer than this later conflict - over two-and-a-half times longer, in fact.

20th-century rendition of “The Battle of Towton” (1461), possibly the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil

A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)

The greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history (the Black Death) …

It is still the greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history. Some estimate that the plague killed 30 percent of the European population, but many others place it around 50 percent. To many Europeans of this time, the apocalyptic Plague seemed like “the end of the world,” and there may have been reason for them to see it this way. No war has ever killed as many people as the “Great Plague” did, and the death toll was easily numbered in the millions. Small wonder, then, that this massive outbreak of the fourteenth century is sometimes known simply as “the Plague,” as it is called in this documentary's title.

A review of “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (History Channel)

Note: This is a different series from “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (which is made by the BBC).

There aren't too many documentaries out there about ancient history …

If you've ever looked online for movies about ancient history, you've probably had a hard time finding any. Ancient history isn't a popular subject for Hollywood movies (or even documentaries), and so very few programs about it have ever been made. I don't know why this has been the case, but I can probably make some guesses about it. If you make a documentary about World War II (a modern topic), you have access to actual archival footage from the period. You can get it at very low cost, and advertise its benefits to your viewers. Some of them will even prefer the gritty realism of the actual footage to re-enactments, which are just educated guesses (albeit good ones, if they're done right). Thus, you can sometimes get more effectiveness for less money, which is a real advantage in the world of documentaries. But if you depict the distant past, you are usually forced to rely on re-enactments, and the cost of these re-enactments can be steep. Consequently, many of these ancient history documentaries are never made in the first place.

This documentary is primarily a military history

An ancient history topic must thus be fairly popular before a for-profit network like the History Channel will decide to throw significant money at it. No matter how much the producers of these networks might like these topics, they usually can't justify the budget for these programs unless they think that they have a reasonable chance of recovering these expenses with some added cash flow. One presumes that the Roman Empire was considered popular enough to justify these budgets to investors at this time. If it had not been, after all, it's safe to assume that this series would never have been made. I imagine part of its appeal to the general public was its focus on military history (rather than other kinds of history). Military history has long been a popular topic with certain segments of the general population (perhaps especially the male population); and although political history is sometimes covered here, the primary focus of this series is military history. This may be the most comprehensive military history of Rome ever made for television. It has some weaknesses (which I will note later), but it's still a fine series despite these.

Relief scene of Roman legionaries marching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius – Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD

When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document …

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

– The original Magna Carta (1215), Section 39 – using the translation (from the Latin into English) that was offered by Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

When King John of England signed the Magna Carta in 1215, it was tantamount to signing a surrender document, and was just as humiliating for him. Before, the authority of the king had been almost (if not completely) absolute. Now, it was limited, and his nobles had the king's signature to prove it. Why did the king agree to sign this document in the first place? If he wanted to continue to have absolute power (and he did), why would he agree to such limits upon his power?

King John of England

The short answer for this is that he had no choice – he was forced to sign this document by angry men wielding a sword at him. But how did these noblemen manage to force him to do this at sword-point? How is it that King John lost his grip on absolute power at this time, with his descendants having very little chance of recovering it later on?

The Magna Carta

A review of David Starkey's “Elizabeth”

Queen Elizabeth the First

The most powerful queen in English history

Elizabeth the First may well be the most powerful queen in English history, because she held actual political power in a way that most later queens of England did not. Victoria and Elizabeth the Second had their power limited by the British Constitution to a degree that Elizabeth the First did not. All of them had to contend with Parliament, it is true; but the monarchy still had real power in the years that we today call the "Elizabethan Era." This power was all the greater when the state religion was still under royal control. Just years before this, you see, the church had actually been under the control of the Vatican in faraway Rome. But her father's divorce from his Catholic wife had brought him the ire of the Catholic Church, and led to England's conversion to the new Protestant faith - a faith led by the monarch personally during the lifetime of Elizabeth.

King Henry the Eighth, Elizabeth's father

A review of David Starkey's “The Six Wives of Henry VIII”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to discuss them tastefully, there's no way to take them out of this story - it's Henry the Eighth, after all.

The three things you're not supposed to talk about at a party (and they're all here)

It's been said that there are three things that one should not talk about at a party - sex, politics, and religion. The story of Henry the Eighth is, at once, about all of these things - a story that began as being about marriage and intimacy, but ended up as a story about state religion and world geopolitics. It changed England from a Catholic country to a Protestant country, and had massive repercussions for generations to come.

King Henry the Eighth