I love the story of Basil I's rise to power in the Byzantine Empire.

Basil was almost assuredly born a peasant somewhere in Byzantine territory in the 9th century. His grandson and successor Constantine IX gives us a view that Basil was in fact descended from some Armenian noble family, and Basil certainly promoted that view in his lifetime. It seems doubtful, though it is quite possible Basil was at least part Armenian. Regardless, its almost impossible to exactly determine Basil's origin, other than that he was very much lowborn.

By some accounts, Basil was a captive of the Bulgarians for a large part of his life. If so, this makes his rise to power all the more something out of a story. The apparent protagonist found a job as a stableboy for Theophilitzes, a relative of Bardas, uncle to the Emperor Michael III and Caesar. In this capacity, he ended up charming an old rich widow named Danelis, and was named heir in her will. Now a personally wealthy man, he also eventually attracted the attention of the Emperor in a contest of strength conducted in the palace, which he was able to attend to his proximity to the Imperial family. After winning, Basil was named bodyguard and manservant to the Emperor, or Parakoimomenos, which, due to proximity to the Emperor, was a highly influential post.

Uncle Bardas apparently did not appreciate this upjumped peasant being so close to the Emperor, and he was an enemy of Basil for the rest of his life. Still though, Basil continued to be a close confidant of Michael.

Michael had a reputation of debauchery and religious unorthodoxy. How much of this is due to later propaganda we'll never know, but it is clear that Michael maintained a mistress named Eudokia Ingerina. Rumors were spreading about, and his mother and ministers were urging the removal of Eudokia, especially because Michael was indeed married. So Michael came up with a brilliant idea around 855. Why not marry Eudokia to one of his courtiers? Then she could be kept around. Thus the Parakoimomenos Basil was called up, ordered to divorce his wife, and marry Eudokia so the Emperor could continue his affair with some level of justification. After all, Basil and thus Eudokia had to live in the palace given Basil's role. Michael would continue to sleep with Eudokia despite her marriage for the rest of his reign. Basil himself put up with it for over a decade, but he was saving his capital for a much bigger prize.

Caesar Bardas had had enough of his nephews antics. Bardas managed most of the government and military affairs anyways, and his own personal disapproval of the affair likely led to increased antagonism between Bardas and Basil. Bardas was likely going to use what resources he had to remove Basil, but Basil struck first. As Bardas prepared for an expedition to retake Crete, Basil produced evidence that Bardas was planning to kill Michael and usurp the throne. Was it true? It seems unlikely, but in either case, the Emperor was convinced, and by some accounts Basil arrested and summarily executed Bardas himself. Soon after, Michael awarded his true friend Basil Bardas's old title of Caesar. In one fell swoop, Basil was the most influential figure in the Byzantine government.

In 866, Eudokia had a son, named Leo. Leo's parentage obviously cannot be ascertained, but Michael faced a dilemma. He had no legitimate sons, but certainly wanted his blood to rule. It would be a scandal which would likely cost him everything if he took Basil's purported child and declared him his own son and Emperor. So Michael had another bright idea. Why not make Basil Co-Emperor? Michael was within his rights to name whoever he wanted, so in 866, around the birth of Leo, Basil, a mere peasant about a decade before, was named Emperor. Of course, Michael made a point of telling Basil that he was but junior Emperor, while Michael was the senior man in charge. The instrument to have his possible son on the throne secure, Michael apparently began to shift his favor from Basil.

The new man, Basiliskos, was a man very much after Michael's heart, in that he liked to get drunk. Basil apparently was not that way in particular, and it seemed Michael had found his companion. Like a plaything, he threatened to invest Basiliskos with the Imperial title as well. Basil, at this, apparently became tired of being jostled around. One night, when Michael and Basiliskos were drunk, Basil killed both of the men. The only man left in the Empire with the title of Emperor, Basil, born a peasant, a stableboy, became sole ruler of the Roman Empire in 867.

Ironically, he ruled quite well. He expanded the frontier a bit at the expense of Bulgaria, was on good terms with the pope, put pressure on the Arabs, and apparently maintained an image of fair rule and orthodox religion throughout his reign. His law code reforms, completed by his son, became the standard until the fall of Constantinople. One can lay the blame for the loss of all the Sicilian territories at him, but otherwise, he helped the Empire quite a bit. His investment in the capital helped spur an influx of Byzantine writing in art in the so called Macedonian Renaissance. Basil used his panegyrists to anathemize his predecessors reign as debauched and drunken. He hated his son Leo, likely because he believed Leo was not his. Leo took the hint and when he became Emperor after his father's death, interred Michael's body as a son would for a father. We can never know.

Still though, the Macedonian Renaissance did much to reinvigorate Byzantine culture, and Basil's stable reign laid further groundwork for the real recovery of the Empire in the tenth century. The dynasty he founded, called by us the Macedonian dynasty, was arguably the most prestigious of the Byzantine Empire, and certainly, his successors, especially his namesake Basil II, brought the Empire to its medieval zenith. Not bad for an upjumped stablehand.

Sources:

George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (1973)

Warren Treadgold, History of Byzantine State and Society (1997) [I used this for much of my assessment at the end]

J. B. Bury, Encyclopedia Britannica, "Basil I" (1911) [most biography details come from here]

Many of you will be familiar with the name Sargon of Akkad - perhaps because you're a history buff or perhaps through Youtube other channels. The historical king is actually a fascinating part of ancient Near Eastern history with a bunch of other fun stuff I'd like to post about briefly - so buckle up for a whistle-stop tour through arguably the world's oldest empire!

Although we know very little about the man who would become Sargon the Great, his origins were likely humble. According to an ancient chronicle known as the Sumerian King List (SKL), was born the son of a gardener, sometime in the late-24th century BCE, and was at some point cupbearer (a rather high courtly position) to Ur-Zababa, the king of the Sumerian city-state of Kish. We have absolutely no idea how he rose to power, but according to the SKL he ousted Lugal-zage-si, the king of Uruk. He then (or maybe at some earlier point?) built or substantially enlarged the city of Akkad - or Agade, in Sumerian - whose inhabitants apparently spoke the Semitic language named after the city: Akkadian.

Because we don't have any contemporary records that discuss Sargon, and no personal correspondence survives, our best hint about his background is actually his name! Two important features stand out: first, the fact that it is in Akkadian, unlike the Sumerian names of his predecessors; and second, its meaning, which is more or less "The King Is Legitimate". Subtle. ^((I'm glossing over a broader debate, but find this rendering of the name most convincing in light of the contextual evidence.))

Sargon seems to have succeeded where other city-states failed: he conquered not just the land of Sumer, but waged successful campaigns against Elam (in what would later be Persia), various Anatolian city-states, and the Levant, extracting plunder and tribute from his conquests and forming what in many ways can be considered the first proper empire. His dynasty, which survived until around the 21st century BCE until it likely fragmented and the city-state of Lagash rose to power. But upstart Akkad would have far-reaching consequences: not only was their specific form of propaganda reused by later imperial hopefuls, their language would become the lingua franca of the ancient world. Akkadian was the diplomatic language of the entire 2nd millennium BCE, with despatches in Akkadian attested throughout Anatolia, Egypt, the Fertile Crescent, and the eastern parts of Persia. More importantly, it became the scholarly and religious language of Mesopotamia, and pretty much every major text from the region you may have heard of (Gilgamesh, Enuma elish, Atrahasis...) was written in some form of Akkadian.

But Sargon wasn't just a conqueror! It's thanks to him that some of our preconceptions about ancient gender roles had to be readjusted substantially. You may have heard of his daughter, Enheduanna, who occasionally pops up on /r/TodayILearned, because she's one of the first authors known by name! Sargon appointed her to the office of En - a high priesthood or sacral kingship in some Sumerian cities. She held the En-ship of Inanna (Ishtar) and Nanna (Sîn) simultaneously, and was likely a political force in her own right. Now, of course, this alone is enough to suggest that perhaps class was a greater predictor of social prestige than gender, but her greatest legacy actually comes from her writing. Copies of the hymns she composed and was credited with have been found in royal libraries across Mesopotamia, some of them dating to hundreds of years after her death. This suggests that her compositions were significant enough to warrant a lasting legacy, which is reinforced further by several statues bearing her name and likeness.

So - Sargon the Great, king of Sumer and Akkad, shatterer of gender roles? Either way, a fascinating figure with an equally fascinating legacy. I want to keep this short so I won't go into the equally crazy legacy he had in the Neo-Assyrian empire and his potential influence on the Hebrew Bible, unless anyone is interested!

Recommended sources:

Liverani (1993), Akkad: The First World Empire. Padua: Sargon Editrice Libreria.

Meador (2000), Inanna, Lady of Largest Heart: poems of the Sumerian high priestess Enheduanna

Foster (2015), The Age of Agade: Inventing Empire in Ancient Mesopotamia (thanks, /u/Bentresh!)

And a recent publication that I haven't had the chance to read but looks fascinating: Benjamin (2019), "The Impact of Sargon & Enheduanna on Land Rights in Deuteronomy" in Biblical Theology Bulletin 49, no. 1, pp. 22-31.

In 738 AD, Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil, the king of the Maya city of Copan was captured by the neighboring city of Quirigua and subsequently beheaded in a ballgame ceremony. Quirigua had been founded as a vassal state of Copan in 426 AD and was only a small fraction of the size of Copan, but in 734, Quirigua ruler Kʼak Tiliw Chan Yopaat gave himself the title of "K'uhul Ajaw," placing himself at the same level of authority as rulers of more major sites. Along with the title change, he went on a sculpture-building rampage, commissioning the tallest monuments in the Maya area to adorn his podunk city. Copan seems to have continued as an autonomous city after the capture of its king (and had at least three more rulers in its dynastic sequence), but collapsed entirely about 75 years later.

These sorts of stories are common in the ancient Maya area -- warfare throughout Mesoamerica was focused on capturing opposing combatants and important heads of state, who were often sacrificed in ceremonies afterwards.

r/AskHistorians might be interested to hear about the ancient near eastern Substitute King Ritual, the ol’ switcheroo of royalty. Most commonly associated with the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-609BC) and evidenced by the royal archives from that dynasty, the Substitute King Ritual came into play when there was a perceived threat to the life of the king, and therefore the land of Assyria. The purpose of the ritual was to ensure the safety and prosperity of the king.

As with many world cultures, lunar or solar eclipses were believed to be particularly portentous, and they were specifically unlucky for the king; they signalled his imminent death. However, this could be averted. Court astrologers, monitoring the heavens would be able to alert the monarchy that the skies heralded danger, and the preparations for the ritual would begin. In this way, it can be understood as a ritually preventative measure.

A substitute king would be chosen by the members of the scholarly or priestly class. They could be chosen from a range of professions or positions, but generally their lives were considered of low importance; for example a prisoner from a foreign land or a political rival accused of court intrigues. Before his death however, the condemned would be treated with the utmost respect in the lap of luxury, since he had to convincingly ‘become’ the king. He was anointed, dressed in robes, and seated on the throne. Once installed, the king and the substitute officially changed roles, and the king was treated as a commoner for the duration of the ritual – a major inconvenience.

The point of the ritual was to ‘trick’ the eclipses and associated negative portents as much as possible. The substitute therefore had to accept responsibility for any of the actual king’s sins, and confess them before Shamash, the sun god and god of justice (who can also be seen on top of Hammurabi’s Law Code, handing the laws to the Babylonian king). The substitute was therefore essentially a scapegoat, rather than an effective ruler, though he would have held court for the duration of the ritual (which could be a number of months).

When the ritual came to an end, i.e. when the danger of the initial eclipse and any successive ones had passed, the substitute king would be killed. At this point, the true king would be reinstated, and continue to rule without worry about any divine or astronomical danger. The whole process would have slightly derailed the monarchy for a period since the king couldn’t rule, and was encouraged not the leave the safety of the palace. But, for the security of imperial rule and the safety of the king, the inconvenience of the ritual and the life of an unworthy individual was the necessary price to pay.

Sources: Simo Parpola is authoritative on the ritual, and many of the primary sources appear in his seminal publication, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, 1983 (abbreviated as LAS).

TL;DR: if you ever meet a Neo-Assyrian king with a penchant for astronomy, don’t let him put a crown on your head… unless you want to act as a mock king for the rest of your (wretched) life. The Assyrian King Ritual may have prevented the dangers associated with eclipses, but it meant that the substitute would be killed in exchange for the life of the king.

In the annals of royal assassinations (of which there are a good number), few surpass the strangeness of the death of Kenneth II of Scotland. Cináed mac Maíl Coluim, known in English as Kenneth II, claimed the throne of Alba after the death of King Culien, based on the system of tanistry, in which all male relatives of a king were eligible to take over the monarchy. According to our sources (of varying quality), such as the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba, Kenneth II was a decent, if uninspiring, ruler who most likely suffered from a period of divided kingship in which Cuilen’s brother, Amlaib, attempted to claim the throne for his own. Kenneth II eventually killed Amlaib, and continued to rule until 955.

John of Fordun, a 14th century Scottish chronicler, records that Kenneth II attempted to change the succession order in Alba to ensure his own descendants would take the kingship upon his death, effectively preventing his cousins, Constantine and Kenneth, from gaining rulership. Unhappy at this slight, the two nobles conspired with one Lady Finella, whose son had died at Kenneth II’s hands, to slay their ruler. On a hunt, Kenneth II was guided to the house of Finella to rest, whereupon she lured him into a cottage on her property under the guise of wanting to inform him of treachery. Unknown to the king, the outbuilding contained an elaborate trap. A statute was placed in the center of the room that, when touched, would trigger hidden crossbows built into the structure to fire from many different directions towards the statue, slaying whoever had disturbed it. Kenneth II, apparently a hands-on sort of art admirer, of course touched the statue, and was promptly turned into an ex-king in a hail of bolts. Finella fled into the annals of legend, though the enraged followers of Kenneth II did burn her property to the ground, and Constantine eventually took the throne.

Sadly, the elaborate trap device story is probably nothing more than a myth. Outside of John of Fordun’s account, most records report that Kenneth III was simply slain “by deceit” or “by his subjects” or by Lady Finella herself out of a simple desire for revenge. Still, the idea of a king falling victim to a trap worthy of a tabletop game or Indiana Jones film remains an entertaining myth from an obscure part of history.

It's not entirely certain what the original Taiping plan for organising their 'royalty' was – though as my posts on Hong Xiuquan's visions of 1837 have attempted to show, I'd contend that most of early Taiping history is comparatively murky. But what is clear is that there was supposed to be an innermost circle of six temporal 'kings' or 'princes', in the following order of precedence:

• Hong Xiuquan, the Heavenly King (tianwang)
• Yang Xiuqing, the East King (dongwang)
• Xiao Chaogui, the West King (xiwang)
• Feng Yunshan, the South King (nanwang)
• Wei Changhui, the North King (beiwang)
• Shi Dakai, the Wing (or Assistant) King (yiwang)

The assignment of geographical titles to the middle four kings and the evidently auxiliary nature of Shi Dakai's title have led some to speculate that it may originally have been planned for the Taiping to divide China into at least four major regions, each ruled by its respective king's lineage, while Hong's descendants oversaw the whole with support from Shi's. If there was such a plan, however, from appearances it would have been abandoned quite hastily. Feng and Xiao died during the march to Nanjing, the former in 1852 and the latter either in 1852 or 1853 (later Taiping recountings say he died in battle in the later year but no proclamations of his from after 1852, when he was seriously wounded, survive.) Already by 1855, the title of hou (marquis) which had been created for at least Qin Rigang and Hu Yihuang would be superseded by kingships – Qin becoming the Yan (?Noble?) King (yanwang) and Hu the Jade King (yüwang) – but these were subsequently revoked by Yang Xiuqing.

The Taiping had made much of their rejection of the imperial title in favour of the kingly on the basis of the sanctity of the title di, which was to be reserved exclusively for God. But this opened up a major issue. Fundamentally, Hong Xiuquan and Yang Xiuqing held the rank of wang, and differed only in precedence of secondary titles, the most important of which was Hong's titling as 'Lord for 10,000 years', which placed him above Yang's 'Lord for 9,000 years' (the number declined by 1,000 as you went down, so that Shi Dakai was 'Lord for 5,000 years'.) Yang, however, held one major advantage over Hong, not in terms of his ordinary constitutional powers, but a special kind of extraordinary authority. Yang's position had been secured by virtue of his having demonstrated an ability to channel the voice of God when entranced. This meant that he could, at any point, fake a trance and outrank Hong. Theoretically, of course, he wasn't outranking Hong, he was just acting as the extension of the supreme God. In practice, who could tell the difference?

The result of this was that over the course of Taiping rule in Nanjing, which began in 1853, Yang began to shore up his position in various ways. His capabilities as a commander had already led Hong to abdicate de facto supreme military command, and as a result he was the one other king left to manage affairs from Nanjing, while the others led field armies. Thanks to Hong's increasing reclusiveness, Yang's staff in Nanjing essentially functioned as the kingdom's civil administration as well. In this environment, he began testing the boundaries. Provocatively, he on one occasion decided to channel the voice of God to reproach Hong for licentious behaviour with concubines, releasing them from service, and nearly had Hong subjected to capital punishment, only commuting it right before the beatings were to start. For Yang, this proved that Hong was not utterly sacrosanct. In 1856, he made his move, and demanded to be elevated to 'Lord for 10,000 Years', making him essentially Hong's equal.

Recognising his dire situation, Hong struck back. He offered to delay the entitlements until Yang's birthday, to which the latter gladly agreed, unaware that Hong had sent secret communications to Wei Changhui, Qin Rigang, Hu Yihuang and Shi Dakai ordering their return to Nanjing. After Wei and Qin had arrived, Hong struck. One morning, gunfire and shouting were heard from Yang's palace. A group of European mercenaries lodged nearby came out to find the bodies of Yang's palace staff strewn throughout the street in front. Meanwhile, beginning with a ruse involving a fake-out on corporal punishment against Wei and Qin, Yang's followers were rounded up and massacred as well. Over the next few days, Nanjing entered a state of terror as the remnants of the East King's followers were hunted down and exterminated. In the confusion arrived Shi Dakai. Disgusted by the violence, Shi demanded that Qin, Wei and Hu stand down, but was rebuked and himself marked for death. While he escaped with his troops, his family was not so lucky, and Shi returned some weeks later, demanding that Hong have the three men executed. How he did so is uncertain, though Hong likely did have some troops in Nanjing under his personal command. What is sure is that by the end of 1856, six of the Taiping's original core eight kings were dead, and one had virtually retreated from government. The last, Shi Dakai, would never return to Nanjing, striking out on his own mission towards Sichuan at the end of the year, where he was captured and executed in the early months of 1863.

The period following the 1856 massacres represented a period in which the title of royalty became distinctly overused. At its height, it has been suggested that the kingdom had several hundred, if not low thousands of men granted the rank of wang, which in practical terms became less an official rank and more a mark of honour. For sure, there were more than a few prominent kings, especially after 1859: Hong Xiuquan's cousin Rengan, the Shield King (ganwang), was the Taiping prime minister, Li Xiucheng, the Loyal King (zhongwang), its military commander-in-chief, followed by Chen Yucheng, the Heroic King (yingwang). But they held their positions less due to their titles and more due to their appointment to those specific offices – offices which were much more clearly delineated, and with powers much more easily alienable. Hong Rengan would face the consequences of this when, out of his control, an American missionary broke into Nanjing and denounced Hong Xiuquan's apparent pretensions to divinity, leading to his losing authority over foreign affairs. Who exactly received them is, of course, a different question.

Nevertheless, Hong Rengan remained the #2 of the kingdom, even after the loss of its capital in July 1864, as the remainder of the Taiping court (Hong having died four months before the city fell) entrusted the safety of the new Heavenly King, Hong Tianguifu, to his hands. Amazingly, he and the young king managed to get nearly to the Lingnan foothills, heralding the last hurdle before relative safety in Guangdong, before being caught, interrogated and executed by loyalist forces.

But this wouldn't be quite complete without a little extra epilogue. One relative of Hong Xiuquan's is known to have survived the war. Hong Quanfu, a minor officer, escaped via Hong Kong to Southeast Asia, and re-emerged in 1903 to lead an anti-Qing revolt in Canton. This failed disastrously, but he made it out again, and is now buried in Happy Valley Cemetery in Hong Kong.

Byzantine emperors were notoriously prone to being murdered, so here is the story of the rise and fall of Leo the Armenian.

We know very little about Leo’s early life. Our sources agree that Leo married the daughter of the general Bardanes Tourkos, but did not join him in his failed rebellion against Emperor Nicephorus I. Although the fact that Leo was demoted is certain, we are not sure whether it was due to failure against the Arabs or his possible remarriage to the daughter of another rebel. Whatever the case, he became friends with Michael Rhangabe even before Michael’s rise to the throne and became one of his most trusted generals.

As Michael led his army out against the Bulgarians, he was surprised to find them waiting in the open, offering a pitched battle on the plains of Versinikia. Usually, the Bulgarian strategy was hit and run attacks and guerilla tactics, which gave Michael pause. But his generals, eager for a quick victory, convinced him to attack. When battle was eventually joined, however, the Anatolian troops in the left flank fled before the Bulgarians’ heavy cavalry. They fled back to the capital, abandoning the rest of the army to be slaughtered by the Bulgarians. When the defeated emperor finally reached the capital, however, he heard even more devastating news. The remnants of his army had hailed the Anatolians’ commander, Leo the Armenian, as emperor. Recognizing his hopeless situation, Michael abdicated and joined a monastery.

But why exactly had the troops proclaimed Leo emperor? It seems very convenient that his contingent was the first to leave, and was thus the most powerful military force in the aftermath and therefore able to choose a new emperor. Others have also suggested that he had made a deal with Krum, which is why the Bulgars offered a pitched battle in the first place. Whatever the case, whether it was incompetence, betrayal, or treason, Leo the Armenian, an ambitious and talented man with few morals, was crowned emperor amidst a sea of trouble and controversy.

The Bulgar Wars

While Michael may be gone from the scene, Krum certainly wasn’t. After his victory at Versinikia, he immediately marched on Constantinople to demand that the Byzantines pay him massive amounts of tribute to leave. Leo agreed to a meeting with the Bulgar khan in person, but secretly hatched his own schemes. He would break the truce and assassinate Krum during peace talks and spread chaos amongst the leaderless Bulgars.

While most likely apocryphal, the story from our sources is still worth telling. Krum, along with his nephew and brother in law, met the Emperor and a court official named Hexabulios. During the negotiations, Hexabulios suddenly threw up his hands to cover his face. We shall never know whether Krum saw it as an insult or a prearranged signal. Nevertheless, he leapt onto his horse and rode away, leaving his companions to be butchered by soldiers from a nearby hiding place. Furious at this betrayal of the laws of peace and hospitality, Krum began his revenge the next day.

The countryside around Constantinople burned as Krum’s Bulgars rampaged through the farms and suburbs of the great city. They didn’t have any siege equipment, but that didn’t relieve its panicking citizens. On his way back, Krum sacked the nearby city of Adrianople, now swarming with refugees from his raids. When Krum finally left with ten thousand slaves, he vowed to return and sack the greatest city in the known world.

Knowing a losing situation, Leo tried to sue for peace but was rebuffed by Krum. The personal insult of the attempted assassination was too great to ignore, and his mood was not improved when he heard of a successful Byzantine night attack at Mesembria. As his horde neared Constantinople and the Emperor prepared defenses, the citizens tremorred in fear. But on the 13th of April, 814, as the force set out, blood suddenly streamed out of Krum’s orifices, and the stroke killed him within a few minutes, saving the city from another siege.

Krum’s son and successor Omurtag was still young and inexperienced, and the opportunistic Bulgar aristocracy chose this chance to revolt. Meanwhile, the Abbasid Caliphate was suffering through a similar period of internal upheaval, leaving the Byzantine Empire in one of its rare periods of absolute peace.

Iconoclasm.

One month before Leo V ascended the throne, soldier opened the tomb of emperor Constantine V and begged him to save them from the Bulgars. The capital flew into outrage as this Constantine was a staunch iconoclast, meaning he opposed the use of imagery and icons in worship. The full history of Byzantine Iconoclasm is too long and convoluted for this post, but it is enough to know that the Empress Irene had restored the worship of icons earlier at the Second Council of Nicaea, and the iconoclast minority was seen by most as heretics.

After the empire fell into a rare period of peace, Leo looked back into history and saw the great military emperors of the Isaurian dynasty - Leo III and Constantine V, who also happened to be staunch iconoclasts. He now believed that recent military failures such as the Battle of Pliska was due to the restoration of icons, and now he wished to reinstate Iconoclasm. Toying with the religion of the masses was never a good idea, and it does not need to be said that this decision faced opposition. But his moderate view and the lack of persecution of icons meant that most of the population tolerated his decision, although the clergy was now uniformly hostile towards the upstart new emperor.

Downfall On December 23rd, 820, Leo discovered a conspiracy against him led by one of his most competent generals and closest friends, Michael of Amorium. Michael was immediately arrested by the household guard and brought in front of the Emperor, where he promptly confessed his crimes. Furious, Leo ordered that Michael be burned alive within the furnace that heated the baths within the palace.

Michael’s career would have ended in a fiery, gruesome death were it not for the Empress Theodosia, who convinced her husband that murder so close to Christmas was unworthy of a Christian. Yielding, Leo ordered the guards to imprison Michael in chains in a small room.

When he finally retired, the Emperor could not sleep. His mind flashed back to an incident in 813, when Michael had accidentally stepped on his regalia, and finally decided to check up on Michael. Donning his purple boots, he arrived at Michael’s cell to find both him and the gaoler soundly asleep. His paranoia caught up with him and he laid his hands on Michael’s chest to ensure that he was asleep, which he was. Furious, Leo stormed out of the room, promising that the gaoler will be severely punished the next day.

The next day began with a Church ceremony at the Chapel of St. Stephen, which began with a choir of monks. The emperor Leo soon joined in with his booming voice, which soon overshadowed the monks. As the music finally climaxed, however, several monks revealed swords beneath their robes and attacked the officiating priest, who was wearing a similar fur cap to that of the emperor. This gave the Emperor the time to snatch a cross from the altar, but outnumbered, he was soon cut down.

So what exactly happened? Our sources claim that Michael had brought a eunuch servant with him into the cell who saw someone walked in the room and identified him as the Emperor with the purple imperial boots that only Leo was permitted to wear. He then woke up Michael, who realized the danger his life was in, and the gaoler, who realized he would be punished. Thus, the gaoler sent one of Michael’s servants into the city under the disguise of a search for a priest, but in reality, that servant set the plan in action.

Before the feast, the conspirators disguised themselves as monks because of the space that monastic robes offered to hide their weapons. Then, at the agreed upon time of the climax, they would all strike the Emperor down. Although they initially struck the priest, the Emperor was unable to defend himself against so many assailants and was cut down.

The conspirators wasted no time and proceeded straight to Michael’s cell, where they freed him and led him to the Hippodrome, where he was proclaimed as emperor Michael II. As all of this occurred early in the morning, however, the conspirators could not find a blacksmith, and when Michael was displayed to the crowds of the Hippodromes, chains still fettered his feet together.

Cutting away the melodrama, we know for sure that Michael had been arrested and that his life was spared by the Empress, but we don’t know the method of Leo’s murder. Leo’s night journey and Michael’s response is most likely apocryphal. In fact, it is possible that the conspiracy was organized beforehand and they decided to proceed even with Michael in chains.

In the end, all of Leo’s sons were brutally castrated and sent into monastic life, along with their mother the Empress, without whom Michael would be a pile of ashes beneath Leo’s bath rather than the new Emperor of the Romans.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was strong opposition to Michael’s blatant power grab. Thomas the Slav, a leading general in the East, immediately plunged the Empire into a two year civil war. But after Michael defeated him, he would go on to found the Amorian dynasty, which would include three emperors until, in a strange show of karma, Michael III was murdered in broad daylight by his successor, Basil the Macedonian.

Sources: Warren Treadgold: A History of Byzantine State and Society Chronicles of Theophanes the Continuator and Theophanes the Confessor

This is a rather brief note, but there is a tie between royalty and hockey:

In 1925 the Prince of Wales (the future King Edward VIII) donated a trophy to the NHL. It would go to the league champion, and was appropriately named the Prince of Wales Trophy. Over the subsequent 90 years its purpose would change as the league changed: as noted it started as the league championship trophy, then the NHL playoff champion, back to the league championship, and since 1967 to the winner of one of the (usually) eastern conference (which was named the Prince of Wales Conference from 1974 to 1993; in the earlier years it was less geographically oriented, but firmed up to be eastern-based by the early 1980s). Since 1993 it is given to the Eastern Conference playoff champion, and the winner plays against the Western champion (who wins the Clarence Campbell Bowl, named after a long-term president of the league) for the Stanley Cup.

Not much more to say about the connections of royalty to hockey, but if this were nobility, then we'd have something (the Stanley Cup, for example, was donated and named after Frederick Stanley, Lord Stanley and future 16th Earl of Derby, who was Governor-General of Canada at the time).

Spoiled for choice! My brain fizzed out for a bit when I saw this topic, but eventually I realized that I ought to write about a queen who doesn't get much attention these days: Catherine de' Medici (1519-1589), queen consort of France from 1547 to 1559. Her popular reputation is largely based on stuff from her time as regent for her son(s) or afterward, when she was a powerful queen mother - but there's a lot to talk about in her earlier life.

Catherine was born into the powerful Medici family of Florence and orphaned at a very early age. Unfortunately for her, the family was ousted from power when she was a child, and she became a focus for rebel ire: it was a misogynistic age, and there were calls for her to be taken out of her convent and raped. Once the Medici reclaimed the city, she was able to go to Rome and her relation, Pope Clement VII. As a teenager she was of an age for the marriage market, and with her Medici connections and inherited property (as well as a very hefty dowry provided by Clement) she was a valuable bargaining chip, which allowed the pope to have her betrothed to the second son of the French king François I, Henri. While there was initially a lot of rejoicing around this alliance, it fell through quickly and the promised dowry never came, leaving Catherine as an unwelcome presence at the French court - particularly when she failed to conceive a child after several years of marriage, and when the dauphin died and left Henri and Catherine as the heirs to the throne.

Since Catherine brought (in the end) no land, little money, and an unroyal bloodline to the table, she had to use her own personal qualities to secure her position. And despite the common story that she was completely powerless until she became a regent, she actually did pretty well. To keep an intimacy with her father-in-law, she insisted on coming along with his hunting parties, pushing into his company of pretty young courtiers and keeping up on horseback. She also joined the circle of royal and royal-adjacent women (his sister, daughter, mistress, and others) to express gratitude and good wishes for the king in his military exploits via letter, and created close ties with other male and female leaders of court life and politics, both French and foreign, framing herself as a novice in need of advice. The dissolution of her marriage was brought up at this time, since the new dauphin could be remarried to someone with better connections and potentially a more fertile womb, but she kept herself in the French court by using the affection she'd generated in these cultivated relationships, particularly with François, and the piety she had been conspicuously and privately displaying in those relationships as well. While Henri as king would neglect her and favor his mistress, Diane de Poitiers, she continued to build networks that would eventually lead to her emergence as a serious political power.

Catherine's reputation was seriously blackened by contemporaries and writers after her death. Though she spent years helping out the Huguenots and practically working for religious pluralism in France (largely because the Catholic faction was associated with Diane de Poitiers, the Duke de Guise, and other political rivals), she was considered to have essentially caused the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of French Protestants for centuries. In France, women were legally barred from the throne and from even passing a claim through their own blood, which was reflected in a loathing of women who exercised political power to any degree, and Catherine would be used long after her death as the ultimate in bad female leadership and vicious cruelty - during the French Revolution, she would be used as a comparison to express how evil Marie Antoinette was thought to be. All kinds of stories circulated about her, with any depravity seeming plausible; it was said for a long time that Catherine invented the practice of tight-lacing, forcing the ladies at her court to wear metal stays that brought their waists down to 13", despite there being zero proof of this. The credulity really is a testament to the double standards people, including historians of the past, have held regarding the exercise of power by men and women - men were seen to hold it naturally, but women were seen as only gaining the opportunity through deviousness or sexuality, and so disproportionately are considered to have misused it.

Sources:

Broomhall, Susan. "Counsel as Performative Practice of Power in Catherine de’ Medici’s Early Regencies", from Queenship and Counsel in Early Modern Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)

Broomhall, Susan. "Fit for a King? The Gendered Emotional Performances of Catherine de Medici as Dauphine of France, 1536–1547", from Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017)

Frieda, Leonie. Catherine de Medici: Renaissance Queen of France (Harper Collins, 2006)

Goldstone, Nancy Bazelon. The Rival Queens: Catherine De' Medici, Her Daughter Marguerite de Valois, and the Betrayal that Ignited a Kingdom (Little, Brown: 2015)

I wanna share some about the region that doesnt get talked about much here, South India. The region has a long and fascinating history but here im going to talk about the Chola kings, particularly the duo of, Rajaraja I and his son, Rajendra I.

Their reign was considered to be the base on which the Chola dominance of the next few centuries were built on. There is some fascinating history behind Rajaraja's ascension to the throne, but that wonderfully fits next week's topic so ill save it for there. For now, i want to focus on the exploits of the duo. At the time of Rajaraja's ascension, the enemies of the Cholas have been enjoying somewhat of a resurgence. Pandyas had a new ruler, the Rashtrakutas were defeated by the Western Chalukyas who were now turning their gaze towards the Chola empire to their south. Rajaraja defeated the resurgent Cheras and Pandyas in wars and completed the conquest of Eezham(Ceylon). He went onto recover the territories lost in the North and further expanding the Chola power by defeating the Western Chalukyas and Hoysalas in battle and entering into a marriage alliance with the Eastern Chalukyas. He built a powerful navy and started the naval campaign of the Cholas by capturing Maldives. The empire of Rajaraja encompased the entirety of South India from Ezham(modern day Sri Lanka) to Kalinga(Orissa) in the North. His son Rajendra would further expand the Chola maritime influence by attacking the Srivijaya kingdom in modern day Malaysia and Indonesia and go on to sack their capital Kadaram and plenty of other territories. Rajendra I goes on to conquer/sudue Sri Viajaya and many other kingdoms in the region which are major parts of modern day Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Cambodia. Rajendra later marches his army from the South to Ganges in the North subjugating every ruler along the way and bringing water from the Ganges to build his new capital, Gangaikonda Cholapuram. The Chola empire built by Rajaraja and Rajendra was unique in the sense that it was one of the very few empires in India to focus not only in land power but also dominate maritime affairs. And was the first empire in India to take advantage of the coastline to build a strong navy and dominate the region. This will be further expanded upon by later rulers who dealt with constant piracy in the SEA region and leading to close diplomatic ties with Song China. The Chola empire built by this father/son duo would last for another 2 centuries and the foundation enabled later rulers to continue being the dominant power in the region.

This is to say nothing of the vast administrative reforms, the wonderful architecture like the Brahadhiswara temple in Tanjore and patronage of arts and literature. These two were highly skilled rulers in every aspect and for anyone interested in the history of India/Asia, a must read.

In 1757, the armies of British East India Company & the nawab of Bengal Siraj-udDaulah were confronting each other at a place called Plassey. The EIC had 3,000 soldiers & 8 cannons while the nawab had an army many times larger (estimates go from 20k-30k) with 60 French artillerymen & 53 cannons.

The British have already convinced the nawab's paymaster general Mir Jafar to betray the nawab but still EIC position was precarious. The British took position in a grove which was destroyed in the initial cannonade by the Nawab forces. And then the rain started. The heavy rains made the Nawabi artillery useles. Thinking that same should be the case with EIC forces, the 2 remaining faithful commanders of the nawab Mohan Singh & Mir Madan attacked. But the British had a secret. They had brought tarpaulins with them. So there powder was still dry & artillery still working. So it took them a few minutes to destroy the loyal part of Nawabi army, leading to British victory & eventual domination of Bengal & within due time, India.

Again, I’m late. Yet again, it’s still Tuesday somewhere!

Last time I talked about Joan of Arc. This week’s theme is royalty. There’d be no reason for me to talk again about her, right?

Hahaha. Buckle up, girls and boys. We’re about to dive into counterfeit history. When historians don’t find authentic documents to prove their hypotheses, what do they do? The honest ones acknowledge their ignorance. There’s nothing glamour about it. That’s why the others fabricate the documents they need to prove their point—when they even bother to fabricate them…

[This content is now also available on my blog :-]

The Truth about Joan. Was Joan of Arc a Royal Bastard Princess?

You didn’t think that conspiracy theories would be limited to our contemporary era, did you.

You know how to square the circle: the Earth is flat, climate change is a lie, vaccines don’t work and the illuminati rule the world. If you go back and forth from one to another long enough, it all starts to make sense, but that’s only when you start to seriously question your mental sanity.

The problem is that conspiracy theorists are also trying to colonize the past with the most heretic holy trinity: the holocaust never happened, medieval Europe only had white people and Michael Jackson never died. He’s chilling on some Pacific Island with his buddy Elvis. Someone could swear his sister saw a picture or something, you know, tangible proof.

Among the many conspiracy theories about history the one, I’ll tackle down here states that Joan of Arc was actually Charles VII’s sister.

Charles VII of France, an alleged bastard himself?

Philippe Contamine, who knows more than anyone about the 15th century, medieval France, briefly addressed the rumors according to which Charles VII of France was a bastard himself, in his latest biography of the French king (published in 2017; not to brag, but I own a dedicated copy).

See, his father had lost his mind and couldn’t recognize his friends from his enemies. That’s why some people suggested that the queen couldn’t have conceived a child with him. Charles VII couldn’t be Charles VI’s legitimate son! According to Pope Pie II, the king of England advanced that very theory himself to end up seducing the duke of Burgundy. It’d served his political purpose a great deal. He wished to inherit the kingdom of France through his wife, something the Valois dynasty opposed fiercely since the start of the Hundred Years’ War.

“But, what about your wife, my liege? Isn’t she also born from the mad king?”

“Nonsense! He was still sane of mind when he conceived her.”

As a matter of fact, Catherine of France, Henry V of England’s wife, was born on October 27, 1401, a year and a half before Charles VII, and Charles VI (it is heavily documented) lost his mind in the year 1392 during a military expedition where he attacked his own men. Meaning, according to Henry V’s logic, that his dear wife was also an illegitimate child, but hell with the details, right?

Upon closer inspection, accusing the queen of adultery served no real political purpose to the Anglo-Burgundian alliance since she was on their side and that her signature is what made the Treaty of Troyes (1420) valid because of the dementia of her husband. The Treaty of Troyes acknowledged Henry V of England as sole heir to Charles VI of France. Fun fact, Henry V died of dysentery a few months ahead of Charles VI. He never was crowned king of France and he only left behind him a one-year-old child and a wife who quickly consoled herself with a handsome knight.

One question remains: who would have been Charles VII’s father, if it weren’t Charles VI? Well, who else but Louis of Orléans, Charles VI’s brother! After all, the duke of Orléans almost killed the king by burning him alive with a torch, then he attempted to rape the duchess of Burgundy—which explains why John the Fearless hated his guts*.

Total. Legend.

And you thought Game of Thrones was full of suspense!

*This latter allegation is solely reported by Thomas Basin (d. 1491) in his biography of Charles VII.

Who really was Joan of Arc’s father? A Shakespearian Tale

A 19th-century pseudo-historian, Pierre Cazet, bragged that he discovered the truth behind Joan’s true social status. How come a young maid from the countryside was ever received by the king? Saint Louis himself, the holiest French king of all, met his subjects regularly in the open air to render justice, according to Jean of Joinville (d. 1317). Therefore it should be totally inconceivable that Charles VII would ever meet an intriguing would-be prophetess that had such a notoriety that the duke of Lorraine personally invited her over and that the bastard of Orléans, while she was in Gien, sent people to meet and inquire about her and her journey to Chinon.

She had to be a secret Disney princess!

Actually, it all comes from a play written by Shakespeare. I mean, this could only be the stuff of great literature. How could a poor and deficient mind come up with such a brilliant twist? Henry VI, act 5, scene 4. A shepherd, Joan’s father, comes up to her as she’s tied at the stake. Since she left, he’s been searching for her everywhere.

“Ah, Joan! this kills thy father’s heart outright. | Have I sought every country far an near, | And, now it is my chance to find thee out, | Must I behold thy timeless cruel death? | Ah, Joan! sweet daughter Joan, I’ll die with thee.”

Joan, however, doesn’t break into tears. She gets all riled up!

“Descrepit miser! base ignoble wretch! | I am descended of a gentler blood: | Thou art no father nor no friend of mine.”

Then she turns to the men who’ve put her at the stakes.

“Let me tell you whom you have condemn’d: | Not me begotten of a shepherd swain, | But issu’d from the progeny of kings; | Virtuous and holy; chosen from above, | By inspiration of celestial grace,

To work exceeding miracles on earth.”

The brilliant literary idea of a royal Joan (I mean, what a twist!*) then inseminated the rotten minds of ill-informed money-grabbing pseudo-historians, who pandered ‘sensational’ books only to fill their purse. Hence Joan was Charles VII’s secret sister. However, who was her father then do you ask? No other than Louis ‘the Legend’ of Orléans.

Joan stated at her trial that she was nineteen, meaning she was born in 1412. How could that be a problem? On November 23, 1407, Louis of Orléans was assassinated in the streets of Paris by John the Fearless (GoT quality, I tell you!). Therefore, Joan lied. She must have been twenty-four and was actually born in 1407.

Oh. And by the way, her mother was Queen Isabeau herself. Why not? It’s not like she gave birth to a child on November 10, 1407. Wait? Is my math right? Do I remember anything from my biology class? It must be right. Right?

More audacious conspiracy theorists, whom websites I won’t link here to deny them the pride of free views to their counter, have now passed the idea that Joan was Queen Isabeau’s daughter. They see as a better fit than her actual mother, Isabelle Romée, was the descendant of Charlemagne. Also, they don’t need any document to prove it to you. You should trust them on their words for it. Jacques d’Arc, who, according to them, is not even Joan’s biological father, is also of noble birth too. Cherry. On. Top.

This is all a bunch of undocumented nonsense.

*Shakespeare was depicting Joan of Arc as an utterly crazy woman. This was not a twist but a foregone conclusion. Upon meeting death, she shows her true ugly colors.

What kinda sled was it a dog sled those are the best

At first i was quite divided on either writing about Ottoman royals during WWI or (former) Crimean royals after the annexation of Crimea. I decided to write about the latter since people probably barely know anything about it. So let's talk about a certain fellow named Cengiz Mehmed Giray

The members of the Giray dynasty had been migrating to Ottoman Balkans ever since the 17th century, living on estates and mansions provided by the Ottoman Sultan, and in return they themselves becomes local strongmen or military commanders for the Ottomans. After the annexation of Crimea in the 18th century, most members of the dynasty escaped and eventually settled in Ottoman Balkans, especially where's now Bulgaria. Cengiz Giray is one of those migrating after the annexation. It wasn't much known how Cengiz spent his life when he was in Crimea, but it was known that he's one of the direct candidate for the Crimean throne. Sometimes in the 1770s, Cengiz fled Crimea and settled in Shumen, today part of Bulgaria. Cengiz Giray resided in the village of Vyrbitsa, while his brothers Bahadır, İslam, and Meñli were in neighboring villages. The Giray brothers quickly established themselves and become part of the local politics. They made close connections with local elite via marriage, and they frequently intervene in local politics behind the scenes like manipulating elections. Their constant meddling challenged local notables and community leaders who derived power not from their birth or appointment, but from tax-collection and community leadership.

In the Russo-Austrian-Turkish War of 1789, several members of the family took arms and assembled their army under the command of Baht Giray, who had been declared “Khan of Kuban” and commander of Tatar forces. Cengiz Giray himself fought defending the Ottoman fortress of Yergöğü against Austrian forces. He fought gallantly, defending the fortress despite the city’s vulnerable position against a large Austrian army. Garrisons of Yergöğü eventually succeeded in defending the fortress, and the sultan granted special rewards to Cengiz Giray and his brothers in recognition of their bravery. The competence of Cengiz Giray as a warrior demonstrates the martial culture of the Crimeans. Cengiz’s personal militia acted as a small military unit. While leaving the battlefield, Cengiz’s team took some of the fortress' field cannons for their own use, much to the dismay of the Ottomans. This doesn't prevent the Ottomans from further commissioning him though, In April 1791, after receiving praise for his past services, Cengiz was authorized to gather warriors to apprehend Nikolaos Mavrogiannis, the former Greek Hospodar of Wallachia.

Life as a soldier doesn't detach him from local politics though. Even during the war, he still fought a political war with his nemesis, the ayan of Shumen, Çavuşzade İsmail, of whom he accused of collecting unlawful taxes. However, Cengiz's cordial relations with the Ottomans are starting to deteriorate after Cengiz had refused Grand Vizier’s order to supply the imperial army near Shumen, arguing that such endeavor was an unnecessary burden for the villagers. The Grand Vizier then declared him a wanted outlaw. Instead of facing capture, Cengiz, along with his brother Bahadır and his men, headed for the countryside as fugitives. He then quickly raised a sizable force under his banner, some said reached about 200 horsemen and 300 foot-soldiers, who were scattered across Rumelia after the war. When Cengiz sought the collaboration of his fellow Girays and some notable families, some refused to help, while others provisioned and sheltered him. For example Osman Agha, the ayan of Tırnova, and Cengiz’s father-in-law was executed under the accusation that he had sheltered Cengiz. However, it was clearly evident that Cengiz and his bands couldn’t hold the Ottoman forces forever, so in late 1792 the brothers fled outside the Ottoman borders, going for the Russian Empire. Upon his flight, his estates were confiscated and the products sold for the imperial treasury. This confiscation was carried out by none other than his longtime enemy, Çavuşzade İsmail.

Cengiz went to Moscow via Poland, and was welcomed by Russian authorities, who considered his lineage a valuable asset should another war between the Russian and Ottoman Empires broke out. During his stay, he was protected possibly by Pavel Potemkin, nephew of Grigoriy Potemkin. Pavel had fought against the Ottomans in İsmail while Cengiz was on the opposite side, making it possible that Pavel and Cengiz knew of each other. Pavel now hosted him in a courtly way and with respect thanks to his noble birth. He stayed in Russia for six years. In the first half of 1798, Cengiz went to the Caucasus with Bahadır as a guest of the Circassian Temirguey tribe. There, nearby Ottoman authorities took notice of him and interviewed him. Cengiz then explained that he had been sick of Russia and wanted to live in Muslim lands. He said that he was ready to serve the Ottomans once again and that his flight to Russia was because of a conspiracy of his enemies who had vilified him. Selim III pardoned him, and the Grand Vizier granted him an estate around Vize (now Tekirdağ), where several members of the Giray dynasty had estates. In 1799, Cengiz Giray sailed from Anapa to Istanbul. Upon arriving, rather than going to Vize he went to Shumen to claim his own estate, which had been confiscated six years ago. Rumors quickly reached Shumen that Cengiz was returning with a local militia. The news alarmed his former rivals, the ayans of Shumen who agreed to confront Cengiz Giray together. This rumor even reached the Ottoman court, who ordered governor Köse Musa Pasha to capture him for disobeying orders. Knowing that he was an outlaw once again, Cengiz allied himself with Osman Pazvantoğlu, the rebellious magnate of Vidin who were opposed to the Nizam-i Cedid. Musa Pasha then allied himself with the loyalist Tirsiniklioğlu İsmail Agha, the magnate of Rusçuk. Cengiz established himself in the town of Eskicuma with a force of 5,000-6,000 men, mainly Muslim and Christian mercenaries. After which several of Pazvantoğlu’s men joined Cengiz’s army and began raiding until they approached vicinities of Istanbul. A bitter fighting then broke out, until eventually Cengiz was reportedly shot dead. Soon, however, the news came that the man killed was not Cengiz Giray, but his son, Devlet Giray. Ottoman authorities captured the village where Devlet was killed and buried, and dug the corpse. Later, Devlet’s corpse was beheaded, a desecration of an old code of honor between the Ottomans and the Girays, in which no blood of a Giray should be spilled, even if he was to be executed

In the fall of 1800, Cengiz Giray met with Pazvantoğlu in Vidin, the two men now worked closely together. To better enhance his positions, Pazvantoğlu opened relations with European powers, seeking for assistance. Additionally, Pazvantoğlu and Cengiz had a grandiose plan of marching to Istanbul and establish a new regime, Cengiz would sit on the throne, while Pazvantoğlu became Grand Vizier, though no one except themselves really took that seriously. At first Pazvantoğlu applied to the Russians, using connections Cengiz had made when he was in Russia, he declared himself the protector of Christians of Wallachia and sought Russian support. However, their pleas fall on deaf ears, and so they sought help from another power: France. In the fall of 1801, Pazvantoğlu send a letter to Paris detailing his proposal. First, he proposed to assist the French government in a partition plan for the Ottoman Empire. Second, if the Republic of France attacked the Ottoman Empire, Pazvantoğlu promised to cooperate on the condition that the French government offered him and Cengiz a province to rule in peace under the protection of France. Third, in case the French government chose to preserve the Ottoman Empire, Pazvantoğlu pledged to cease hostilities against the Ottoman Court. In turn, the French government would request a pardon for him from the Ottoman State. Fourth, Pazvantoğlu promised to be faithful to the French Republic and serve its aims, provided they did not conflict with the principles of Islam. However when Napoleon received the letter, he was about to make peace with the Ottoman Empire so he ignored it. Desperate, they then turn again to Russia. In January 1802, Pazvantoğlu received a personal reply from Alexander I to the letter he sent to Alexander’s father, Paul, before. Alexander gave him “hopes of protection and friendly greetings” through the Russian Consulate in Iaşi. Pazvantoğlu quickly send a reply, while adding the seal of Cengiz Giray. The letter stated the two men’s faith in the Russian Empire and asked for protection against the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, in May 1802, Tomara, the Russian Minister officially requested Pazvantoğlu’s pardon from the Ottomans, which was granted by Selim III and restored his title of Vizier in August 1802.

Following his pardon, Pazvantoğlu requested amnesty from the Porte for Cengiz Giray and requested for him to be granted new estate in Rumelia. Both requests finally granted, but since Cengiz was distrusted by Ottoman officials he was ordered to go to Bursa, far from Rumelia. By this time, relations between him and Pazvantoğlu had soured, since Cengiz was considered a burden and Pazvantoğlu doesn’t have a reason to keep him around anymore. In January 1803, Cengiz Giray died in Vidin, just when he was about to leave for Bursa. His estates and incomes were then inherited by his brother Bahadır Giray, who had adventures of his own after this but that’s a story for another time