Coming to the throne at the tender age of 13, Osman II, nicknamed Osman the Young, was initially under the influence of the matriarchs of the Ottoman Dynasty. His reformist views and desire to limit the power of the janissaries led to his imprisonment and brutal murder by soldiers.Ottoman Politics in the Early 17th CenturyPortrait of Osmans father, Sultan Ahmet I, early 17th century. Source: Metropolitan Museum of ArtBy the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire had reached the peak of its power. During the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent (d.1566), territories from the Balkans to Crimea in Europe, Algiers to Cairo in North Africa, and much of the Arabian peninsula and the Caucasus were under its rule.However, by the 1590s, Ottoman expansion was halted by the rise of other regional powers, like the Hapsburgs and Safavids, who clashed with the Ottomans over land and resources. Thus, the 17th century began with a myriad of wars, including one with the Persian Safavids in 1603 and the Hapsburgs in 1606.Revolts were also popping up around the empire. The Celali rebellions, a series of rebellions by warlords and rebellious governors, had begun in the 1590s and continued into the 1650s. These rebellions were the result of a deep economic crisis. The influx of silver from the New World, military failures against the Safavids, and corruption among government officials all contributed to the depreciation of Ottoman currency.Much of these crises occurred during the reign of Sultan Ahmet (1603-1617), builder of the famous Blue Mosque in Istanbul. At the same time, royal women began to exert visible power and influence over court politics, a great change from previous centuries. Ahmets wife Ksem was arguably one of the most influential women of the period, followed by Hrrem Sultan, wife of Suleyman the Magnificent. Ksems main rival was Mahfiruz, another consort of Ahmed. This rivalry reached dangerous heights when Ahmet died in 1617.Ahmets Death: Osman Becomes the SultanLine engraving of Sultan Osman II, dated 1621. Source: National Galleries of ScotlandOsman was born in 1604 to Sultan Ahmet I and his consort Mahfiruz Hatun. He was Ahmets first-born son and probably doted upon until Ahmets favorite consort Ksem also had a son. When Osmans mother fell out of favor with his father, she was sent away to another palace.When Ahmet died in 1617, Osman was the eldest heir to the throne. Though not an infant or younger child, Osman was still considered by some to be too young at 13 to become Sultan. Therefore, Ahmets brother Mustafa I, also known as the Mad succeeded to the throne. This was a major turning point in Ottoman history as it was the first time a Sultan was succeeded by a brother, rather than by a son.However, Mustafas alleged mental instability led to his deposition only a year later. This left the 14-year-old Osman to be instated as Sultan in 1618.Off to WarWar between the Ottomans and Poles, Battle of Chocim, by Josef Brandt, 19th-century depiction. Source: Wikimedia CommonsOsmans young age did not stop him from fulfilling his duties as Sultan. When the Safavids, long-time enemies of the Ottomans, voiced their desires for an end to Ottoman-Safavid hostilities, Osman agreed. The Treaty of Serav ended the 15-year-long war between the two empires and secured the Ottomans an annual payment of 100 loads of silk.Campaigns into European territories were an Ottoman pastime that impacted public opinion on the sultan. A lack of war could point to a sultans lack of faith and religious fervor. However, in the eyes of the sultan and his officials, war was more about politics and wealth, than about religion. Changing balances of power in the Balkans meant that Osman needed to initiate another campaign to protect his interests.The sultan had this opportunity during the Moldavian Magnate Wars when nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth sought territorial expansion into Moldavia, then part of the Ottoman Empire. These ambitions, plus the incessant Cossack raids on Ottoman borderlands and losses against the Safavids, threatened Ottoman power in the region. However, Osmans campaigns against Polandwhich ended in a peace treatyultimately damaged his reputation.The Janissary IssueA Janissary of War with a Lion, painted by Jacopo Ligozzi, ca. 1577-80. Source: Metropolitan Museum of ArtFormed in the 14th century by Sultan Murad I, the janissaries were the elite fighting corps that had led the Ottomans to military success and imperial growth for centuries. As slave soldiers, they were considered the property of the sultan and therefore owed fealty to his person. However, over the centuries, the janissaries had engaged in rebellions and played a hand in the trajectory of court politics. From 1446 to 1603, there had been seven political rebellions triggered by the janissaries.Despite this, the sultan and janissaries had a mutually dependent relationship. The sultan needed a force to continue his conquests and increase Ottoman territory. As a fighting force, the janissaries were trained to do so and thus earned special privileges. Often from the lower or peasant class, janissary troops depended upon this systemand the sultans good graceto earn their salaries and attain socio-political influence.By the late 16th century, the janissary corps had become riddled with corruption. In theory, their loyalty was supposed to be solely with the sultan. However, the janissaries often supported young princes who were seen as contenders for the Ottoman throne. They also undermined rules that ensured discipline and order in the corps; in 1566, they pressured Sultan Selim II to allow them to marry. This decision was detrimental as recruitment, which had been based on skill and merit, began to take on a lineal (i.e. from father to son) character.Osman Clashing With the TroopsCoronation of Sultan Osman II, depicted on a throne (center right), ca. 1618. Source: SothebysGrowing up in the palace, Osman was aware that the janissaries were changing, and not for the better! The reluctance of the janissaries to fight during Osmans campaign in Poland ultimately sealed their fate. Osman began preparations to replace their force with an army of Anatolian sekbans. These peasants often acted as mercenaries or irregulars during wartime.Under the guise of going to Mecca to perform the holy pilgrimage, Osman planned to visit Anatolian provinces and gather recruits for this new fighting force. It is unclear how the janissaries uncovered this plan; perhaps through a discontented court official or slave. Osman did not have the support of a powerful valide which was essential to the success of Ottoman sultans and princes. He had also alienated Ottoman officials of the devshirme class (those of Christian Balkan origin) by encouraging intermarriage with Turkish families.Portrait of Osman II on horseback, painted by Ahmed Nakshi, c. 1620. Source: Harvard Art MuseumFearing the loss of their power and prestige, the janissaries began a revolt against the sultan. They gathered at the At Meydaninow known as Sultanahmet Squareand looted the houses of several prominent officials, including the grand vizier Dilaver Pasha. Hearing of the revolts, Sultan Osman inquired about their demands, which consisted of his abdication. His refusal to comply with these demands pushed the rebels to storm the Topkapi Palace. Here, they killed the grand vizier and the powerful head of the Harem eunuchs, Suleyman Agha.Osmans Tragic EndThe Murder of Osman II, by Paul Rycault, c. 1694. Source: Wikimedia CommonsOsman continued to try to quell the rebellion of the janissaries who were increasing their demands by the hour. The sultan sent his advisors, such as Grand Vizier Ohrili Hseyin Aa and Bostancba Ali Aa to negotiate with the soldiers. Yet the ferocious rebels, now on a rampage, beheaded the grand vizier. Arriving at the palace, they finally caught Osman, parading him through the streets of Istanbul.Osman was initially set to be strangled with a cord, as was the typical method of executing those of royal blood. However, Kara Davud Aa, a statesman who supported Mustafas bid for the throne, was on good terms with the janissaries and dissuaded them from executing this plan in the mosque where they were holding the sultan captive. Instead, Sultan Osman was taken to the Yedikule Fortress, a massive structure built in 1458 that was used as a royal dungeon for political prisoners.On the following day, Kara Davud Pasha, his chamberlain, and the executioners entered the room in Yedikule Fortress where Osman the Young was imprisoned. Osman put up a brave fight, however, he became unconscious after a blow to the head. He was thereafter strangled to death.Kara Davud Pasha, who caused the death of Young Osman, was dismissed from duty and killed in Yedikule Dungeon a year later, just like Sultan Osman had been. Later, everyone involved in the Young Osman incident was caught and executed.Aftermath of Osmans DeathPortrait of Mustafa The Mad. Source: Encyclopedia of IslamOsmans death was memorialized as a tragic and brutal event in the dynastys history. Osman was not only strangled to death but was mutilated afterward. His nose and ears were purportedly cut off and presented to Halime Sultan, mother of Mustafa I, as evidence of his death. This brutal incident shocked contemporaries and continues to be seen as a tragedy today.Internal conflict was thus triggered by Osmans murder. Abaza Mehmed Pasha, the governor of the province of Erzurum and critic of the janissaries, led a long revolt that lasted throughout the reigns of Mustafa and his successor, Murad IV (1623-40).Ultimately, Osmans death was indicative of a period of decline in the Ottoman Empire. The corrupt janissaries continued to dominate Ottoman politics until their disbandment in the 1820s. Mustafa Is mental instabilityin contrast to Osmans ambition and desire to revolutionize the empireled to his manipulation by his entourage, including his mother and Kara Davud Pasha, his brother-in-law. The weakness of Mustafa I even affected the foreign opinion of the Ottomans, with English Ambassador Thomas Roe commenting that the new sultan was a fool.

The Ottoman Empire had a complex legal and criminal justice system. Punishments for crimes could change according to a persons religion, gender identity, and even age. Punishments were intended to protect discipline, honor, and social structure in the highly moralistic Ottoman society. They not only punished offenders physically but also monetarily and morally to deter others from committing the same mistakes.1. BeheadingHeads of enemy troops in the Siege of Szigetvar, 1566. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBeheading was one of the oldest forms of punishment in the Ottoman Empire. In the early years of the Ottoman principality, around the 14th century, beheading emerged as a punishment reserved for severe crimes like espionage, treachery, and blasphemy.Executioners who carried our beheadings were some of the most disliked people in Ottoman society. Their work was viewed as a contradiction of Islamic values and therefore, they were often ostracized by their communities. To combat this, a mask was required to be worn by executioners to protect their anonymity.Beheadings continued well into the 17th century. In 1683, Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa was executed in this way after an unsuccessful military campaign in Europe. After the 18th century, the state preferred hanging as the dominant form of execution.2. Pillory and StocksDepiction of the mobile stocks, 16th century. Source: Mavi BoncukTradesmen, merchants, and tailors who committed fraud and deceived their customers were often put in the stocks. Like in Europe, Ottoman stocks consisted of a large wooden boardwith bells attachedthat was placed around an offenders neck. He would be forced to march down the street, surrounded by janissaries, the sultans imperial soldiers. These janissaries would loudly announce the perpetrators crimes, which was both a method of humiliation and a way of informing townspeople of a dishonest salesman.The 16th-century Lutheran Stephen Gerlach spent time in Istanbul as a chaplain to the imperial ambassador. While there, he wrote about a baker who was punished in this way for making bread loaves that weighed less than what customers had paid for. Instead of a wooden board, the baker had a four-sided stone with a hollow center placed over his head. The cowbells that hung on the sides rattled as he walked through the streets. When tired, the criminal was allowed to rest if he paid five silver coins.3. BanishmentConvicts were often banished to places around the empire, such as Athens (pictured above), by Edward Dodwell. Source: PicrylSocial harmony and peace in the community were some of the most important aspects of life under Ottoman law. Those who repeatedly displayed morally questionable behavior were often threatened with eviction from their homes, neighborhoods, and even their cities. Early modern Ottoman court records reveal that many women were keeping company with men who were namahrem (i.e., a man she could legally marry) and were banished from their neighborhoods and forced to relocate to other towns and cities. It was largely the neighborhood folk who would initiate these complaints to the court.Throughout the 19th century, the banishment of political dissidents and government officials who became a nuisance or threat became more common. They were often forcibly relocated to smaller towns where they did not have local ties or a support base.4. BlindingByzantine depiction of blinding of Leo Phokas the Elder, 10th century, after a rebellion. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBlinding was a rare yet brutal form of punishment that occurred in Ottoman history. It was believed to have been adopted from the Byzantines, who frequently had political opponents and pretenders-to-the-throne blinded. This was viewed as a handicap that would prevent them from gathering political support and leading armies.One such instance occurred in the mid-14th century. After uniting and revolting against their fathers rule, princes Savci Bey (son of Ottoman sultan Murad I) and Andronikos IV (son of Byzantine emperor Ioannis V) were both blinded per their fathers orders. While the Byzantines performed this brutal punishment by pouring boiling vinegar into the eye, the Ottomans brought heated metal close enough to the eye to fuse the two eyelids shut.5. RowingTurkish galleons circa 1650. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBefore the invention of steam-powered ships, Ottoman ships, or galleys were propelled using oars. Rowing was a strenuous job, often relegated to slaves and prisoners of war. However, criminals were also forced to work as galley rowers. Ottoman law considered this an alternative to a prison sentence since the criminal was restricted to a small area and had their freedom taken away. The term of the sentence could vary from months to years, with many prisoners being pardoned during their sentence.According to historian Mehmet Ipsirli, this punishment was carried out throughout the 16th century, when the Ottomans were at the height of their power in the Mediterranean Sea. Only adult men were given this sentence, regardless of their religious or ethnic background. This punishment was inflicted even as late as the 19th century when steam frigates were used by the Ottoman navy.6. Labor CampsOttoman prison and prisoners in Erzurum, Eastern Turkey, circa 1903. Source: Houshamadyan.orgBy the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman government had established labor camps in territories like Cyprus and Rhodes. Prisoners were sent to these camps and transferred to other places around the empire to participate in farming and road-building initiatives. This form of punishment was called krek (oar), stemming from a previous punishment of rowing oars on galleys.Crimes like murder and theft could land a person in an Ottoman labor camp. Felony slander, a term that denoted the slander of a government official, could likewise result in up to ten years of hard labor.In the 20th century, during the period of Ottoman decline, krek punishment was mostly confined to prison workshops and factories. Laborers received a small stipend for their work, a percentage of which went to the state for the prisons upkeep.7. BastinadoMan being punished by bastinado. Source: Historical QuestBastinado (falaka in Ottoman Turkish) is a form of punishment that involves beating the soles of a persons feet with a cane or stick. This was a common form of punishment throughout Ottoman history as it both punished and humiliated the victim amongst their peers. It was especially applied to socially miscreant behavior like inebriation, harassment of women, or intentionally selling faulty products to the public.Aside from being tried in court and handed a bastinado sentence, victims could also be punished on the scene of the crime by an official called a falakaci. The falakaci roamed the neighborhood, carrying his cane, ready to bring his wrath upon anybody caught committing these petty crimes.8. StoningKadi (judge) interpreting the law. Source: Wikimedia CommonsStoning was another rare form of punishment that the Ottomans adopted from other legal systems. Although it is not prescribed in the Quran, some scholars argued that stoning adulterers was encouraged in a hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad. Due to this disagreement, the Ottomans tended to steer clear of stoning and adulterers were given lesser sentences like fines.However, interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence could vary according to time and place in the Ottoman Empire. There were only two instances of stoning being used as a punishment in Ottoman records. One was recorded in 1522 during the reign of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent. A man and woman committing adultery were both stoned to death.The second occurred in 1680 when a Muslim woman, Ayse, was caught having sexual relations with a Jewish man, Mihail. Left at the discretion of a particularly harsh judge, the woman was buried up to her neck and stoned in Sultanahmet Square, now a popular historical site in Istanbul. The man was beheaded.9. Monastery ImprisonmentLavra Monastery, Mount Athos. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Ottoman legal system was a complex structure made up of both religious and secular laws. Not only were Islamic laws implemented, but so were those of religious minorities like Christians and Jews.Christian communitiessuch as the Greek Orthodox and Armenianshad patriarchates in Istanbul that interpreted religious laws that would be applied to their respective communities. This did not mean that they were immune from the Ottoman secular law (kanun). Instead, it gave ethnic and religious minorities some agency, which encouraged them to preserve order in Ottoman society.Christian subjects were not immune to imprisonment in ordinary prisons and towers. However, they also had a special type of imprisonment called Manastirbend. This referred to the imprisonment of men in monasteries, sacred places of worship. By doing so, Christian leaders wanted to ensure that offenders would be rehabilitated and possibly directed toward a more religious lifestyle.Upon the request of the Patriarchate, an individual who was deemed a harm to society was arrested and sent to a monastery. One such request, from a decree in 1788, detailed that a certain Priest Prokopyus had committed some type of fraud and increased the debts of his monastery. He was investigated and imprisoned in the Lavra Monastery on Mount Athos, Greece.10. ParadingAn accused woman paraded backward on a horse. Source: FikriyatPersonal reputation and honor defined the lives of Ottoman subjects. The criminal justice system also considered how punishment would affect an individuals honor and standing in society. Parading was one such punishment that threatened a persons reputation, rather than their health or wealth. For this punishment, the accused was made to sit backward on a donkey. A large cap, usually conical in shape, was placed on their head as they were paraded around town.Counterfeiting currency and giving false testimonies could land you backward on a donkey in Ottoman Turkey. Although prostitution was largely ignored by the state, there were cases when women involved in prostitution were paraded and had mud thrown at them. Likewise, Christians and Jews who committed adultery were punished in this way.

Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Boleyn had more in common than just their indecent (by the rules of their time) royal marriages. Both women were legendary for their mix of wit and eleganceand for the political tremors their unions caused. Perhaps, what stands out most is that these two women, unlike many of their contemporaries, refused to be labeled mistress. Where others may have submitted to powerful kings who were accustomed to yes-men and women, Elizabeth and Anne drew bold lines and made audacious demands, each in her own right. For this, they were both exalted and maligned, and in many ways, their lives illustrate the peculiar hazards that awaited any woman who dared to insist on living her life with agency.1. They Both Had Loved BeforeQueen Elizabeth Woodville, from The Popular History of England, 1883. Source: FlickrBoth Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Boleyn entered their iconic royal entanglements with notable romantic encounters behind them. Elizabeth had been married and widowed before she laid eyes on Edward, and Anne had considered betrothal to two menthough neither proposal ended in wedding bellsbefore Henry made his intentions known.Elizabeth Woodville was already a young widow when she met Edward IV, Englands most eligible bachelor-king. Her first husband, Sir John Grey of Groby, wasnt just any knight; he was politically tied to the Lancastrian cause, a fact that would eventually cause trouble. Elizabeths life with John was, by all accounts, respectable and steadyuntil the Wars of the Roses ended his life and left Elizabeth a young woman caring for two nobly born children.Did Elizabeth resign herself to an uneventful widowhood? Not quite. Instead, she used her uncommon beauty and knack for persuasion to move up the social ladder, ultimately putting herself on Edwards radar. She placed herself beneath an oak tree beside a road she knew the king was due to pass by, arranged herself in the best light, and then, not knowing her actions were about to change English history, she waited.Anne Boleyn from The Popular History of England, 1883. Source: FlickrNow, lets switch to Anne Boleyn, who was also no stranger to the courts matchmaking carousel. Before Henry VIII and his dangerous theatrics, but after the Butler intrigue, Anne was actually setting herself up for a love match with none other than Henry Percy, the future Earl of Northumberland. It was the kind of young romance that court ladies whispered aboutexcept that this was the Tudor court, so the whispers quickly became loud opinions from folks like Cardinal Wolsey. This rather influential clergyman stopped the Anne/Percy match faster than you could say papal displeasure. Wolsey, supposedly at Henry VIIIs nudging, declared the engagement invalid and inappropriate due to the difference in the lovebirds aristocratic status. Percy was sent away, and Annes future became spoken for, whether or not thats what she truly wanted.Anne first returned to England from France in 1522, rumored to be engaged to James Butler, the 9th Earl of Ormond, in an arrangement meant to settle a long-standing family feud over land and title claims. But the match was canceled, whether because of Annes ambitions, court politics, or simply fatewe can only speculate. Instead of becoming a countess, Anne took on the prestigious position of maid of honor to Queen Catherine of Aragon. From there, her path to fame (or, more accurately, infamy) began. It wasnt long before her charm and wit caught the eye of a certain King Henry VIII, who was on the prowl for the kind of woman who could give him a son.2. They Refused to Be Royal MistressesCovent Garden, by Peter Angelis, 1726. Source: Google Arts & CultureWhen Edward IV first approached Elizabeth Woodville with his interest in taking her to bed, she was very clear on her refusal to become his mistress. According to rumor, she didnt merely reject him: she also made a rather dramatic promise, reportedly threatening to take a knife to her own throat before being seduced into such a position.Elizabeth wasnt interested in a royal affairshe was looking for a title, status, and a secure future for herself and her two sons from her previous marriage. Whether or not the knife threat was an apocryphal invention, Edward was deeply impressed with Elizabeths steadfast values. Instead of forcing his hand, the new king proposed and then swiftly married the young widow in secret. Elizabeth entered that marriage bringing her young boys into the royal fold, setting a strong foundation for her familys future prospects.Anne Boleyn, on the other hand, tried a different escape strategy when she caught Henry VIIIs eye. Anne packed her things and returned to Hever Castle, trying to put distance between herself and the amorous king. For a while, her no stuck, as she eluded Henrys courtly pursuit and his increasingly ardent letters.It wasnt until almost a year into his love-bombing, around January of 1527, that Anne finally agreed to marriagethough not without a significant condition. Henrys letters and their timing suggest that Anne may have finally accepted his hand in early January, with the symbolic offering of her trenne, or virginity, signaling her commitment. By 1533, Anne had fully secured her place as Henrys queen, though it had taken several years of fraught and cautious negotiations on her part.Elizabeth Woodville (1437-1492), Queen Consort of Edward IV of England, after 1500. Source: Queens College CambridgeNeither Elizabeth nor Anne stepped into a royal romance without a plan or purpose. Both women, with sharp wit and nerve, demanded legitimacy for themselves and their families. Both would use their new positions of power to take great care of their extended families, with Elizabeth providing for her sons within her new royal household, and Anne later supporting her young nephew Henry Carey, using her purse to fund his education.For these two formidable queens, the throne was more than a badge of womanly successit was a hard-won symbol of their initial defiance, a new status achieved on their own terms.3. Both Marriages Produced History-Making ElizabethsCourt of Elizabeth I, John Dee Performing an Experiment Before Elizabeth I, by Henry Gillard Glindoni, 1913. Source: The Wellcom LibraryFor all their boldness, political intelligence, and resilience, Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville also left legacies in the form of two of Tudor historys most influential women: Elizabeth I and Elizabeth of York. Both of these Elizabeths carried their mothers tenacity and resilience into new eras, shaping the way the people would come to see women and their place in the world.Anne Boleyns daughter, Elizabeth I, was famously never supposed to inherit the throne. She was, after all, labeled an illegitimate bastard after her mothers much-written-about fall from grace. Yet, this maligned princess rose to become one of Englands most powerful sovereigns. Elizabeth went on to defy expectations by refusing to marry, maintaining her autonomy as the Virgin Queen, and establishing herself as Gloriana. She reigned over a golden age of exploration, art, and relative stability, with her name forever linked to Englands cultural renaissance.In Elizabeth, Annes own indestructible spirit and savvy politicking seemed to live on. Though Annes queenship was cut brutally short, her legacy thrived through her daughter, who expertly navigated power dynamics and retained the throne for four and half decades. Elizabeths reign was, in many ways, a realization of Annes ambitions, an embodiment of the fierce independence and penchant for reform that had marked her mothers life.Elizabeth of York, British School, 16th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsOn the other hand, Elizabeth Woodvilles marriage to Edward IV produced a whopping ten more children (wouldnt Annes scheming husband, Henry VIII, be jealous), who became integral to the English royal bloodline. Among them was Elizabeth of York, whose marriage to Henry Tudorthe future Henry VIIhelped end the bloodshed of the Wars of the Roses by uniting the warring houses of Lancaster and York. This union not only brought peace to England but also established the Tudor Dynasty, which would last more than a century.Elizabeth of York, much like her mother, was a woman of charm, intelligence, and political maneuverability. By forging a new royal lineage through her children, Elizabeth would put one daughter on the throne as queen of France, another as queen of Scots, and her son, Henry VIII, as the English monarch.4. The Treasures They Lost in the TowerThe Bodies of the Princes in the Tower. Source: The Wellcome CollectionFor both Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville, the Tower of London transformed from a symbol of crown and country to one of profound loss. Anne, who had once stayed there before her coronation, returned years later, only this time as a condemned criminal. The same Tower that had represented her dazzling rise to queenship now became her prison as she awaited trial and execution.Even in the face of mounting charges, Anne maintained some hope that Henry VIII would show mercy, possibly allowing her to live out her days in an abbey. Unfortunately for her, mercy never came. Instead, a skilled French swordsman was summoned for her beheading, a final twist that perhaps Henry intended as a macabre kindness. Annes life, which had once shone so brightly, was extinguished in the very place that had crowned her.King Richard III, 16th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsElizabeth Woodville, too, faced devastation within those ancient walls, though her loss was not of her own life but of her beloved sons. After her husband, Edward IV, passed, Elizabeths sons were sent to the Tower, ostensibly to prepare for the young Edward Vs coronation. However, Elizabeths brother-in-law, Richard III, moved swiftly against them. He declared the boys illegitimate and confined them in the Tower, where they soon vanished, sparking centuries of mystery over their fate.Elizabeth, reeling from the loss of her boys, was forced to confront the ultimate betrayal from within her own family. It was this unthinkable loss that would lead Elizabeth down the road to supporting Henry Tudor, aligning their houses with a marriage between him and her daughter, Elizabeth of York, to end Richards hold on the throne.Elizabeth, like Anne, endured her own imprisonment in the Tower but was able to escape with her head. Even after securing sanctuary multiple times at Westminster Abbey during the Wars of the Roses, she could not shield her sons from their fate. Each womans heart entered the Tower crowned in hope and left it in unimaginable sorrow. For Anne and Elizabeth, the Tower was the stage on which their greatest losses played outtreasures they could never reclaim, taken by the ambitions and cruelty of callous men.5. They Were Both Accused of Being WitchesA Witch in the Moonlight, by Henry Fuseli, 19th century. Source: The Wellcome CollectionBoth Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville faced politically motivated accusations of witchcraft, tied to the seemingly supernatural allure they wielded over powerful kings. Elizabeths reputation as a supposed witch emerged early in her relationship with Edward IV. As a lower-born widow, Elizabeth wasnt a conventional match for a king, and Edwards court was shocked by his willingness to ignore every counsel to take her as his queen. He had been expected to pursue a wealthy and advantageous marriage, yet he was utterly captivated by Elizabeth, resulting in him abandoning strategic considerations.As if her beauty and poise werent enough, whispers claimed she must have bewitched hima trope that stuck with her in historical lore and, likely, helped fuel skepticism about her sons legitimacy later on. This same skepticism is what allowed Elizabeths boys to be legitimized and imprisoned. Rumors, after all, always have their consequences.Near contemporary painting of Anne Boleyn at Hever Castle, c. 1550. Source: The Tudor Travel GuideAnnes case was more insidious and personal, emerging when her reputation was most vulnerable. Henry VIIIs passion for Anne had upended his kingdom, sparking a reformation and a rift with the Catholic Church. As his affections waned, those same courtiers who had once cheered her meteoric rise began whispering that she must have used dark forces to enchant the king. Henrys resolve to discard her added weight to the trumped-up claim that she was, in fact, no ordinary woman. Only a seductress with charms unnatural enough to be considered sorcery could cause so much chaos for a kings court. Accusations emerged of Anne possessing extra fingers and marks that served as evidence of her supposed devilry.For both queens, rumors of witchcraft served as convenient explanations for how a mere woman could wield such unusual influence over a king. Anne and Elizabeth defied the typical paths of royal wives, proving alluring enough to provoke men to dismantle alliances, traditions, and, in Annes case, even a marriage with foreign ties. The witchcraft accusations may reveal more about their accusers than about either woman, underscoring the perceived threat that intelligent, ambitious women posed to the power structures of their day and men who refused to share a modicum of governance.

After the United States secured independence in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, no peace treaty of the 19th century proved as important to the countrys early history than the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. While the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of 1812 three decades earlier failed to address the conflicts key causes, the decisive American victory in the Mexican-American War ensured that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo resolved most of the prewar disputes with Mexico in Americas favor.The Causes of the WarPresident James Polk by Nathaniel Currier, 1846. Source: Smithsonian InstitutionThe Mexican-American War arose from a number of interrelated causes, most of which were subsequently addressed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. While the fighting broke out on April 25, 1846 after Mexican troops ambushed American soldiers in the disputed region around Texas southern border between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers, the conflict had longer term catalysts. The United States annexation of Texas in 1845 disgruntled its southern neighbor, which continued to regard Texas as Mexican territory. Following the annexation, the two countries disagreed on the borders of Texas, prompting American President James Polk to send a special envoy to Mexico.Seeking to deescalate border tensions and armed with a proposal to acquire New Mexico and California from Mexico for $30 million, American lawyer and future senator John Slidell went to Mexico City but was outright ignored by the Mexican government. In response, President Polk mobilized American troops to the disputed region. As Polk had anticipated, his decision triggered a Mexican military response and allowed him to secure congressional authorization for war under the pretext of self-defense.Some 15 months later, on September 14, 1847, the United States captured Mexico City, ending major hostilities of the conflict after key engagements including the Battles of Palo Alto, Monterrey, Buena Vista, and Veracruz led by American generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. After several months of negotiations, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was concluded in February 1848.Signatories and TermsThe final page of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. Source: Library of CongressRepresentatives from the belligerent parties met in the town of Guadalupe Hidalgo, now a neighborhood of Mexico City, to discuss peace terms to end the war. Nicholas Trist, chief clerk of the State Department, was the primary representative and sole signer for the Americans. The Mexican diplomats Luis Cuevas, Bernardo Couto, and Miguel Atristain represented the defeated party.During the negotiations, Trist offered more generous terms to Mexico than Polk had anticipated, enabling the Mexicans to retain the whole of Baja California. This prompted Polk to recall Trist before negotiations ended, but Trist ignored the order and concluded the treaty on February 2, 1848. Trist was fired upon his return to Washington.The most consequential articles of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo involved the cession of over half a million square miles of Mexican territory to the United States. The agreement also settled the disputes involving Texas as Mexico renounced its claim to Texas and officially recognized the Rio Grande as the states southern border.While these results were devastating to Mexico, the United States agreed to compensate the country with $15 million for its newly acquired lands, offset by the payment of just over $3 million in debt owed to American citizens. Lastly, the agreement gave Mexican citizens living in regions transferred into American ownership the option of remaining in their homes as full American citizens.Impact on MexicoPortrait of Emperor Maximilian by Andrew Burgess, 1864. Source: Smithsonian InstitutionThe Mexican-American War and resulting Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo plummeted Mexico into political and economic strife in the decades following the conflict. Its surrender of 525,000 square miles of land to the United States was a devastating blow to Mexicos territorial integrity and national pride after its independence from Spain. Mexico lost important resources including agricultural land and valuable minerals. In a further blow to Mexican pride, gold and oil were discovered in the ceded territories after the treaty was signed.The Mexican-American War left Mexico deeply indebted to foreign powers including France, Spain, and Britain. In 1861, Mexican President Benito Jurez cancelled national debt payments. To collect its debts and counter American influence in North America, the three European nations formed a tripartite alliance in Mexico in hopes of establishing a conservative government that would honor Mexicos debts. Spain and Britain ultimately withdrew from the pact, leaving Napoleon IIIs France alone in its Mexican ambitions. In 1863, France seized Mexico City and installed Archduke Maximilian of Austria as emperor. Preoccupied with the American Civil War, the United States was unable to intervene and enforce the Monroe Doctrine until the end of the war.Emperor Maximilian was finally overthrown, put on trial, and executed in 1867, and Jurez returned to power as president. By then, however, long-term damage was done. The political and economic turmoil in the decades following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo further delayed Mexicos recovery after its calamitous defeat to the United States.Impact on the United StatesIllustration of the Mexican Cession of 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo naturally favored the wars victor, but its impact on the United States was by no means exclusively positive. The United States acquired territory encompassing the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas. These territorial acquisitions largely fulfilled Americas expansionist aims driven by a belief in the countrys Manifest Destiny to dominate the North American continent from coast to coast.In the decades following their acquisition, the new territories proved economically fruitful for the United States. The California Gold Rush of 1849 rapidly encouraged settlement in the American West, while other states served as mining, agricultural, and transportation centers that bolstered industrialization in the second half of the 19th century. Disagreements surrounding the status of slavery in new lands, however, contributed to sectional tensions in the United States following the Mexican-American War.As an international agreement between the United States and Mexico, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did not address the question of slavery in the territories acquired by the United States. While Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania proposed a ban on slavery in the new territories, the proposal was passed by the House but defeated in the Senate. Sectional disagreements on whether California should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state led to the Compromise of 1850 and the rise of the new antislavery Republican Party. The sectional tensions over slavery eventually contributed to the American Civil War, a destructive conflict that ultimately resulted in the abolition of slavery.Impact on Native AmericansApache Chief Natchez Nei-Chi-Ri in Arizona, 1885. Source: Smithsonian InstitutionAside from its effects on Mexico, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was especially detrimental to Native American populations living within the ceded territories. Reorganization of North American lands led to the displacement of numerous tribes in the American West, specifically the Apache, Comanche, and Navajo. Territorial disputes often led to violent clashes between Native Americans and American settlers, as well as regular US Army units. Direct and indirect outcomes for Native Americans after the Mexican-American War include the Navajo Long Walk, which left thousands dead, and the Apache Wars between the United States Army and Chiricahua and Western Apache groups.Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo explicitly placed responsibility on the United States to protect both Mexican and American citizens from Native American raids. Although the agreement also stated that special care shall then be taken not to place its Indian occupants under the necessity of seeking new homes, this clause did little to prevent the ensuing hostilities.Now under protection of the United States, Mexican families who chose to remain in their homes were vulnerable to ambushes by Native Americans, and resulting efforts to resolve the conflicts between settlers and Native Americans were frequently ineffective and unfavorable to Native Americans. The Kiowa and Comanche Treaties, for instance, forced Native American groups to forfeit land in modern-day Texas. In many cases, the United States violated the terms of their agreements with Native American populations, leading to the large-scale dehumanization of tribal peoples in the nineteenth century after the Mexican-American War.Issues With the Treaty and the Gadsden PurchasePortrait miniature of James Gadsden by Charles Fraser, c. 1831. Source: Gibbes Museum of Art, Charleston, South CarolinaThe Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, like most peace treaties, was an imperfect document. Aside from American struggles to protect Mexican citizens from Native American ambushes, the agreement was based on an erroneous map that led to further border disputes to the west of the Rio Grande.The disputed territory claimed by the United States following a survey included the Mesilla Valley in southern New Mexico, which was regarded as an optimal route for a transcontinental railway line. The dispute led to further negotiations that resulted in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, brokered between American railroad executive and diplomat James Gadsden and President Santa Anna of Mexico.The acquisition of a strip of land in what is now southern New Mexico and Arizona via the Gadsden Purchase addressed the ambiguities in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and enabled the United States to complete the construction of the transcontinental railroad in 1881. In return, Mexico, severely indebted to European powers and struggling to recover economically, received $10 million from the United States.Despite its flaws, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo fulfilled American expansionist visions and the newly acquired territories have made significant contributions to the American economy. However, with the benefit of hindsight, it is imperative to bear in mind the agreements negative effects on Mexico and Native Americans. These negative impacts have been acknowledged more widely within the United States in recent decades.

The word galeon is an import from Spanish to English, meaning armed merchant ship. The French word galion helped popularize the term. The Byzantines added galea, meaning galley or oared ship. The suffix -on makes the 16th-century ship sound daunting.What Came BeforeGalleon Nuestra Seora de la Mar. Source: WikimediaThe galleons development didnt appear out of the blue. Instead, this enormous type resulted from centuries worth of improvements. The galleons ancestors included the carrack, galley, caravel, and the fusta. Shipbuilders incorporated the best features of each type into the galleon. Carracks provided cargo space with lateen sails and rigging from caravels (speed) and finally, the galleys fighting ability.With a sleeker hull for speed, a lower superstructure for greater stability, and large gun decks, the galleon had arrived. Built first by the Portuguese around 1515 and improved by the Spanish, Europes maritime dominance began.A Design of Precision and Tactical ChangesSpanish Galleon Firing Guns. Source: National Gallery of ArtWith new features and inherited architecture, galleons differed considerably from their forebears. Built for both trade and war, galleons needed to sail long distances, trade, or fight. Sometimes all three happened on a voyage; the ship needed to look formidable.Galleons structural features played a significant part. First came the tiered hull (for space and strength), square-rigged sails (for speed), and a rear mast with lateen sails (for maneuverability). Combined, these qualities made the galleon fast and stable for extended voyages with cargo. Also, the galleon could fight in shallow waters.The galleons size and better construction altered naval warfare. The multilevel decks meant more guns, sometimes dozens. Arranged in rows, the galleon fired broadsides, devastating its opponents. The concentrated fire replaced the age-old tactic of boarding actions.Builders of EmpireTurkish galleons circa 1650. Source: Wikimedia CommonsObtaining and keeping an empire is never an easy task-ask the Romans. For Europeans, especially the Spanish and Portuguese, the galleon became their naval backbone. Designed for fighting and transport, their Swiss Army knife utility proved crucial.With an average 500-ton displacement, a galleon outfitted for battle carried upwards of seventy cannons. The largest cannons were placed front and aft for pursuit; the rest would be positioned along the hull for broadsides. Crews plus marines varied during the 16th and 17th centuries, but could number up to 400! Merchant galleons carried significantly less armament and crew, their purpose being cargo haulers.Galleons led campaigns against Dutch, English, Ottoman, and Barbary foes in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean. They served as escorts for convoys or treasury fleets, often considered pirate magnets. In fleet actions, with their heavy artillery and size, galleons frequently got positioned in the van. Whether symbols of imperial might or as floating castles, galleons helped build empires.Driving Imperial Trade and Control16th Century Chinese Silk with Royal Eagles. Source: The MetThe value of 150,000 tons represents the incredible estimated weight of Central American silver exported by the Spanish. Exported from and carried by heavily armed galleons, this silver bought Asian goods. Galleons on the return trip brought the trades crown jewel, Chinese silk. Other goods included Chinese and Japanese porcelains, spices, lacquerware, tea, and luxury items. Upon landing, the goods left Acapulco bound for Spain.The Manila Galleon trade established a true international network fully controlled by the Spanish Crown. The Crown used cargo caps (limiting the amount of goods) and merchant licenses. Next, pirates and enemy states sought these predictable convoys, particularly in the Caribbean. In 1521, the Crown levied the Averia Tax to fund the protection of these fleets, based on a percentage of the cargo value. Shepherding the convoys came the indispensable galleons. Their hybrid design allowed longer voyages and protection.Dutch galleon ships, possibly similar to those of the Spanish treasure fleet, by Cornelis Verbeeck, c. 1618. Source: National Gallery of Art, WashingtonBesides fostering trade, galleons created movement between cultures. These ships moved all kinds of people, for good or bad, between continents. Galleons brought New World agriculture to Europe and Asia, such as maize, tomatoes, and cocoa. Goods transported between the two inspired arts and influenced the culinary arts.Although built for long voyages, life aboard a galleon became known for its high mortality rates. A typical Manila to Acapulco crossing could last six plus months. Due to storms, disease, or starvation, sometimes half of the crew and passengers perished. However, the galleon arrived, proving the soundness of the types design and build.The Game Changed and ObsolescenceGalleon High Seas Rescue. Source: University of HawaiiFor two centuries, the galleon served to create trade routes, move goods, join societies, and battle opponents. For example, historians estimate 400 million silver pesos traded hands from 1565 to 1815. That alone shows the galleons game-changing. But all things change. By the late 17th century, ships like the frigate arrived. This outgunned and outmaneuvered the galleon, sounding its gradual demise.

According to legend, the Great Heathen Army was assembled by the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok to avenge the death of their father at the hands of King Aella of Northumbria. While this cannot be confirmed, a Viking army, larger than any previous invading forces, descended on England in 865 CE. Over more than a decade, they conquered large swaths of England, forcing the Anglo-Saxons to come to terms, leading to the establishment of large regions of Danelaw across the country. How big was this army, where did they come from, and how did they conquer so much of England?Where Did the Great Heathen Army Come From?Gravestone marker from Lindisfarne showing men attacking with Viking-style swords, c. 900. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe name Great Heathen Army comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but that text gives no reason for the arrival of a larger-than-normal Viking army in England in 865 CE.The Vikings had been raiding England from the end of the 8th century, traditionally starting with the raid on the monastery at Lindisfarne in 792 CE. These were smash-and-grab operations with Viking warriors arriving in their agile ships to attack unfortified communities and undefended monasteries. Defenses were seen as unnecessary since no Christian would dream of desecrating a monastery, but as the English noted, these piratical raiders were heathens. The Vikings took whatever was of value including sacred gold and silver objects, and people to sell as slaves to their networks in the east. The arrival of the Great Heathen Army marked a change in approach. This army did not intend to take what it wanted and leave, but rather to conquer.The Norse Saga of Ragnars Sons suggests a reason for the large-scale attack. The legendary Viking Ragnar Lodbrok, a king of Denmark and Sweden, was raiding Northumbria when he was defeated and captured by King Aella of Northumbria, who killed him by throwing him in a snake pit. His sons wanted revenge, and three of his sonsHalfdan Ragnarsson, Ivar the Boneless, and Ubbaare specifically named among the leaders of the great army.A manuscript depiction of Danes landing from ships, from MS M.736 fol. 9v, 12th century. Source: The Morgan Library, New YorkThis scenario, which only appears in the Norse sources and not in any of the Anglo-Saxon sources, is difficult to verify because Ragnar is a semi-legendary figure. While there was probably once a powerful Viking leader called Ragnar Lodbrok, it is unclear when he lived and which of the many escapades attributed to him belonged to the historical figure. This explanation may have fit better within the Norse tradition of heroic storytelling than the historical facts when the story of Ragnar and his family was written down in the 13th century.Historians note that in the decades preceding the great invasion of England, Viking mercenaries were active in Francia, participating in the conflict between Emperor Louis the Pious and his sons. While there, the Vikings discovered that in addition to coastal targets, monasteries and settlements on navigable rivers were vulnerable to attack. This led to the Viking attack on Paris in 845, which saw the raiders bought off with a large payment of silver. Smaller-scale attacks continued, but the Franks were also busy fortifying towns and rivers, limiting profitability.This mercenary force may have been looking for new profitable ventures, and England may have looked like a place where the strategies that had previously served them well in Francia might work. A mercenary force could explain why the Great Heathen Army seems to have been composed of people from throughout the Viking world, including Denmark, Sweden, and even Ireland. The raiding force may also have come from more than one place. According to the Anglo-Saxon historian Aetheleard, a fleet led by Ivar the Boneless landed in the north, while the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says they landed at Thetford in East Anglia.Landing and Initial Progress of the Great Heathen ArmyMap of the movements of the Great Heathen Army. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Great Heathen Army reportedly landed at Thetford in East Anglia in 865 CE. The East Anglian King Edmund immediately tried to buy the Vikings off, providing them with horses in exchange for peace. The Viking army seems to have wintered there without major incident.When the campaign season started in 866, the army made its way north to York. This may have been to join with separate forces led by Ivar the Boneless. According to the Norse sagas, while his brothers rushed into battle, Ivar instead established a kingdom for himself based around York in the south of Northumbria, making alliances with the locals. Passing directly through Mercia to York could be explained by the need to meet up with Ivar and his army and fortify this stronghold, rather than a particular grudge against King Aella of Northumbria.Scene on the Stora Hammar Stone that may show a blood eagle execution, Gotland, Sweden, c. 7th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIn the following years, the army raided south into Mercia and ravaged Northumbria in the north. At least part of the army is known to have wintered in Nottingham in 867 as a stronghold in Mercia and made peace terms with the Mercians in the same year. In 867, King Aella was killed, reportedly using a method known as the Blood Eagle to punish him for his crimes. Ragnars son Bjorn Ironside may have been present. In 869, they returned to East Anglia and their base at Thetford. They killed King Edmund and took control of the territory.Activity intensified in 871 when reinforcement arrived from Scandinavia in the form of the Great Summer Army. This enlarged force enabled the Vikings to turn their attention to Englands strongest kingdom, Wessex. They were not initially successful and were defeated by the West Saxon forces at the Battle of Ashdown in 871. However, the people of Wessex believed that the threat was great. When Alfredlater known as Alfred the Greatcame to power in Wessex about three months after this battle, he bought peace from the Vikings. The Vikings wintered in London, on the edge of Wessex territory, in 871/872.How Big Was the Great Heathen Army?Viking artifacts recovered from Torksey, c. 9th century. Source: Archaeology.orgFollowing peace negotiations with Wessex, in the campaign season of 872, the Vikings decided to focus on Mercia. After the forces in London returned to York to gather reinforcements, they established a new camp for themselves at Torksey in Mercia.This camp is interesting because it has been examined by archaeologists based on the plotting of archaeological finds discovered by metal detectors. Over the years they have found ingots, weights, 9th-century coins, and more than 120 Arabic silver dirhams. This is a strong indicator of a Viking presence, as they acquired these Dirhams through trade in the East.When all the finds are plotted, it suggests that the Viking camp covered an area of around six acres. It was also a fortified position, as in the 9th century, their camp would have been on an island enclosed by the River Trent on one side and marshlands on the other three sides. A camp of this size could have accommodated several thousand people.Similar Viking artifacts found at a Viking camp at Aldwark, North Yorkshire, c. 9th century. Source: National University of IrelandBefore the discovery of this site, estimates for the size of the Great Heathen Army were between 1,000 and 3,000 men. This site suggests that the army, at least by 872, was probably much larger. This was also not the full army, as there were still Vikings holding York.The nature of the artifacts found also suggests that the camp did not just hold warriors. There is evidence of trade, and the presence of spinning whorls and other tools to make textiles suggest that women were present in a non-military capacity. These findings also reinforce the idea that this Great Heathen Army arrived with a different purpose than the previous small raiding parties. They intended to take land to settle their families.In 873, this band of warriors subdued Mercia, forcing its king to flee and placing a puppet king in his place.Viking Burials at ReptonExcavated grave of a Viking warrior found at Repton, c. 9th century. Source: Martin Biddle via Archaeology MagazineThe battle for Mercia seems to have been a bloody one, as indicated by excavations at Repton. The Vikings seem to have camped there in the winter of 873-874, from where they raided despite promises made to Mercia.Excavations show that the Vikings fortified their camp at Repton, creating a D-shaped enclosure near St Wystans Church. This was supported by a defensive ditch that was dug straight through a Mercian cemetery to meet the River Trent. They seem to have had no problem destroying what was already there, as the remains of at least ten carved Anglo-Saxon stone crosses have been found in the earthworks.There were bloody battles between the Vikings and the Mercians. The body of a man who must have been a Viking chief was found near the tombs of the Mercian royal family. He was buried with an iron sword and a silver Thors Hammer amulet around his neck. This does not seem to have offered him much protection, as his death was bloody. There is evidence that he was stabbed in the eye, that his body was hacked at from above with a sword or an axe, and a boar tusk between his thighs may indicate that his genitalia was damaged.Thors Hammer Mjolnir pendant found at Repton, c. 9th century. Source: University of NottinghamAnother 264 bodies, around 80% of which belonged to adult males, were found in a channel mound just outside the fortified enclosure. Radiocarbon dating and coins from 872-874 suggest that they also belong to this period of Viking encampment. Many of the bodies show signs of trauma and violent deaths. Their bodies seem to have been transported from elsewhere to be buried, verifying that the Vikings were in the habit of collecting their dead from the battlefield for proper internment.Among the varied archaeological remains are several clinker nails used in the construction of Viking ships. This suggests that the Vikings had ships with them, taking advantage of rivers and sometimes carrying their ships overland when necessary.War With Wessex and DanelawIllustration of the Vikings attacking a town, Pierpont Morgan Library MS M.736, folio 10r, c. 12th century. Source: Morgan Library and MuseumAfter the conquest of Mercia, the Vikings were in control of East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria. At this point, the Viking army split in two. One group, possibly led by Halfdan Ragnarsson, stayed in Northumbria. They reportedly raided into Scotland, crossing the River Tyne and battling with the Picts in 875. By 876, they were settling in Northumbria with their families, plowing the land.The second band, led by a man called Guthrum, who arrived from Denmark with the Great Southern Army, headed south for renewed conflict with Wessex. They were in Cambridge in 874 and Wareham in 875. They made a treaty with Alfred the Great that year but continued to raid and were paid off repeatedly.This resulted in the Battle of Edington in 878 when the troops of Wessex finally defeated the Vikings, whom they had previously been unable to dislodge from their defensive positions. The Vikings took refuge in Chippenham, which was well fortified, but the West Saxons starved them out. After two weeks, they sued for peace. While this was far from the first peace treaty between the Vikings and Wessex, Alfred was more confident that this would hold due to his decisive victory at Edington and the fact that Guthrum agreed to be baptized.Map of Danelaw division. Source: Wikimedia CommonsNot long after, a further treaty was struck known as the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum. It created a boundary between Anglo-Saxon land and Viking land. South of the line, Anglo-Saxon law was to apply, north of the line was to be governed by the Vikings under what would become known as Danelaw. The treaty also agreed on a wergild price to be paid when Englishmen or Danes were slain in acts that broke the peace. This treaty would remain in place for around 50 years.The End of the Great Heathen ArmyThe Viking leader, Guthrum, surrendered to Alfred the Great and agreed to be baptized, by James William Edmund Doyle, 1864. Source: Wikimedia CommonsFollowing his agreement with Alfred, Guthrum withdrew from Wessex and remained in East Anglia and Mercia, with the other part of the Great Heathen Army still in Northumbria based around York. Many Vikings settled and became relatively integrated with the local population. Others seem to have gone to Francia following the treaty to take advantage of the opportunities presented by new conflicts there.In 892, after the death of Guthrum, there was an attempt to renew hostilities. There are reports of a fleet of 250 Viking ships at Appledore in Kent and another 80 at Milton Regis. While these forces attacked Wessex territory, they were not able to have the same impact.Alfred had learned from the years of conflict and had constructed a navy, reportedly with ships around twice as long as Viking vessels, blocking their access to many waterways. He also established a system of fortified towns known as burghs and a standing army that could respond quickly to any threat. Around 20 percent of the male population may have been conscripted, creating a significant force of around 27,000 men. With little success, this new Viking army was disbanded in 896.Conflict between the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons would continue. For example, the Vikings were expelled from York in 954, but then Sven Forkbeard and Cnut the Great would become kings of all England in the early 11th century. This back and forth, which started with the arrival of the Great Heathen Army, would only end with the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.

What Does the Qatar Adhesives and Sealants Market Report Reveal About Industry Growth During 2025-2030? A new study by MarkNtel Advisors takes a deep look at The Qatar Adhesives and Sealants Market size is valued at around USD 98 million in 2025 and is projected to reach USD 112 million by 2030. Along with this, the market is estimated to grow at a CAGR of around 2.71% during the forecast...

South Korea weighs granting Google and Apple access to high-resolution map data amid lingering security and regulatory concerns.

[View Article at Source]Why have nuclear weapons (tactical ones can do a precise job with minimum collateral damage) and not use them against terrorists who do not have them yet and are willing to die

Some Palestinians fear Hamas will not honor President Donald Trumps Middle East peace plan as footage emerged of the terrorists executing civilians in Gazas streets, The New York Post reported Tuesday.Hamas