History Podcasts

Siege of Toulouse, 22 January-20 February 1570

Siege of Toulouse, 22 January-20 February 1570

Siege of Toulouse, 22 January-20 February 1570

The siege of Tolouse (22 January-20 February 1570) saw an unsuccessful Huguenot attempt to seize the city, abandoned because of a lack of supplies.

The Third War of Religion saw the Huguenots suffer two major battlefield defeats - Jarnac in March 1569 had ended with the death of the Prince of Condé, and Moncontour (3 October 1569) had ended with the virtual destruction of their army. Despite these two disasters Admiral Coligny continued the struggle. Moving to the south of France he raised a new army and began to dominate the region, by the start of 1570 he had decided that the only way to end of the war would be to move north to threaten Paris.

In January 1570 Coligny joined with Gabriel de Lorges, comte de Montgomery, the victor of a brief campaign that had seen the Protestants regain control of Béarn.

Colingy's route would take him from the south-west of France, up the Garonne and across to the Mediterranean coast, before he turned north to advance up the Rhone.

On 22 January 1570 the Huguenot army began a month-long siege of Toulouse. The city was rather too strongly defended for Coligny to risk an assault, and it was his own supplies that ran out first. On 20 February, after ravaging the local countryside, the Huguenot army lifted the siege and moved east towards Carcassonne. From there they moved on to the Rhone, and ended with year in the area to the west of Lyon. The main campaign then paused while Coligny recovered from a serious illness, while negotiations filled much of March and April 1571. When these broke down Coligny resumed his march north, winning a crucial victory at Arnay-le-Duc in June 1570. After this the negotiations resumed, and the war was ended by the Peace of St.-Germain of 8 August 1570.

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre

The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (French: Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy) in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations and a wave of Catholic mob violence, directed against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) during the French Wars of Religion. Traditionally believed to have been instigated by Queen Catherine de' Medici, the mother of King Charles IX, the massacre took place a few days after the wedding day (18 August) of the king's sister Margaret to the Protestant Henry of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France). Many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots had gathered in largely Catholic Paris to attend the wedding.

The massacre began in the night of 23–24 August 1572 (the eve of the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle), two days after the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, the military and political leader of the Huguenots. King Charles IX ordered the killing of a group of Huguenot leaders, including Coligny, and the slaughter spread throughout Paris. Lasting several weeks, the massacre expanded outward to the countryside and other urban centres. Modern estimates for the number of dead across France vary widely, from 5,000 to 30,000.

The massacre also marked a turning point in the French Wars of Religion. The Huguenot political movement was crippled by the loss of many of its prominent aristocratic leaders, as well as many re-conversions by the rank and file. Those who remained were increasingly radicalized. Though by no means unique, it "was the worst of the century's religious massacres". [2] Throughout Europe, it "printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion". [3]


Can I resume the debate 8 years on?

It seems very odd to try to work out whose victory it was on the basis of Commanders' intents unless there is contemporary evidence of those intents. Wellington was notoriously secretive about his intentions. And I doubt whether Soult told his commanders that he intended to dispute territory with Wellington and then fall back, whatever he may subsequently have claimed.

Roberts ("Napoleon and Wellington", 2003) says "Soult withdrew the next day [11 April]. leaving most of his guns and 1,600 wounded". Another source says that the Allies took 1,600 prisoners including Generals d'Harispe, Bourot, and St Hilaire.

The normal contemporary way of judging a victory when there was a dispute was whether guns had been taken. I find it hard to believe that Wellington could have taken the main redoubts without capturing a gun. If Soult left behind significant amounts of guns when he withdrew, this would have been a huge reduction in his battle-fighting capacity. The French Army also had severe problems with desertion. Joining up with Suchet (down to 12,000 men) does not seem to me to offset the losses.

I suggest that a kind result for Soult would be "indecisive (tactically) and an allied victory (strategically)". Toulouse looks pretty strategic to me on the map!

Calling this battle indecisive is very odd. Calling it a French tactical victory is ludicrous. By the 11th April the French had raised the white flag and evacuated the city (from historical record of the Hertfordshire regiment). Wellington's forces then moved in to take the city. What's indecisive about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think Gates has the same idea when he labels the battle of April 10 a victory for Soult. The Allies did, of course, manage to push the French back behind the canal, taking Calvinet, Colombette, Mont Rave, etc., but with Soult maintaining himself at Cambon and Sacarin, fully expecting to continue the battle the next day, it's not clear what "victory" you think Wellington won. Gates probably evaluated the battle on the basis that, as Longford observes, "with only 3,200 casualties to the Allied 4,500, . the French proclaimed themselves the victors." Napier, who (surprise, surprise!) credits the victory to Wellington, observes:

On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position. was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points. But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, . hence. lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien.
Soult's troops in position to fight Wellington removing his command to St. Cyprien and needing another day to reorganize and reprovision the Allied army this was the result of the battle of the 10th. Only on April 12, with Allied cavalry moving up the Toulouse—Carcassone road, did Soult orchestrate his escape from the town to combine with Suchet, but since it was never a question of defending Toulouse indefinitely, it's a bit overzealous to paint his escape as defeat. He did not surrender. He was not captured. When you say he "raised the white flag" you're being disingenuous, considering he did so after a successful sortie, only to keep bombs [edit: from] raining down on French civilians and French wounded. I think the historiography has simply outgrown the view of Wellington as Christ in a red tunic. Albrecht (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC) With all respect, that is extremely tenuous. Firstly, citing Gates suggesting a French victory is reasonable per se. But you've stated above at least one other historian doesn't agree. So to declare "French tactical victory" on the basis of sources is cherry-picking evidence, therefore biased. Secondly, contextually this battle was part of a siege operation, a limited-aim action to secure the eastern heights as preparation. It is not unusual in sieges for the attacker to take their time, not fling themselves at the next line of fortifications the next day. As history shows, the allies a) took the heights and b) started to besiege the town (why else would the French sortie?). Therefore they achieved their aims, whether or not they needed a day to change their dispositions to put the next phase of the siege into action or took more casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Agema, it was me who reverted the last change back to the cited version, although I'm not going to change your re-doing of it until we can get some consensus. I must admit to have being a little surprised to see Gates describing it as a French victory, but I wouldn't like to see Napier being held up as a counterpoint Napier isn't exactly renowned for his neutral writing! I've looked through a lot of the sources I have available to me (don't, however, have the relevant Oman volume :( ), and here's my thoughts: tactically, the battle must be classed as a victory for the French – they still held the town, they had caused more casualties on the allies, they had numerically similar forces remaining, they had supplies enough to garrison Toulouse for about a month. In contrast, Wellington's army was split, running out of supplies (if not already out), including ammunition, and in no fit state to fight on the 11th. The true siege of Toulouse hadn't started yet, with siegeworks required facing the town. The allied cavalry, by evening of the 11th, had advanced onto the Toulouse–Carcassonne road, but they didn't have time to cut off Soult's escape routed. Even if they had, the numerical similarity between the two armies meant that Soult could probably still have got away. Strategically, and taking a wider view than the battle itself, you are of course quite right. Soult was forced to withdraw, and the allies entered the town on the 12th. Most of the sources I have seem to follow the strategic result, rather than the instantaneous tactical result of the battle. But then, of course, it's possible to argue that strategy didn't really mean a lot at this point, given Napoleon had already abdicated, but neither Soult nor Wellington knew that at the time. Now, rather than arguing about it all, and engaging in revert warring, how about we work out a way to best express this? Carre (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC) PS, from Volume X of Sir John Fortescue's History of the British Army, pp. 91–91: "It would be unprofitable to add to the controversy whether or not Wellington won a victory at Toulouse. [. ] But it may freely be confessed that this was the most unsatisfactory action that Wellington ever fought, and the worst managed." – we ain't the first to debate this ) Carre (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) I had a look through my collection, and I don't have a source which states outright who won the battle (or describes it in considerable detail), although a couple lean towards the allies by saying they succeeded in taking the heights. And yes, Wellington may have needed to reprovision his army, but that's not a battlefield result any more than Soult later withdrawing is. Secondly, whilst the allies appear to have been in no position to attack the next day, Soult appears to have been in no position to take advantage of the disorder of the allied army or to prevent them starting a siege so can the French really be considered to have won a meaningful battlefield victory? I would maintain that this action seems to have been indecisive, and also considering the lack of consensus over 200 years, a draw seems like a reasonable statement.Agema (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I would have no objection to seeing it as "indecisive" - better than the "allied victory" that's been hanging around recently. By the way, you can see Fortescue's account here, as well as a bit of an analysis of what could have happened and the difficulties faced by both sides. Cheers. Carre (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC) There is a certain difference of interpretation, unconfortable for Wikipedians, between the french and english versions about the results. Let correct both of them to edit that the tactical result was undecided?

Sure, if your French is good enough to make the argument - mine isn't. It's bad enough that people keep fiddling this one to a victory for one side or another, presumably depending on their nationalistic interpretations. Which, incidentally, means I'm turning the result back to "indecisive".Agema (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Quote: 'I think the historiography has simply outgrown the view of Wellington as Christ in a red tunic'. Oh! please Albrecht :) I love your contributions to wiki, but give us some credit. You know, sometimes, the British did get it right. Wellington is up there with Marlborough and Slim as the greatest Brit general, deny that here, and you're on to a loser. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Its an indecisive battle, as to Welington as a general, all I will say is that he had lerant how to beat the French before leaving Ireland, Napolean had not learnt how to beat the British by the time of Waterlo.Slatersteven (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this battle can in anyway be a defensive French victory seeing as Wellington successfully took the heights above him and was in no way repulsed or held up by the French army in trying to capture the city. He had hardly begun to lay siege when news of Napoleons abdication came through. Indecisive battle but by any tactical degree a marginal or even clear cut Anglo-Allied Victory ( (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)).

Oops! I just made some changes that are highly relevant to the ongoing dispute. Only I did not think to look here, because there was no marker in the article to alert me to the ongoing discussion! I moved a disputed section to "Commentary" and added the POV. The disputed section was added on 20 November 2009, (a) has no source, (b) appears to me to be a pro-French opinion, (c) was added by an IP address but no name, (d) implies that there was an armistice before the city was evacuated, (e) and, worst of all, is contradicted by both David Chandler and Michael Glover. Also on 20 November, one and a half paragraphs that I added earlier were removed. I have replaced the missing material and added footnotes to it so that there is no ambiguity. You will also note that the battle is now called an "Anglo-Allied victory" and a Smith citation is attached. (OK, Smith's work is sometimes sloppy, but it is a printed reference after all.)

For those who disagree with this assessment, the best response would be to add (for example) "Drawn battle" and cite it with a source. This argument should not be about my opinion or yours about who won the battle. This should be about what historians say. My apologies to Carre, Albrecht, Slatersteven and any others who may be offended by my barging in here. Again, I made the changes to the article in blissful ignorance of the ongoing discussion. Djmaschek (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To the individual ( who changed "Anglo-Allied victory" to "French Strategic Victory". It is not kosher to change referenced text and leave the citations intact! Smith and Rothenberg call it an Anglo-Allied victory, not a French Strategic Victory. Here is a suggestion.

  • Results:
    • Anglo-Allied victory [1][2]
    • French victory [3] <<< author (Gates?) who supports your view that it was a French victory.

    You can even put French victory first if you like. But please cite your source. That way the article will keep its intellectual integrity. Thank you. Djmaschek (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've added in the point of view of French historians Jean Tulard, Andre Palluel-Guillard and Alfredo Fierro, according to which it was a French victory.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The French were defeated and driven off the Calvinet Ridge.. how is this a French victory? How can French historians claim 'victory' when the town was not laid siege to because of the timing of other events. Bruichladdich1 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2010. It seems wrong to say that this was a French victory, but I can't say that it was much of an allied victory either. By the end of the war, Soult held his positions, despite losing the heights, and Wellington had not been able to take them or compell the French to surrender by force. What was the point in fighting when France had lost the war in Europe and was being occupied? Besides, the allies retreated after Bussaco, didn't they? And at Corunna, yet British historians claim both these as victories. At Toulouse, the French army was not broken. Just call the overall result of the battle indecisive, because it was, and this settles historical debate that could go on forever. Spartacus97 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010. Comparisons with said battles seems odd. At Bussaco the French were repelled at every attempt to take British positions and never took the field. Afterwards the French invasion Portugal ended in another fiasco with the loss of 25,000 men. At Corruna again the French tactically never evicted the British from their positions and were repulsed at every point. At Toulouse the allies managed to take the heights during the battle despite heaver losses and the French retreated. Soult was in no position to hold the city and was preparing for it's evacuation. The allies were never repelled in any attempt to take the city itself because Wellington was laying preparation for siege. The French 'victory' comes from the excuses because of word of the French surrender in Paris and Napoleons abdication the day after the battle therefore terminating any siege of Toulouse. Bruichladdich1 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010. OK, maybe I shouldn't have used these examples, the scenario here isn't quite the same. However, I've come to understand that even though it lost the heights after hard fighting, Soult's army held his overall positions until the news of Napoleon's abdication, and then Toulouse was handed over to the allies. Spartacus97 (talk) 9:40, 8 May 2010. Unfortunately, your interpretation relies on a mendacious re-inscription of the battle into some false context (as if Soult was somehow required, or even intended, to hold Toulouse), huge distortions ("The allies were never repelled in any attempt to take the city itself" If their attack was not repulsed, what happened? Did Toulouse fall April 10? Were the French overrun and ejected from the city? Was Soult put to the sword?), and several sleights of hand—specifically your amalgamation of events of April 11 and April 12 into "the battle [of April 10]," creating the illusion that Wellington's attack was what prompted the French evacuation. As has been cited ad nauseum,

    On the morning of the 11th [Soult] was again ready to fight, but the English general was not. The French position. was still inexpugnable on the northern and eastern fronts. The possession of Mont Rave was only a preliminary step to the passage of the canal on the bridge of Demoiselles and other points. But this was a great affair requiring fresh dispositions, . hence. lord Wellington repaired on the 11th to St. Cyprien.

    So the outcome of the battle should be put as 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'? Because the debate over this battle could go on forever. Spartacus97 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2010.

    Yes, the result of the battle should be: 'indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed' with the respective references. It is short enough and sums up the different opinions expressed by authors.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

    It seems to escape you that the war ended before any committed move could be made like I said in previous talk. And your quote creating the illusion that Wellington's attack was what prompted the French evacuation. Well this is because the Mont Rave on the Calvinet Ridge was taken and there is no other explanation. Both Wellington and Soult knew the Calvient heights (Mont Rave )were the keys to either holding or taking the city. Once taken, which was what Wellington achieved let us not forget, he could if he wanted to bombard Toulouse into submission. So creating the illusion was in fact reality. Surrounded by the Allies on the west, north, and east, Soult held Toulouse during the day of April 11 but decided to pull out of the city to prevent his army from becoming trapped. At 9 pm 11th April (sorry where does the 12th come into it?) the French army marched out of Toulouse by the Carcassonne road, leaving 1600 wounded behind. Yes what Soult was in fact doing was retreating. A French victory are you sure?! --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2010 (GMT)

    Since Toulouse only represented an aspect of Soult's overall position, it is difficult for the allies to claim a tactical victory. Soult's aims were not frustrated, Wellington's were. It's difficult for the French to claim a victory too, as you've pointed out. That's why the battle should be indecisive. Too little was achieved on both sides, and the whole battle was cut short because of Napoleon's abdication. Guard Chasseur 7:25, 9 May 2010.

    Soult's overall position was that he was defeated on the heights which meant that he had no choice but to retreat only the day after. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (GMT)

    Fuentes d'Onoro is a better battle to compare Toulouse with. The allies were driven back and lost a great portion of their original positions, even securing much of the lower half of the Fuentes d'Onoro. True, Massena did give up his attempt to relieve Almeida, but Wellington had still lost a great deal of ground. In this case, Soult lost ground but, much like what happened at Fuentes d'Onoro, the defending army was not broken or beaten, nor were they encircled or trapped by Wellington. Toulouse was only one aspect of the overall picture. So either Fuentes d'Onoro is labelled a tactical French victory or this battle is labelled indecisive.--Spartacus97 (talk) 8:05, 9 May 2010.

    Allies driven back? Losing ground? Do you have any idea what your saying? You say this even though Wellington decided on a maneuver to straighten his line. Messena was booted out of Fuentes D'Onoro and was repelled throughout the battle and even lost an artillery duel which compelled him to retreat from the field of battle. It was Massena who retreated and Wellington who held his ground. Wellington ADVANCED to the better good and didn't retreat. You compare this to Toulouse where Soult was pushed of the strategic position of Mont Rave (Calvinet Ridge) and as a result was forced to retreat on 11th April because his position was untenable. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (GMT)

    I'm refering only to initial movements (in both battles, Wellington and Soult lost ground). On the contrary, I don't in any way think that Fuentes d'Onoro was a victory for the French, and I'm not saying it was! The taking of Toulouse was the taking of only one of Soult's positions. As was stated above, Soult didn't intend on holding this position. His army was still ready to fight, like Wellington's at Fuentes d'Onoro. The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. The battle was cut short. Spartacus97 (talk) 9:30, 9 May 2010.

    At Fuentes d'Onoro, the French withdrew having already gained ground. At Toulouse, the British gained ground (taking the city). The former was labelled a 'tactical draw', and so was Toulouse. As was previously stated, the battle was cut short by Napoleon's abdication (it was not the battle for Toulouse). Spartacus97 (talk) 9:45, 9 May 2010.

    Movements don't decide battles but the final act on who throws in the towel and on both occasions French retreated. Both sides can lose grounds for whatever reason. What your saying is that the Austrians won the battle of Marengo! The battle cannot be labelled a tactical victory for Wellington simply because Soult was forced out of Toulouse. Can you name a simple reason why he wasn't? Think about what about you have said. The fact was he was forced to retreat even though the most defended position was lost (most of French troops were concentrated here). What tactical advantage did Soult have by retreating from Toulouse or what did Massena have in the same effect at Fuentes D'Onoro? --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (GMT)

    At Fuentes d'Onoro it's true, French gains amounted to nothing. However, Wellington intended to surround the French army in the capture of Toulouse. This was his aim, and because Soult retreated he failed. As previously stated, Soult never intended to really hold Toulouse. Furthermore, the attack on the city would have been, had the battle not been cut short, a preliminary manoeuvre. Instead, it was a manoeuvre that failed in its ultimate plan. Soult army was still holding his overall positions and was intact, whereas Wellington, on the other hand, had consumed supplies and lost more casualties than his adversary. Thus, looking at the big picture, the attack on Toulouse was the capture of one position (like the battles I was comparing this scenario to previously) and was not the final outcome. Finally, when both commanders learned of the fate of the Empire, the battle was cut short. Therefore the result is indecisive, with neither Wellington or Soult being able to claim a tactical victory. And no, the Austrians definetely didn't win at Marengo. Spartacus97 (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2010.

    Therefore the battle should be made 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Guard Chasseur 11:05, 9 May 2010.

    Bruichladdich1, how come you keep insisting that the result of the battle be changed? Reputable sources were quoted to support both the Anglo-Portuguese and the French victory. Do you suggest that we should disregard the opinion of Fierro, Palluel-Guillard, Tulard and embrace yours instead?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

    Because Soult retreated he lost the battle as the heights were captured like I have previously explained and just like he had been at Orthez. It was the same result albeit with heavier casualties. You say his overall positions well they were captured. He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind. There would have no attack on the city itself it was unnecessary Soult had retreated BEFORE the news of France's defeat. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 12:53 9 May 2010 (GMT)

    Again, wikipedia works on the principle that quoting reputable sources is the best way to write articles. In such cases, where historians disagree on issues such as results of battles, a common sense best practice says that both points of view have to be quoted. The formula we had before you made the edits we are talking about accounts for both points of view (Anglo-Allied victory French victory). There is no third option, except for nuances of these two possible outcomes (e.g. tactical victory, strategic victory). If you wish to give further details on the result of the battle, why don't you do it, with sources, in the appropriate section of the body of the article? In my opinion, any further discussion on the topic is just a waste of time and energy.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

    Yes quite! I did quote and reference sources but then an unhappy person decided to change & now we are having this discussion. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)

    I understand. I suggest that you insert the referenced information that you added to the section "Result" in the body of the article. In doing so, please make sure to word it in a neutral and objective way. Thanks! Cheers,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Again and again you skip over or try to dissimulate the actual sequence of events and to substitute a false causality which credits the Allied effort with more than it actually achieved. The Allied attacks of April 10 were stopped because they simply could not continue Wellington drew his army and his HQ back Soult's troops stuck to their defences. That was the "Battle of Toulouse." April 10. Wellington moves back. Soult stays put. Do you understand?

    You say his overall positions well they were captured.

    He had no positions to hold which is why Soult retreated on 12th April leaving 1,600 hundred wounded behind.

    Funny you should mention that he held it for an entire day which is irrelevant since he retreated anyway as you so put when he detected allied cavalry. This throws everything you have just said out of the water! Under no circumstance can this be claim as any type of success for the French! We don't have a problem because Wellington defeated the French on Mont Rave on 10th and took Toulouse on the 12th after Soult retreated BEFORE the war ended. I rest my case. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 21:00 9 May 2010 (GMT)

    You may indeed rest your case, the sum of which is zero. Albrecht (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

    Now that we've all confirmed the outcome of the battle, let's get on with editing and improving it. Guard Chasseur 18:10, 10 May 2010.

    Well that is very interesting, it seems Albrecht that you don't deny what I said because those are the historical facts. --Bruichladdich1 (talk) 19:06 10 May 2010 (GMT)

    There are two sides of the argument, and the French argument is perfectly valid and plausible. You’ve posed one side of the argument, all very well, but unfortunately I haven’t seen a reasonable answer to 80-90% of what Albrecht and others have said. The French claim: Wellington completely failed to trap the French army. His force had suffered far heavier casualties. He had consumed supplies for little gain and his army was in a sorry state. The French army had fought, in some ways, a kind of 'delaying action' as Soult intended to unite with Suchet before attacking Wellington's army. The Anglo-allies took Toulouse (which Soult never intended to hold) but the battle still hadn't ended, simply because the French lost ground on the battlefield. The battle had not ended when Napoleon's abdication was announced and the French were not in anyway beaten. The capture of Toulouse was only a preliminary move that failed in its ultimate purpose, and it was only territory on the battlefield the French lost. Wellington failed in almost all his aims, Soult achieved his. The Anglo-allied claim: They ended up capturing Toulouse, one of Soult's positions which he didn't intend to hold. The French yielded ground. But I'm going to be fair since British and French historians claimed victory for their respective nations, so both sides should be acknowledged. Victory for either side was not clear cut, the result of the battle is 'Indecisive: Allied victory and French victory are claimed'. Now please, let us all start to improve the article and make it fair and even-handed. --Guard Chasseur (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010.

    Year(s) Conflict Notes
    917–1014 Viking wars in Ireland
    1169–75 Norman invasion of Ireland
    1315–18 Bruce campaign in Ireland Part of the First War of Scottish Independence
    1333–38 Burke Civil War A conflict among the House of Burke
    1534 Kildare Rebellion
    1569–73 First Desmond Rebellion Part of the Tudor conquest of Ireland
    1579–83 Second Desmond Rebellion Part of the Tudor conquest of Ireland
    1594–1603 Nine Years' War Part of the Tudor conquest of Ireland
    1641–42 Irish Rebellion of 1641 Part of the Eleven Years' War
    1642–49 Confederate War Part of the Eleven Years' War
    1649–53 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland Part of the Eleven Years' War
    1689–91 Williamite–Jacobite War Part of the War of the Grand Alliance
    1798 Irish Rebellion of 1798
    1803 Irish Rebellion of 1803
    1831–36 Tithe War
    1848 Young Irelander Rebellion
    1867 Fenian Rising
    1870–93 Land War
    1916 Easter Rising Part of the Irish revolutionary period
    1919–22 Irish War of Independence Part of the Irish revolutionary period
    1922–23 Irish Civil War Part of the Irish revolutionary period
    1942–44 Northern Campaign Irish republican campaign against the state of Northern Ireland
    1956–62 Border Campaign Irish republican campaign against the state of Northern Ireland
    1968–98 The Troubles
    1998-present Dissident Irish republican campaign

    Prehistoric era Edit

    5th century Edit

    • 459 – Ath Dara [1][2]
    • 464 – First Battle of Dumha Aichir [citation needed]
    • 468 – Bri Ele [citation needed]
    • 470 – Second Battle of Dumha Aichir [citation needed]
    • 476 – First Battle of Granard [citation needed]
    • 478 – Ocha [citation needed]
    • 480 – Second Battle of Granard [citation needed]
    • 483 – Battle of Ochae [citation needed]
    • 489 – Tailtin [citation needed]
    • 491 – Cell Losnaid [citation needed]
    • 492 – Sleamhain, in Meath [citation needed]
    • 493 – Battle for the Body of St. Patrick [citation needed]
    • 494 – Ceann Ailbhe [citation needed]
    • 496 – Druim Lochmaighe [citation needed]
    • 497 – Inde Mor, in Crioch Ua nGabhla [citation needed]
    • 499 – Seaghais [citation needed]

    6th century Edit

    • 500 – Lochmagh [citation needed]
    • 501 – Freamhain, in Meath [citation needed]
    • 506 – Luachair [citation needed]
    • 507 – Druim Deargaighe [citation needed]
    • 528 – Luachair [citation needed]
    • 531 – Claenloch [citation needed]
    • 537 – Sligeach [citation needed]
    • 544 – Cuil Conaire [3]
    • 546 – Cuilne [citation needed]
    • 556 – Cuil Uinnsenn [citation needed]
    • 561 – Cul Dremne [citation needed]
    • 563 – Moin Dairi Lothar [citation needed]
    • 571 – Battle of Tola [citation needed]
    • 572 – Battle of Doete [citation needed]
    • 579 – Druim Mic Earca [citation needed]
    • 585 – Kalketh [citation needed]
    • 590 – Eadan Mor [citation needed]
    • 594 – Dun Bolg [citation needed]
    • 597 – Battle of Sleamhain [citation needed]
    • 598 – Eachros [citation needed]

    7th century Edit

    • 600 – Loch Semhedidhe [citation needed]
    • 601 – Battle of Slaibhre [citation needed]
    • 622 – Carn Fearadhaigh [citation needed]
    • 622 – Lethed Midinn [citation needed]
    • 624 – Ard Corainn [citation needed]
    • 626 – Leathairbhe [citation needed]
    • 628 – Ath Goan [citation needed]
    • 634 – Magh Rath [citation needed]
    • 645 – Carn Conaill [citation needed]
    • 648 – Cuil Corra [citation needed]
    • 656 – Fleasach [citation needed]
    • 660 – Ogamhain [citation needed]
    • 666 – Battle of Aine [citation needed]
    • 681 – Bla Sléibe [citation needed]
    • 685 – Cenn Conn [citation needed]
    • 686 – Leach Phich [citation needed]
    • 688 – Imlech [citation needed]
    • 696 – Tulach Garraisg [citation needed]

    8th century Edit

    • 701 – Corann [citation needed]
    • 702 – Claen Ath [citation needed]
    • 713 – Cam Feradaig [citation needed]
    • 718 – Battle of Almhain [citation needed]
    • 719 – Delgean [citation needed]
    • 721 – Druim Fornocht [citation needed]
    • 724 – Cenn Deilgden [citation needed]
    • 727 – Magh Itha [citation needed]
    • 730 – Bealach Ele [citation needed]
    • 732 – Fochart [citation needed]
    • 733 – Battle of Ath Seanaith [citation needed]
    • 738 – Ceanannus [citation needed]
    • 744 – Ard Cianachta [citation needed]
    • 749 – Ard Naescan [citation needed]
    • 751 – Bealach Cro [citation needed]
    • 759 – Dun Bile [citation needed]
    • 762 – Caill Tuidbig [citation needed]
    • 769 – Bolg Boinne [citation needed]
    • 781 – Ath Liacc Finn [citation needed]
    • 787 – Ard Mic Rime [citation needed]

    9th century Edit

    • 800 – Ardrahan [citation needed]
    • 820 – Carn Conain [citation needed]
    • 845 – Dunamase [citation needed]
    • 848 – Battle of Skryne [citation needed]
    • 851 – Battle of Dundalk [citation needed]

    10th century Edit

    • 908 – Battle of Bellaghmoon
    • 917 – Battle of Confey
    • 919 – Battle of Islandbridge
    • 967/8 – Battle of Sulcoit
    • 967/8 – Burning of Luimnech
    • 977/8 – Battle of Cathair Cuan
    • 978 – Battle of Belach Lechta
    • 980 – Battle of Tara
    • 994 – Sack of Domhnach Padraig [citation needed]
    • 994 – Sack of Aenach Thete [citation needed]
    • 999 – Battle of Glenmama

    11th century Edit

    • 1014 – Battle of Clontarf
    • 1086 – Breach of Crinach [citation needed]
    • 1087 – Conachail, in Corann
    • 1087 – Rath Edair [citation needed]
    • 1088 – Corcach [citation needed]
    • 1090 – Magh Lena, in Meath [citation needed]
    • 1094 – Bealach Gort an Iubhair [citation needed]
    • 1094 – Fidhnacha [citation needed]
    • 1095 – Ard Achad [citation needed]
    • 1098 – Fearsat-Suilighe [citation needed]
    • 1099 – Craebh Tulla [citation needed]

    12th century Edit

    • 1101 – Battle of Grianan [citation needed]
    • 1103 – Battle of Magh Cobha [4]
    • 1132 – Siege of Dún Béal Gallimhe
    • 1149 – Siege of Dún Béal Gallimhe
    • 1151 – Battle of Móin Mhór
    • 1169/05 – Beginning of the Norman invasion of Ireland
    • 1169/05 – Battle of Duncormac, County Wexford – Norman victory over a combined Irish-Norse force
    • 1169/05 – Siege of Wexford – Norman victory over a combined Irish-Norse force
    • 1169/05 – Battle of Gowran – Norman defeat
    • 1170/05 – Battle of Dundonnell (aka Battle of Baginbun), County Wexford – Norman victory over a combined Irish-Norse force
    • 1170/08 – Battle of Waterford – Norman victory over a combined Irish-Norse force
    • 1170/09 – Sack of Dublin – Norman victory over a combined Irish-Norse force
    • 1171 – Battle of Carrick – Norman defeat
    • 1173 – Battle of Kilkenny – Norman defeat
    • 1174 – Battle of Thurles – Norman defeat
    • 1175 – Battle of Meath – Norman victory
    • 1175 – Battle of Athlone – Norman victory
    • 1175 – Battle of Drogheda – Norman victory
    • 1176 – Battle of Meath – Norman defeat
    • 1176 – Battle of Armagh – Norman defeat
    • 1192 – Aughera – Norman defeat [citation needed]

    13th century Edit

    • 1224 – Sack of Ard Abla [citation needed]
    • 1225 – Sack of Loch Nen [citation needed]
    • 1225 – Sack of Ardrahan [citation needed]
    • 1230 – Siege of Dún Béal Gallimhe
    • 1230 – Findcairn [citation needed]
    • 1232 – Siege of Dún Béal Gallimhe
    • 1234 – Battle of the Curragh
    • 1235 – Siege of Dún Béal Gallimhe
    • 1247 – Siege of Dún Béal Gallimhe
    • 1249 – First Battle of Athenry
    • 1257 – Battle of Creadran Cille
    • 1257 – Sack of Sligo [citation needed]
    • 1260 – Battle of Druim Dearg
    • 1261 – Battle of Callann
    • 1270 – Battle of Áth-an-Chip

    14th century Edit

    Bruce Campaign Edit

    • 1315 – Battle of Carrickfergus [citation needed]
    • 1315 – Battle of Moiry Pass (June) [citation needed]
    • 1315 – First battle of Dundalk (June) [citation needed]
    • 1315 – Battle of Connor (September) [citation needed]
    • 1315 – Second battle of Dundalk (November) [citation needed]
    • 1315 – Battle of Kells (December)
    • 1316 – Battle of Skerries (January)
    • 1316 – Second Battle of Athenry (August)
    • 1317 – Battle of Lough Raska (August)
    • 1318 – Battle of Dysert O'Dea (May)
    • 1318 – Battle of Faughart (October)
    • 1328 – Battle of Thomond
    • 1329 – Battle of Ardnocher
    • 1330 – Battle of Fiodh-an-Átha
    • 1333–1338 – Burke Civil War
    • 1336 – Castlemore-Costello besieged and demolished by the King of Connacht [citation needed]
    • 1340 – Battle of the O Cellaig's [citation needed]
    • 1341 – Battle of the Clan Maurice [citation needed]
    • 1342 – Battle of Beal-atha-Slisen – King of Connacht defeats the King of Moylurg [citation needed]
    • 1343 – Battle of Hy-Many – MacFeorais and Clanricarde soundly defeat the Uí Maine. Achadhmona battle between the O'Donnells, in Tirhugh
    • 1345 – Battle of Lough Neagh – naval battle between Hugh O'Neill and the Clann Hugh Buidhe [citation needed]
    • 1346 – Calry-Lough-Gill – O Rourke soundly defeated by the O Connors. Brian Mag Mathgamna defeats and kills 300 English somewhere in Thomond [citation needed]
    • 1348 – Ballymote besieged and burned by MacDermot, O Connor defeated [citation needed]
    • 1349 – O Melaghlin of Meath defeated in battle by the English [citation needed]
    • 1355 – The English of West Connaught defeated Mac William Burke, and killed many of his people Clanricarde defeats the Mayo Bourkes and the Siol Anmchadha [citation needed]
    • 1356 – Baile-Locha-Deacair [citation needed]
    • 1358 – Hugh O Neill defeats the Fer Managh and Orial. O More defeats the English of Dublin in battle [citation needed]
    • 1359 – Ballyshannon [citation needed]
    • 1366 – Srath-Fear-Luirg [citation needed]
    • 1368 – Oriel [citation needed]
    • 1369 – Blencupa [citation needed]
    • 1369 – Lough Erne – English of Munster and Desmond soundly defeated by O Brian, possibly at Limerick [citation needed]
    • 1373 – Annaly [citation needed]
    • 1374 – Niall O Neill defeats the English [citation needed]
    • 1375 – Downpatrick – Niall O Neill defeats the English [citation needed]
    • 1377 – Clann-Cuilein – Clanricarde and his allies defeated [citation needed]
    • 1377 – Roscommon – Ruaidri O Conchobhair defeats the Mayo Burkes and the Uí Maine [citation needed]
    • 1379 – Dreach – O Neill Mor defeats Maguire [citation needed]
    • 1380 – Atha-leathann – Clanricarde defeated by Bourke of Mayo [citation needed]
    • 1381 – Athlone [citation needed]
    • 1383 – Trian Chongail – Hugh O Neill and Robin Savage kill each other in a cavalry charge [citation needed]
    • 1384 – Carrickfergus "burned by Niall O'Neill, who thereupon acquired great power over the English" [citation needed]
    • 1385 – Battle of Tochar Cruachain-Bri-Ele – O Conchobhair, King of Uí Falighe, soundly defeats the English of Meath
    • 1389 – Caislen an Uabhair [citation needed]
    • 1391 – Bealach-an-Chrionaigh [citation needed]
    • 1392 – Ceann-Maghair [citation needed]
    • 1394 – Battle of Ros-Mhic-Thriúin
    • 1395 – Cruachain – the King of Uí Failghe defeats an English expedition. O Donnell defeats and captures the sons of Henry O Neill [citation needed]
    • 1396 – Creag – O Conchobhair Roe defeats O Conchobhair Donn. O Tuathail of Lenister inflicts a severe defeat on the Anglo-Irish [citation needed]
    • 1396 – Sligo – O Donnell and O Connor besiege and burn the town [citation needed]
    • 1397 – Machaire Chonnacht [citation needed]
    • 1397 – Bun-Brenoige [citation needed]
    • 1398 – Eachdruim Mac n-Aodha – the O Tooles and O Byrnes defeat the Anglo-Irish, killing the Earl of March [citation needed]
    • 1398 – Magh-Tuiredh – O Conchobair Roe and allies defeated by McDonagh [citation needed]
    • 1399 – Battle of Tragh-Bhaile – the Anglo-Irish defeat the sons of Henry O Neill [citation needed]

    15th century Edit

    • 1400 – Dunamon. [citation needed]
    • 1406 – Battle of Cluain Immorrais
    • 1444 – Duibhthrian Sligo burned by the O Donnells, Maguires and O Connors. [citation needed]
    • 1446 – Cuil Ua bh-Fionntain [citation needed]
    • 1449 – Muintir-Maelmora [citation needed]
    • 1452 – Cloch-an-bhodaigh Coirrshliabh na Seaghsa [citation needed]
    • 1453 – Ardglass (naval battle) [citation needed]
    • 1454 – Inis [citation needed]
    • 1455 – Athlone: The castle of Athlone was taken from the English, having been betrayed by a woman who was in it.
    • 1456 – Cuil Mic an Treoin (Friday 18 May) [citation needed]
    • 1457 – Druim da Ethiar [citation needed]
    • 1460 – Corca Bhaiscinn (naval battle) [citation needed]
    • 1461 – Ceann Maghair [citation needed]
    • 1462 – Waterford taken by the Butlers in a war with the FitzGeralds. [citation needed]
    • 1462 – Lancastrian Butlers defeated by Yorkist FitzGeralds at Battle of Piltown in Wars of the Roses.
    • 1464 – Sliabh Lugha [citation needed]
    • 1465 – Carn Fraoich [citation needed]
    • 1466 – Offaly Anglo-Irish army defeated by O Connor [citation needed]
    • 1467 – CrosMoighe-Croin [citation needed]
    • 1468 – Beann-uamha Scormor, in Clann Chathail mic Murray [citation needed]
    • 1469 – Baile-an-Duibh The Defeat of Glanog [citation needed]
    • 1473 – Doire-Bhaile-na-Cairrge [citation needed]
    • 1475 – Baile-Locha-Luatha [citation needed]
    • 1476 – Beal Feirste (Belfast) [citation needed]
    • 1478 – Sligo, and the siege of Carrig Lough Ce [citation needed]
    • 1482 – Ath-na-gCeannaigheadh [citation needed]
    • 1483 – Traghbhaile of Dundalk [citation needed]
    • 1484 – Moin-Ladhraighe [citation needed]
    • 1486 – Tirawley [citation needed]
    • 1488 – two sieges of Carraig Lough Ce [citation needed]
    • 1489 – Belfast castle demolished by O Donnell Ballytober Bride sacked by O Connor Roe [citation needed]
    • 1490 – Maigh Croghan [citation needed]
    • 1493 – Glasdromainn Beanna Boirche [citation needed]
    • 1494 – O Donnell besieges Sligo for several months in the summer, but is unsuccessful [citation needed]
    • 1495 – O Donnell besieges Sligo again battle of Beal an Droichit siege of Ballyshannon battle of Termon-Daveog [citation needed]
    • 1497 – Bealach-Buidhe Beal Ath Daire. [citation needed]
    • 1498 – Cros-Caibhdeanaigh. Dungannon. [citation needed]
    • 1499 – Tulsk. First recorded death in Ireland from a bullet. [citation needed]

    16th century Edit

    • 1504 – Battle of Knockdoe – Fitzgeralds of Kildare defeat the Clanricarde Burkes
    • 1522 – Battle of Knockavoe – Clash between O'Donnells and O'Neills
    • 1534 – Battle of Salcock Wood- A force from Dublin is defeated by a coalition of the O'Tooles and Fitzgerald supporters. [5]
    • 1534 – Siege of Dublin Castle by 'Silken' Thomas Fitzgerald in Kildare
    • 1535 – Siege of Maynooth Castle, the chief residence of Fitzgerald, by English forces [6]
    • 1539 – Battle of Bellahoe Ford – A force led by Leonard Grey routs an O'Donnell/O'Neill force [7]
    • 1559 – Battle of Spancel Hill, a conflict over the O'Brien succession
    • 1565 – Battle of Glentasie – Shane O'Neill defeats the MacDonnells of Clan Iain Mor
    • 1565 – Battle of Affane – Fitzgeralds of Desmond defeated by Butlers of Ormond
    • 1567 – Battle of Farsetmore – Shane O'Neill defeated by O'Donnell clan
    • 1570 – Battle of Shrule [8]
    • 1586 – Battle of Ardnaree – Mercenary Scots entering Connacht are surprised and destroyed by Bingham's army [9]
    • 1590 – Battle of Doire Leathan – part of the O'Donnell Succession dispute

    Mac an Iarla War Edit

    • 1572 – First Sack of Athenry [citation needed]
    • 1573 – Beal an Chip [citation needed]
    • 1577 – Second Sack of Athenry [citation needed]
    • 1577 – Siege of Loughrea [citation needed]
    • 1579 – Lisdalon [citation needed]
    • 1580 – Sack of Loughrea [citation needed]
    • 1580 – Cill Tuathail [citation needed]

    Desmond Rebellions Edit

    First Desmond Rebellion (1569–1573)

    • 1569 – Siege of Kilkenny [citation needed]
    • 1569 – First Battle of Killamock [citation needed]
    • 1571 – Second Battle of Kilmallock [10]
    • 1579 – Aenachbeg [citation needed]
    • 1579 – Sack of Youghal [citation needed]
    • 1579 – Sack of Kinsale [citation needed]
    • 1580 – Battle of Glenmalure
    • 1580 – Siege of Carrigafoyle Castle
    • 1580 – Siege of Smerwick
    • 1582 – Allhallowtide [citation needed]

    Spanish Armada Edit

    Nine Years' War Edit

    • 1594 – Siege of Enniskillen
    • 1594 – Battle of the Ford of the Biscuits
    • 1595 – Battle of Clontibret
    • 1596 – Third Sack of Athenry
    • 1596 – Siege of Galway, Sack of Bohermore
    • 1597 – Battle of Casan-na-gCuradh
    • 1597 – Battle of Carrickfergus
    • 1598 – Battle of the Yellow Ford
    • 1599 – Siege of Cahir Castle
    • 1599 – Battle of Deputy's Pass
    • 1599 – Battle of Curlew Pass
    • 1600 – Battle of Moyry Pass
    • 1601- Battle of Castlehaven
    • 1601 – Siege of Donegal
    • 1601 – Battle of Kinsale
    • 1602 – Siege of Dunboy
    • 1602 – Burning of Dungannon

    17th century Edit

    O'Doherty's Rebellion Edit

    Irish Confederate Wars Edit

    • 1641 – Battle of Julianstown
    • 1642 – Battle of Swords [12]
    • 1642 – Battle of Liscarroll
    • 1642 – Battle of Kilrush
    • 1642 – Battle of Glenmaquin
    • 1642 – Sack of the Claddagh
    • 1642 – Siege of Limerick 1642
    • 1643 – Battle of New Ross (1643)
    • 1643 – Battle of Cloughleagh
    • 1643 – Battle of Portlester[13]
    • 1643 – Siege of Forthill
    • 1645 – Siege of Duncannon
    • 1646 – Battle of Benburb
    • 1646 – Siege of Bunratty
    • 1647 – Battle of Dungans Hill
    • 1647 – Sack of Cashel
    • 1647 – Battle of Knocknanauss
    • 1649 - Siege of Dublin
    • 1649 – Battle of Rathmines
    • 1649 – Siege of Drogheda
    • 1649 – Sack of Wexford
    • 1649 – Siege of Waterford
    • 1649 – Battle of Arklow/Glascarrick
    • 1649 – Battle of Lisnagarvey
    • 1649 – Siege of Derry (1649) [14]
    • 1650 – Siege of Kilkenny[15]
    • 1650 – Siege of Clonmel
    • 1650 – Battle of Tecroghan
    • 1650 – Battle of Scarrifholis
    • 1650 – Siege of Charlemont
    • 1650 – Battle of Macroom
    • 1650 – Battle of Meelick Island
    • 1651 – Siege of Limerick (1650–1651)
    • 1651 – Battle of Knocknaclashy
    • 1652 – Siege of Galway

    Williamite War Edit

    • 1689 – Break of Dromore
    • 1689 – Siege of Derry
    • 1689 – Battle of Newtownbutler
    • 1689 – Siege of Carrickfergus
    • 1689 – Raid on Newry
    • 1690 – Battle of Cavan
    • 1690 – Capture of Sligo [citation needed]
    • 1690 – Battle of the Boyne
    • 1690 – Siege of Limerick (1690)
    • 1690 – Siege of Cork
    • 1690 – Siege of Kinsale (1690) [citation needed]
    • 1691 – Siege of Athlone
    • 1691 – Capture of Athenry [citation needed]
    • 1691 – Siege of Galway
    • 1691 – Siege of Limerick (1691)
    • 1691 – Battle of Aughrim

    18th century Edit

    • 1760 – Battle of Carrickfergus – Carrickfergus seized by the French for five days.
    • 1795 – Battle of the Diamond – a sectarian faction fight in County Armagh, that led to the founding of the Orange Order

    United Irishmen Rebellion Edit

    • 24 May – Ballymore-Eustace, Naas, Prosperous, Kilcullen
    • 25 May – Carlow
    • 26 May – Tara Hill
    • 27 May – Oulart Hill
    • 28 May – Enniscorthy
    • 30 May – Three Rocks
    • 1 June – Bunclody
    • 4 June – Tuberneering
    • 5 June – New Ross
    • 7 June – Antrim
    • 9 June – Saintfield
    • 9 June – Arklow
    • 13 June – Ballinahinch
    • 19 June – Ovidstown
    • 20 June – Foulksmills
    • 21 June – Vinegar Hill
    • 30 June – Ballyellis
    • 27 August – Castlebar
    • 5 September – Collooney
    • 7 September – Ballinamuck

    Several fragments of the rebel armies of the Summer of 1798 survived to fight on both in the hope of the rebellion breaking out again and of French aid. The main guerrilla groupings were:

    King Richard I of England Versus King Philip II Augustus

    We have thought it proper to inform you of what happened to Richard, king of England, the enemy of our empire and disturber of your kingdom…he is now in our power. We know this news will bring you great happiness.’ With these words, addressed in a letter to Philip II Augustus, Capetian king of France, the riddle of Richard the Lionheart’s whereabouts had been resolved. Now, with the king of England locked in the firm grasp of Henry VI, the Holy Roman emperor, and the campaign season of 1193 approaching, Philip had a clear chance to regain his family’s honor and begin the destruction of its longtime nemesis, the Angevin empire.

    Almost a year before, on December 27, Philip Augustus had arrived in Paris a bitter man. He had recently returned from the Third Crusade, his health damaged and his pride badly mauled. Richard had outshone and outspent Philip at each step — at Messina in Sicily as the crusading forces waited for departure to the Holy Land, and then at the Siege of Acre. There was a raft of other arguments and bickering, both petty and major. But one insult had been greater than all the others combined — in late March 1191, while in Sicily, Richard had rejected his long-term betrothal to Philip’s sister Alice and announced his decision to marry Berengaria of Navarre. Twisting the knife further, Richard claimed that Alice had been his father’s mistress and had borne him an illegitimate son.

    To keep the crusade on the road and assure that he would not be held responsible for its failure, Philip had to swallow his pride and accept a 10,000-mark payoff. Part of Alice’s dowry was the Norman borderlands of the Vexin and the great fortress of Gisors. Philip agreed that this territory was to remain in Richard’s hands and that it would be handed on to his male descendants should he have any. Those vitally strategic lands would revert to Philip’s control if Richard died without a legitimate heir. If Philip died without an heir, the territory would be considered part of Normandy.

    For Philip it was the worst of humiliations. The English kings paid homage to the kings of France for their continental lands, and now Richard, the vassal, had freely slandered the Capetian name and had forced Philip to give up territory that by right should have returned to his control. The power of the French kings was seemingly at a low ebb, and it would take all Philip’s skill, intelligence and cunning to reverse his position.

    Crossing the Line
    In tackling Richard’s power base, Philip was treading a fine line. Richard was still on crusade, and the rules were very clear: A Crusader’s lands were protected by the church, and they could not be attacked while he was still away. That, of course, did not stop Philip from making the necessary moves to retrieve Alice’s dowry lands and more if possible.

    On January 20, 1192, Philip met Richard’s seneschal of Normandy, William of FitzRalph, at a conference between Gisors and Trie. There, Philip produced fake documents that he claimed were drawn up with Richard in Messina, outlining the deal struck in March 1191. Richard had supposedly agreed that Alice’s dowry lands in the Norman Vexin were to be handed over to Philip. Suspecting it was a ruse, FitzRalph and the Norman barons rejected the French king’s demands.

    In hindsight, Philip’s efforts seem to be the spadework for building up a casus belli rather than a determined effort to start a drive into Angevin lands, which he was certainly not ready to do. Besides, he had bigger fish to fry. Many nobles who owed direct homage to Philip had died in the Holy Land, and many had left the French king territory — particularly Count Philip of Flanders, who had bequeathed the prosperous Artois region. If Philip were to fight a major war with the Angevin empire, he would need to secure those territories and their resources.

    During 1192 Philip wooed over the men who would form a bloc against Richard’s supporters. Key figures among them were Count John, the Lionheart’s brother, Count Ademar of Angoulème, Count Baldwin VIII of Flanders and Count Raymond of Toulouse.

    Philip had also built up pressure on the local lords of the Vexin, men who governed territories on the boundaries between the French and English kings’ lands and who were obligated to both. But now, with Richard locked up — possibly indefinitely, as had happened to Robert of Normandy, brother of England’s Henry I — many realized they would soon have no choice but to turn to the French king. As historian John Gillingham has noted, If they did not leap on the bandwagon they were liable to be run down.

    The Great War Begins
    The year 1193 began with Count John arriving in Paris, where he paid homage for Richard’s lands, including, it was said, for England. John then returned to England claiming that Richard was dead and that the crown should pass to him. That last point was easily dismissed, since Richard’s ministers and his mother, the indomitable Eleanor of Aquitaine, had already learned Richard was alive and in captivity by order of Henry VI in Germany.

    With Richard technically back from crusade, Philip struck into the Vexin. The pattern that the war would take was one of mercenary bodies and armies of varying size (none exceptionally large by modern standards) fighting sieges and at times skirmishes. At that time, battle was considered a risky business: Pillage, destruction and fast movement creating maximum disorder through the enemy’s lands was the preferred means of warfare. The Chanson des Lorrains vividly records how an army on the march conducted war at that time: Out in front are the scouts and incendiaries…the incendiaries set the villages on fire and the foragers visit and sack them. The terrified inhabitants are either burned or led away with their hands tied to be held for ransom.

    Philip’s first target was the imposing castle of Gisors, described by some as the key to the region. Gisors’ castellan was Gilbert de Vascoeuil, who owned land in both the king of England’s and the king of France’s territories. Rather than defend that mighty fortress, Gilbert meekly surrendered. English chroniclers pointed to foul play, and the complete ease with which Philip won this strategically vital castle suggests that such may indeed have been the case.

    Moving on from Gisors, Philip stormed into Normandy, reaching as far as Dieppe. In payment for his treachery, John was given Evreux. Philip’s army, joined by a large contingent of men led by Count Baldwin of Flanders, then laid siege to the ducal capital of Normandy, Rouen. There, he was halted at the last moment by Earl Robert of Leicester, who injected much-needed vigor and organization into the city’s defense. At one point Philip, believing success was within his grasp, offered the defenders a chance to surrender. They replied that, on his own, the French king could enter Rouen any time he liked. It was a none-too-subtle trap, of course, and more likely a calculated insult. Enraged that he had been thwarted from taking the jewel of Normandy, Philip moved on to seek easier pickings.

    At Mantes on July 9, Philip came to terms with Richard’s ministers — the French king could keep his gains and would be given some extra territories if he halted operations then and there. If Richard wanted those possessions back, he would have to pay 20,000 marks and pay homage to Philip.

    Improbable as it was that Richard would stoop that low, he could not respond in any way while he was still in captivity, where Philip and John, wanting time to consolidate their gains and to prepare for the next campaign, preferred he remain. They tried desperately to bribe Henry VI with hefty promises of cash to detain Richard longer, or even hand him over to them. But while Henry was no friend of Richard, the latter had impressed many at the German court with his eloquence and reputation. During his captivity Richard had built strong relations with many lords, princes and ruling clergymen in the Lower Rhineland, and this powerful faction was a key influence on Henry’s rejection of Philip and John’s advances.

    The Lion Uncaged
    On February 4, 1194, Richard was released after Angevin wealth paid off the ransom demand, settled at 100,000 marks, to be followed by another payment of 50,000 marks that would secure the release of additional hostages. Richard was also forced to pay Henry homage for England, although that embarrassing arrangement was downplayed in Angevin circles.

    Instead of racing back to his own lands, Richard went to Cologne to cement his German diplomatic ties — in the future they would become an important weight with which to pressure Philip. By March 13, Richard was back in England, where he swiftly reasserted his authority over the kingdom.

    Richard began a resale of English lands, titles and positions that had been put on the market before he went on crusade. He would need a large amount of disposable cash for the coming war with Philip, and he’d need it quickly. But Richard did not, as many historians have claimed, simply sell to the highest bidder. He was careful to grant the positions to trusted and efficient men. The English king knew that stable finances and steady supplies are the fuel of successful campaigning.

    Richard met William of Scotland on April 4, and the two kings remained in each other’s company until William went north on April 22. Days before, on April 17, Richard was crowned for a second time, at Winchester, to underline his rightful position as monarch. By May 12, Richard had set sail for Normandy with a large fleet estimated at 300 ships. In the space of a few extraordinary months the Lionheart had returned to his kingdom, stamped it again with his authority and organized an army to take with him to war against Philip. This would have been impossible to do if England had been the impoverished and disordered kingdom that some historians have depicted.

    Philip had not been idle during Richard’s return. He had consolidated the territories he had taken, and now controlled much of Normandy east of the Seine River. He was in striking distance of Rouen. In Touraine and Berry, Philip’s allies had made considerable gains, and in Aquitaine the counts of Angoulème and Perigueux, the viscount of Brosse and Geoffrey de Rancon were all in open revolt against Richard’s authority. A desperate Count John was also making promises to Philip for the latter’s continuing support now that Richard was on the loose.

    The French king opened his 1194 campaign by besieging the strong castle of Verneuil. The garrison had withstood a siege in 1193, and as a second besieging force approached, its confident defenders defiantly drew a rather unflattering caricature of Philip on the gates. By then, Philip was aware that Richard was preparing to return to France and that it was important he take Verneuil before the war proper began.

    Once Richard arrived at Barfleur, he was soon on the move toward Verneuil. On the way, John arrived and groveled for forgiveness. Richard, who viewed his brother’s treacherous efforts as contemptible, told him, Don’t be afraid, you are a child. To prove his worth, the 28-year-old John then went with men to Evreux, pretending still to support Philip. Once inside, he had the French garrison rounded up and massacred.

    In the meantime, Richard’s forces neared Verneuil. Philip had struck camp, moving off toward Evreux, which he would retake and then sack. He had left the bulk of his forces to continue the siege, but without their king they made a general withdrawal the next day. On May 30, Richard entered the town unopposed. He was reportedly so grateful for the defenders’ lack of resistance that he lined them up and kissed each one in thanks. (Historian Jim Bradbury would later ponder whether they appreciated their reward.)

    While Philip centered his energies on the north without making much headway, Richard focused on the south, taking a series of fortresses, including Loches in Touraine. Following those successes, he turned his attention to restoring order to Aquitaine.

    By now, Philip was concerned enough to gather and march his army south to relieve pressure on his allies there and to unstitch Richard’s recent victories. By early July, Richard, aware that Philip’s forces were nearing, confidently decided to commit his forces to a set-piece battle in the Vêndome, across the road that Philip would have to travel on his way into the Loire Valley.

    Philip sent Richard word that he would do battle, but in reality he had ordered a retreat back the way his army had come. Richard pursued, and on July 4 caught up with the French rear guard at Fréteval. Philip’s army was put to flight after a sharp skirmish, and the French king only narrowly avoided capture. As it was, Philip’s baggage train fell into Angevin hands. It contained the royal archives, including a list of those willing to aid him against Richard within the Angevin camp. But although he was forced to leave Richard to his own devices in the south, Philip was far from finished.

    Ups and Downs
    Philip rushed back to Normandy and, in a reversal of his recent defeat, pounced on the forces of Count John and William d’Aubigny, Earl of Arundel, and seized their baggage train. Despite that last-minute success, the pace of campaigning at such a fast and furious rate was stretching Philip’s resources to the extreme. The same could be said for Richard, who was now sending out peace feelers, a move that culminated in the temporary Truce of Tillières. There was also the prospect of a more permanent peace, to be sealed with Richard’s niece’s marrying Philip’s son Louis, with the Vexin, the castellanies of Ivry, Pacy and Vernon, and 20,000 marks as a dowry. That last point was put aside until more detailed talks could be arranged.

    Major conflict resumed in 1195, when Philip besieged Vaudreuil and then received a visit from Richard for further discussion. Etiquette at the time demanded that Philip halt the siege and deal with Richard, but the French king was keen to knock out Vaudreuil as a defensible position and urged his sappers to continue undermining its fortifications. It was therefore most embarrassing for Philip that one of the mighty walls collapsed prematurely while face-to-face negotiations were underway. Along with a good number of oaths, Richard swore he would have his revenge and stormed off.

    Philip retired to attack northeastern Normandy. That campaign culminated in a memorable raid on Dieppe, in which Philip’s forces employed a substance like Greek fire to burn the English ships in the harbor. Richard tried to attack the French rear guard, but this time was driven off.

    Following his Normandy successes, Philip aimed his efforts southward in the Berry region. Richard’s top mercenary commander, Mercadier, had captured Issoudun, and Philip wanted it back. The French king took the town and was besieging the castle when Richard and his vanguard stormed through French lines and made their way in to reinforce the garrison. Philip may have thought he now had Richard trapped, but the English king had given specific instructions before making his daring break-in to have his main forces close in and cut Philip’s supply lines. The French king realized his predicament at the last moment and was forced to agree to terms for a new truce at the start of 1196.

    Second Phase
    The warfare in 1196 and 1197 was short and sharp, but lower key. At first things did not seem to be going the Lionheart’s way. He had to attend to problems in Brittany, while at about that time his nephew and designated heir, Arthur of Brittany, was smuggled into Philip’s hands. This was a major blow — should Richard fail to sire a son, the Angevin empire would now be inherited by John.

    Philip then won the Siege of Aumale, which Richard had tried unsuccessfully to relieve. Later, at the Siege of Gaillon, Richard was wounded by a crossbow bolt, putting him out of action for more than a month. Richard did have some diplomatic success in October 1196 he ended a 40-year war with Toulouse by marrying his sister Joan off to Count Raymond of Toulouse.

    Richard was also building a majestic and powerful castle at Les Andelys-sur-Seine. Calling it Château Gaillard, Richard took two years and the then-immense sum of 11,500 pounds sterling to erect the castle, but he was so happy with the results that he confidently declared he could defend it even if its walls were made of butter. Les Andelys was not, however, a defensive bastion but an offensive one. It would become the base camp for Richard’s campaign to retake the lands that he had lost in Normandy.

    Richard was keen to knock out one of Philip’s key allies, the count of Flanders, now Baldwin IX, and he managed this through a trade embargo. Flanders, one of Europe’s workshops, had far too many mouths to feed for the amount of land available it had always imported grain from England to overcome the danger of starvation. The principal economy of the region, weaving, also relied heavily on English wool.

    With English grain and wool slashed from the Flemish economy, Baldwin was under a great deal of pressure to come over to the Angevin side. As well as a stick — the embargo — Richard also offered a carrot: the promise of full payment in arrears of Baldwin’s English pension and the gift of 5,000 marks. In 1197 the count of Flanders switched his allegiance to Richard.

    Philip Outplayed
    Richard had a major success on an unexpected front in 1198 when the Holy Roman emperor, Henry VI, died, leaving a 3-year-old heir. In his place the German electors of the empire settled on Otto of Brunswick — Richard’s nephew. With the empire and the coalition of Rhineland supporters backing him, Richard was in a good position to not only pressure Philip but also grab the pope’s attention. In addition, Richard had obtained support from the count of Boulogne and many other Norman lords who were again switching sides, hoping to back the likeliest winner.

    Philip launched his campaign of 1198 with an extensive attack on the Vexin, reportedly sacking and burning 18 settlements. He was pushed back, however, and with Baldwin launching an attack into the Artois, Philip’s attention was distracted from fighting Richard.

    On September 27, Richard’s forces struck into the Vexin, taking Courcelles-Chaussy and Boury before returning to Dangu. Philip, back in the region, mistakenly believed that Courcelles-Chaussy was still holding out and rode with 300 knights and sergeants to its relief. Mercadier and a local knight witnessed the French leaving and reported to Richard. Characteristically, the English king called for an immediate attack. Once again the French army was surprised and started to flee toward the nearest place of refuge — Gisors. Bunched together, the French knights and Philip attempted to cross the Epte River on a bridge that promptly collapsed under their weight. According to Anglo-Norman chroniclers, the French king drank of the river before being pulled out. About 18 of his knights drowned, but the bulk of his men made it to Gisors, a position far too strong for Richard to consider storming or besieging with the forces at his disposal.

    Philip soon regrouped his army and raided Normandy anew, again targeting Evreux. Richard countered Philip’s offensive with a counterattack in the Vexin, while Mercadier led a raid on Abbeville.

    By the fall of 1198, Richard had regained almost all that had been lost in 1193, and his power base and alliances seemed stronger than ever. To strive for a more permanent peace, Philip offered Richard the return of all the territories he had taken except Gisors. Richard refused to contemplate a separate peace without Count Baldwin being included, so a truce was arranged and a date set for further talks.

    End Game
    In mid-January 1199, a boat approached the bank of the Seine River. Standing proudly on the deck was Richard the Lionheart, while waiting on the riverbank was Philip. Two of Europe’s most powerful men spent their last meeting together shouting terms to one another, and although they could not conclude a permanent truce, they did agree to further mediation. Those further discussions yielded a five-year halt in hostilities.

    With peace secured, Richard was able to refocus his efforts on bringing internal order to the south of the Angevin empire. One permanent thorn in his side had been the counts of Angoulème and Limoges.

    It is part of Richard’s mythology that in March 1199 he attacked Achard, the lord of Chalus (vassal of the count of Limoges), because of buried treasure. The accepted account says that Achard’s men had discovered hidden loot, Roman perhaps, and had delivered it to their master. Protocol dictated that Achard send some of the wealth to the count of Limoges as well as to Richard, his supreme overlord. Achard left Richard out of the cut. When Richard found out that a vast hoard of wealth had been discovered and he had been deprived of his share, he launched an invasion. His death at Chalus — a small castle defended by no more than 40 men — was viewed by French chroniclers with glee. They saw the hunt for treasure and his death as proof that God was displeased with his avarice and lust for power.

    Anglo-Norman chroniclers also blamed Richard’s lust for gold. His death while hunting treasure was described as divine justice. But the crux of their accounts was the moral dimension: Richard pardoned his killer and then asked for forgiveness from God for his own sins. The Lionheart’s behavior just before death was underlined as the paradigm of Christian behavior and the action of a legendary Crusader king. Mercadier, his loyal mercenary, had no such chivalrous proclivities. After Richard died, Mercadier had the hapless crossbowman who had struck Richard flayed to death and the rest of Chalus’ defenders hanged.

    Fact has become irrevocably mixed with fiction. Bernard of Itier, a monk in the Benedictine abbey of St. Martial in Limoges, recorded that Richard’s objective was to destroy the count of Limoges’ castles and towns, and did not mention treasure. On March 26, Richard had gone out virtually unarmed to view the progress of the sappers’ work. Various names of the defender who wounded the king have been given, but Bernard of Itier stated that Pierre Basile, after parrying a number of besiegers’ arrows with a gigantic frying pan, fired his crossbow at Richard. The English king was so impressed that he applauded the man’s courage before ducking — but he did so too late, and the crossbow bolt lodged between his neck and shoulder.

    Riding confidently back to his tent, Richard sought medical attention. A surgeon who tried to extricate the bolt botched the job and was described as a butcher by the chronicler Roger of Howden. Gangrene set in, and Richard was much too experienced a campaigner to believe he might recover. He may well have forgiven the man who shot him, but he certainly called for the Queen Mother, Eleanor, to come to his bedside. On April 6, 1199, he died in the arms of his mother, who mourned him, saying, I have lost the staff of my age, the light of my eyes.

    Had Richard the Lionheart lived, war with Philip would have probably resumed sooner rather than later. The English king would probably have worked his way like a steamroller onto Philip’s lands and forced a settlement in his own favor. That, however, remains speculation. If anyone could turn the tide of war against Richard it was Philip, the man who had managed until 1198 to keep the war mainly inside the English king’s territories.

    When Philip faced Richard’s successor, the story was a different matter — King John was simply not up to the job of defeating this wily and experienced campaigner. Indeed, John failed so abysmally (even discounting bad luck) that by the time Philip died in 1223, the French king had achieved his longed-for goal: He had shattered the Angevin empire that Richard had fought like a lion to maintain. By outlasting the Lionheart, Philip II went down in French annals as Philip Augustus, while Richard’s hapless successor earned the sobriquet of John Lackland.

    This article was written by Simon Rees and originally published in the September 2006 issue of Military History magazine. For more great articles be sure to subscribe to Military History magazine today!

    Combermere Abbey

    The Cotton family owned Combermere Abbey from the Dissolution of the Monasteries until 1919. The family originated in north Shropshire, with many familial links in that county, and may, perhaps, have been Anglo-Saxon rather than Norman.

    The surname Cotton could well pre-date the Norman invasion. It is probably related to the Anglo-Saxon word ‘cotum’ from which cottage is derived. As a place name, a version of it appears in Nottinghamshire, North Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, and Northamptonshire. There are two places in Shropshire called Coton the more relevant of these is a hamlet near Wem – which is undoubtedly the home of the earliest known Cottons. With one ‘T’ the place name is correctly pronounced ‘Coe-Ton’, which confirms its Anglo Saxon origin (ton being a homestead or small village).

    ‘Coton in Wem’ is mentioned in Domesday Book (spelled ‘Cote’), and its ownership had passed from a un-named Anglo-Saxon to the Norman lord William Pantulf, Baron of Wem (or Wemme), as a tenant of the prominent Norman, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Coton was in the hundred of Hodnet, which is why, when members of the Cotton family are said to be from Hodnet, they might be – more precisely – from Coton. In Domesday Coton comprised eight households and had a taxation value of two gelds. Its value to its lord in 1066 was said to be four shillings, and in 1086 it was worth double that.

    There is a Coton Hall just west of the B5476, which was mentioned in Domesday Book. Nowadays there is a Coton Hall Cricket Club.

    Certainly, neither the name Cotton nor any obvious variation of it appears in the list of Norman knights present at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. All Anglo-Saxon land holdings were seized by the conquerors, and there is no evidence of Cottons owning land prior to Sir George Cotton being gifted Combermere after the Dissolution. They might have owned land in Coton, and possibly Coton Hall, or – more likely – held land as sub-tenants, especially if they were of Anglo-Saxon rather than Norman descent.

    The family members are recorded as being in a very small number of places between the middle of the Thirteenth century and the middle of the Sixteenth primarily Hodnet (possibly meaning Coton, as stated above), but also Rudheath, south of Northwich, in Cheshire. It is possible that apart from one excursion in Cheshire the family lives and died in a tiny area for generations, as the vast majority of the population did.

    The furthest back we have been able to trace the Cottons who came to own Combermere is Hugh of Hodnet, who was born around 1255, during the reign of King Henry III. His wife, Elizabeth is noted as being a daughter of Hamon de Tittenleigh, who lived in Coton – which is both fascinating and very useful. This union may have given the family its name, possibly as a result of moving to the new father-in-law’s lands. The father’s name tells us conclusively that he was a Norman descent, and this may have been a union of the two cultures, two centuries after the Conquest.

    There is nothing remarkable about this. By this time the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons were considerably inter-bred. There is evidence of intermarriage between Anglo-Saxons and Normans very soon after the Conquest. Many Anglo-Saxons were pragmatic and accepted the fait accompli of the new rulers others must have regarded one over-lord as being very much the same as any other. Certainly many families made their peace with the Normans very quickly, which the invaders were often keen to accept – with a relatively small force in the country the fewer areas which had to be kept under martial law, the better.

    The situation in Cheshire and Shropshire was made rather different by the Anglo-Saxon revolt in the border counties a few years after the Conquest. Following rebellion in the north and east of England, and then in the south-west, the border shires rose up against the Normans. It should be borne in mind that the incomers had a far from easy time in subjugating the natives many Normans grew tired of the rebellions and returned to their own country, and under a less determined ruler than King William it was not impossible that the occupation would have been abandoned.

    The ‘Harrying of the North’ was King William’s response. He adopted an absolute scorched earth policy, burning homes and crops, and killing livestock. Huge numbers of Anglo-Saxons died of starvation, and even by the compilation of the Domesday Book twenty years after the invasion huge areas of the country, including most of Cheshire and Shropshire were described as ‘waste’ and were of very little value. Chester was briefly a stronghold of Anglo-Saxon resistance, before it was taken and razed by the Normans. This operation showed the invaders’ ferocity they undertook it ruthlessly, despite the fact that they were destroying what was now a source of their own wealth. It was two or three generations before both Anglo-Saxons and Normans could really begin cultivating much of the land again.

    So, the union of Hugh of Coton and Elizabeth de Tittenleigh in the second half of the Thirteenth century may have been the point where an otherwise obscure Anglo-Saxon family married well and thus were worth documenting. The first of many good marriages for the men of the Cotton line. Unfortunately no other reference to the de Tittenleighs can be found at present.

    Other families with the surname of Cotton emerged from the Cotons of Wem, particularly the Cotons of Bellaport (some of whom migrated to Nottinghamshire), but there is neither space nor time to concern ourselves with them.

    With just that one geographical change – Hugh Cotton (born circa 1335) being known as ‘of Rudheath’ (Rudheath is a village south of Northwich in Cheshire, sixty miles north of Cotton) – eight generations of Cottons lived in north Shropshire.

    One marriage of interest is that of Margery Cotton (died 1398) in 1364, daughter of Hugh Cotton of Rudheath, to Sir Hugh de Venables of Kinderton (or Kynderton), born circa 1330. Their eldest son, Richard (1365 – 1403), became Baron of Kinderton and his daughter Joan (circa 1384 – 1420) married into the Grosvenor family (Thomas). The Venables of Kinderton were based close to Rudheath.

    Hugh Cotton of Rudheath had no sons and the line passed to his younger brother, Richard. Richard seems to have lived to be 95 years old. He was recorded as being of ‘Coton in Shropshire’, and his son, Roger, married into the Grymelond family of Alkington, north of Wem halfway to Whitchurch. His son, William (born 1400), was also of Alkington.

    The family’s path through English history might have remained anonymous and provincial had it not been for the brothers George and Richard. They took the family on to a national stage as courtiers to both Henry VIII and his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond. Sir George and Sir Robert married sisters Mary and Jane Onsley (several spellings available) of Catesby Castle in Northamptonshire, daughters of John Onsley, who – interestingly, died on November 11 1537 at Cotton near Wem, and his wife Jane died at Albrighton in Shropshire (in either or both cases while visiting his daughter, perhaps?). Gifting Combermere Abbey, just a few miles to the north east, to Sir George Cotton in 1539 made geographical sense – and it rocketed the family up the social ladder. They were then major landowners and solid members of the gentry.

    John Cotton (1464 – 1558) is recorded as being of Alkington, and though the Tudor years were ones of great social mobility, it is unlikely that the brothers rose to national prominence from the very lowest levels of society. In some sources John is described as ‘gentleman’, suggested some level of social status, and it is likely that George and Richard were well educated. If the brothers’ in-laws visited Coton (and possibly died there) there must have been a family seat, and presumably one worth of gentle folk used to sleeping in a castle.

    There was a Ralph Cotton of Alkington, who married Jane Smith of Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire (daughter of one John Smith – unhelpfully) in the middle of the Sixteenth century. They had eleven children (Alan, Joan, Roger, Catherine, John, Ellen, unknown name, Margaret, Alice, William, and Eleanor), of whom the eldest was born in 1558, and became Sir Allan Cotton. He was recorded as being born in Whitchurch, and held the office of Lord Mayor of London 1625-6. At the time of his death in 1628 he was living in Edgware in London, and was buried in the church of Saint Martin Orgar in the City of London. His occupation was given as draper a very successful one, one imagines. He had thirteen children by his first wife, Eleanor More (daughter of Edmund More, or Moor, also a draper), and none by his second, Lucy. The last child of Allan and Eleanor was Sir Rowland Cotton. There is no obvious relationship with the Cottons of Combermere, but more research may uncover one.

    The earlier coats of arms, as seen in the coving in The Library at Combermere, created by the first Viscount may well be suspect and should be approached with a little caution. Some Victorian genealogists credit every head of the house of Coton with a knighthood, right back to Hugh Coton. These titles do not appear in other sources – only in volumes which were created for subscribers, and the temptation to aggrandise one’s subscribers’ ancestors might well have been one which the authors could not resist.

    There is a Cotton family in Suffolk which definitely dates back to the Normans – and beyond that to one Ivo Bellomontensis (1026 – 1059) of Cotentin in Normandy. The invading member of the family was John de Cotentin (1042 – 1105), who was born and died in Normandy (as was his wife, Marie de Normandie). Their surname derives from the place name, Cotentin, which is a peninsula near Cherbourg. There is no connection between the Suffolk Cottons and the Shropshire Cottons.

    BORN: Circa 1255
    MARRIED: Elizabeth de Tittenleigh (born circa 1270), daughter of Hamon de Tittenleigh (born circa 1240 at Coton in Shropshire)

    The joined arms of Cotton and Titley or Tittenleigh from the Nineteenth century coving in The Library at Combermere Abbey

    Alan de Cotton of Hodnet

    BORN: 1290
    DIED: 1320
    MARRIED: 1319, Margaret of Acton (born c. 1295), daughter of Roger Hellesby of Acton, born c. 1273. Possibly the Acton south west of Shrewsbury, but as to be likely the Acton just north of Nantwich.

    Hugh, heir
    Edmund, married Katherine (c. 1325 – ?) one child, William, married Agnes de Ridware

    BORN: c. 1313
    MARRIED: Isabel de Heyton (or Hayton)

    Arms of Cotton and Hayton. Haydon or Heyton

    Hugh, heir
    Perkin, married Margery

    Hugh Cotton of Rudheath

    BORN: c. 1335
    Margery, married Sir Hugh de Venables of Kinderton, four or six children
    HEIR: Richard, brother

    Richard Cotton of Coton in Shropshire

    BORN: 1368 at Alkington
    MARRIED: Elen (or Ellen) Grymelond (1373 – 1464), daughter of John Grymelond (1341 – ?) of Alkington, Shropshire
    CHILDREN: William

    BORN: 1400
    William, c. 1432-5 heir
    John (b c 1440 d aft 1483) of Alkington married Catherine Constantine

    BORN: c. 1432-5
    MARRIED: 1460, Agnes Yonge (or Young) of Caynton (1437 – 1524), daughter of Philip Yonge (1405 – 1491) and Agnes Bannerton (born 1410)

    BORN: 1464
    Lived in Alkington, Wem
    DIED: 1558
    MARRIED: Cecily Mainwaring ? – c. 1516

    The arms of Cotton and Mainwaring. The date of 1570, if it has any veracity, can only be the year of Cecily’s death.

    Sir Richard 1497 – 1556, heir, knighted, manor of Bedhampton, Hampshire, married Jane Onsley
    Sir George 1505 – 1545

    BORN: 1505
    OFFICE: Sheriff of Denbighshire.
    OFFICE: Esquire of the Body to King Henry VIII.
    DISTINCTION: Knighted.
    PROPERTY: Together with wife, was granted by the King, the abbey of Combermere, Cheshire 1542. Together with wife, was granted by the King, the manor of Wilkesley, Cheshire 1542. Together with wife, was granted by the King, the manor of Pulton, Cheshire 1543.
    DIED: 25.3.1545
    MARRIED: Mary Onsley of Catesby Castle, Northamptonshire.
    Winifred 1528 – ?
    Dorothy 1530 – 6.6.1608
    Elizabeth c. 1536 – 1593/4
    Richard (heir) 1539 – 14.6. 1602
    Mary ? – 16.11.1580 = Henry Grey, 6 th Earl of Kent (1541 – 31.1.1615). No issue

    Arms of Cotton and Ongley/Onsley

    Richard Cotton the portrait inset into the fire surround in The Library

    BIRTH: 1539 or 1540
    PROPERTY: Built the Combermere manor house, incorporating the remains of the Abbey, from 1563
    DIED: 1602
    MARRIED: Firstly, 6.1.1559 or 1560, Mary Mainwaring of Ightfield, Shropshire (1541 – 14.6.1578), daughter of Arthur Mainwaring of Ightfield (1525 – 1590) and Dorothea (nee Corbet)
    George 1560 – 1647 heir
    Arthur 1562 – 1649
    Mary 1563 – 1647
    Andrew 1564 – 1640
    Elizabeth 1566 – ?
    Winifred 1568 – ?
    Dorothy 1572 – 22.4.1647
    Frances c. 1573 – ? married George Abell, 1599
    MARRIED: Secondly, 14.6.1578. Jane or Joane Seyliard, c 1534 – c 1584. Daughter of William Seyliard of Chiddingstone, Kent.

    MARRIED: Thirdly, 1593, Philippa Dormer, born 1549 (widow of John Dormer)
    CHILDREN:Philip, born 1598
    Bridgett, born 1600

    BORN: 1560
    DISTINCTION: Esquire.
    RESIDENCE: Of Combermere
    PROBATE: Will dated 3 May 1647 codicil dated 17 Aug 1647.
    PROBATE: Named in the will of his brother-in-law, George ABELL.
    DIED: c 1647
    MARRIED: Mary Bromley of Shifnal c. 1569 – 1647, daughter of Sir George Bromley, Justice of Chester, and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Lacon

    The marital arms of the Cotton and Bromley families

    Elizabeth c. 1588 – 1647
    Martha c. 1590 – ?
    Dorothy c. 1592 – ?
    Frances c. 1594 – ?
    Judith c. 1596 – ?
    Anne c. 1598 – ?
    Grace c. 1602 – ?
    Joyce c. 1604 – ?
    Margaret c. 1605 – ?
    Thomas 1.8.1609 – c. 1646 heir

    BIRTH: 1609
    DISTINCTION: Esquire.
    RESIDENCE: Of Combermere
    DIED: c. 1646
    MARRIED: firstly, 10.11.1624 Frances Needham ? – c. 1629, daughter of Robert Needham, Viscount Kilmorey, born Great Budworth, Cheshire, died 1653

    George (heir apparent) c. 1625 – 1646 or 1647
    Mary c. 1627 – 1646
    Frances c. 1629 – ?
    MARRIED: secondly, 10.3.1635. Elizabeth Calveley of Lea, Cheshire, daughter of Sir George Calveley of Lea, and Mary Cholmondeley of Cholmondeley, 1.8.1609 – c. 1648

    Sir Robert Bt. (heir) 1635 – 17.2.1712
    Lieutenant-Colonel Charles, Coldstream Guards c.1637 – ?
    Lettice c. 1642 – c. 1710
    Thomas William

    BIRTH: c. 1625
    DISTINCTION: Esquire.
    RESIDENCE: Of Combermere
    DIED: c. 1646
    MARRIED: c. 1644. Mary Smith of Wybunbury, ? – c.1645
    Mary c. 1645 – ? = Captain Mainwaring of Nantwich
    Frances = Colonel Richard Fletcher of Morley, Cheshire

    Sir Robert Cotton, Baronet

    1635 – 1712
    BIRTH: Aged 77 years in 1712 at time of death
    DISTINCTION: Baronet, title created 29 Mar 1677 by Charles II. Previously knighted, 1660. MP for Cheshire 1679 – 1702.
    RESIDENCE: Of Combermere
    PROBATE: Will dated 30 Oct 1710 will proved 29 Dec 1712 DIED: 17.12.1712
    MARRIED: c. 1658. Hester Salusbury of Llewenny, Denbighshire ? – 1710. Sister and heiress of Sir John Salusbury, fourth baronet of Llewenny. Only daughter of Sir Thomas Salusbury, second baronet.

    Marital arms of Cotton and Salusbury

    Hester c. 1659 – c. 1690 = John Lacon of West Coppice, Shropshire
    Sidney (female) c. 1660 – ? = Nathanial Lee of Darnhall, Cheshire
    Anne c. 1661 – 22.8.1710 = Sir Thomas Taylor of Kellis, County Meath, Ireland
    Arabella c. 1662 – ? = Sir Henry Tichborne of Beaulieu, Dorst (later Lord Ferrard)
    John c. 1663. Died in infancy
    Hugh Calverley (heir apparent) c. 1665 – ? Did not inherit. Married c. 1689, Mary Russell of Laughharne, c. 1669 – ? Daughter of Sir William Russell. After Hugh’s death Mary married Lord Arthur, second son of Henry, Duke of Beaufort.
    Catherine c. 1691 – ? married Thomas Lewis of St Pierre, Monmouthshire.
    Penelope c. 1666 – c. 1710
    Robert c. 1667, died in infancy
    Jane c. 1669, died in infancy
    Jane c. c.1671 – c. 1710
    Sir Thomas Bt. Heir. C. 1672 – 12.6.1715
    George c. 1674 – 8.1.1702
    Catherine c. 1675, died in infancy
    Mary = Sir John Fowler of Harnage Grange, Shropshire
    Elizabeth ? – 5.5.1712 = Sir William Glegg of Gayton, Staffordshire
    Charlotte c. 1682 – ? unmarried

    Sir Thomas Cotton, Baronet

    c. 1672 – 1715
    RESIDENCE: Llewenny, Denbighshire.
    DISTICTION: Second Baronet. Inherited following the death of his his elder brother, Hugh, date unknown
    PROBATE: Will dated 24 May 1715 will proved 11 Jul 1715
    DIED: 12.6.1715 Dean’s Yard, Westminster, Middlesex, England
    MARRIED: 1689. Philadelphia Lynch, 5.5.1675 – 30.12.1758, daughter and heiress of Sir Sir Thomas Lynch of Esher, Surrey, Governor of Jamaica, Attorney-General to King Charles I, and Lord Keeper of the Great Seal

    The joined arms of Cotton and Lynch

    Thomas Salusbury. Heir apparent. c. 1691 – 1710
    Henry c. 1692. Died young.
    Anne c. 1693 Died young
    Sir Robert Salusbury. Heir. 1695 – 27.8.1748
    Philadelphia 19.3.1698 – ? = Thomas Boycott of Hinton, Shropshire
    Stephen Salusbury 1700 – 1727
    Hugh Calveley, c. 1701 – 24.6.1702
    John Salusbury 1708 – 1730
    Sophia c. 1704 – c. 1756 unmarried
    Sir Lynch Salusbury. Heir. c. 1706 – 14.8.1775
    Hester Maria c. 1707 – 20.8.1733 = John Salusbury of Bachecraig, Flint (see appendix)
    Sidney Arabella female, c. 1709 – 30.1.1781 unmarried
    George Calveley c. 1710 – 1715
    William Salusbury c. 1712 – c. 1715
    Vere female, c. 1713 – 23.9.1730
    Henry Salusbury c. 1714 – ?, died young

    Sir Robert Salusbury Cotton, Baronet

    1695 – 1748
    KINSHIP: Son and heir.
    CHRISTENED: 2.1.1695. St. Margaret’s, Westminster, Middlesex, England
    DISTINCTION: Third Baronet
    RESIDENCE: Combermere
    RESIDENCE: Llewenny
    DISTINCTION: Baronet
    PROBATE: Will dated 15 Aug 1745 will proved 14 Jan 1749
    DIED: 27 Aug 1748. Buried in Wrenbury church
    MARRIED: c. 1720, Lady Elizabeth Tollemache, 1682 – 16.8.1745, of Hellingham, Suffolk. Daughter of Lionel Tollemache, third Earl of Dysart.
    CHILDREN: None

    Sir Lynch Salusbury Cotton, Baronet

    1706 – 1775
    KINSHIP: Brother and heir of Sir Robert Cotton, Baronet.
    BIRTH: c. 1706
    RESIDENCE: Of Llewenny
    DISTINCTION: Fourth Baronet, after brother Sir Robert Salusbury’s death in 1748
    PROBATE: Will dated 12 May 1775 will proved 20 Sep 1775
    DIED: 14 Aug 1775
    MARRIED: Circa 1738, Elizabeth Abigail Cotton 1714 – 4.1.1777 daughter of Rowland Cotton of Bellaport, Shropshire and Etwell, Derbyshire, born c. 1669.

    The Cotton and Cotton arms, bring together two branches of the family

    Elizabeth, married Colonel Thomas Davenant (1782) of Drayton, father of Sir Corbet Corbet (married Elizabeth’s sister, Hester below)
    Philadelphia 1738 – 1819. Married Henry Shelley of Lewes, Sussex

    The arms of Cotton and Shelley in The Library. The date of 1596 makes no sense in the chronology of the Cottons of Combermere

    Sir Robert Salusbury, heir. 1739 – 24.8.1809
    Mary c. 1740, married Reverend Finch
    Lynch Salusbury c. 1742 – c. 1772
    William c. 1774 – 1781, died unmarried
    Very Reverend George c. 1745 – 10.12.1805. Dean of Chester. Married Catherine Maria, eldest daughter of James Tomkinson of Dorfold Hall, Nantwich
    Captain Richard c. 1746 – 1781 Died in action, Camden, USA. Married 1734. No known children.
    John c. 1748 – ? died young
    Vice-Admiral Rowland c. 1750 – 30.11.1794. Married Elizabeth Aston of Aston, Lancashire, daughter of Sir Willoughby Aston. Vice-Admiral Rowland Cotton and Elizabeth were the parents of Sir Willoughby Cotton, 1783 – 1860, Commander of the forces in Jamaica 1829–1834, Lieutenant, Governor of Plymouth 1835–1840, Commander of the Bengal Army 1838–1840, Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army 1847–1850. KCB 1838. GCB 1840, General from 1854. Knight Commander, Hanover Order, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, Military General Service Medal with 3 Clasps (Burgos, Vittoria, Nive), Army of India Medal with AVA clasp, Ghuznee Medal, Order of the Dooranee Empire. Participated in the Peninsular War, Waterloo Campaign, First Anglo–Burmese War, Great Jamaican Slave Revolt, First Anglo-Afghan War. Married Lady Augusta Maria (1806), daughter of the Earl of Coventry. Children: Augusta Mary (married Henry Vaughn Brooke), Willoughby Cotton (1807 – 1846), probably unmarried, died childless.
    Henry Calveley Cotton 1750 – 15.5.1837. Married to Matilda (daughter and heiress of John Lockwood of Dews Hall, Essex), died 1848. Had two sons: Robert (died 1824), Rowland (died 1823). Acquired Adderley Hall, Shropshire from Sir Corbet Corbet.
    Salusbury c. 1751 – ?
    Hester Salusbury 6.2.1753 – ?. Married Sir Corbet Davenant, later Corbet Corbet, Baronet Of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, 1772, at Wrenbury. Son of Colonel Thomas Davenant of Pembridge, Herefordshire, and Anne Corbet (second wife) of Stoke-on-Tern, Shropshire. Sir Corbet took mother’s surname. Anne was daughter of Sir Robert Corbet c. 1670 – 1740.
    Thomas. Married, 1779, Mary Atwick, daughter and co-heiress of William Atwick of Middlesex.

    Sir Robert Salusbury Cotton, Baronet

    1739 – 1809
    KINSHIP: Son and heir.
    BIRTH: 1739
    DISTINCTION: Fifth Baronet
    RESIDENCE: Combermere
    RESIDENCE: Llewenny
    DIED: 24.8.1809, Combermere Abbey
    MARRIED: 1767, Frances Stapleton of Bodrhyddan, Ruthin, Denbighshire (died 1825). Daughter and co-heiress of Colonel James Russell Stapleton of Bodrhydden, Flint.
    Robert Salusbury 11.9.1768 – 1809
    Frances 1769 – 1818. Married, 10.1.1792, Robert Needham, Viscount Kilmorey, 1746 – 1818, son of John Needham, Viscount Kilmorey, 1710 or 1711- 29.5.1791
    Penelope 31.12.1770 – 1786
    Hester Maria 1772 – 20.3.1845
    Field-Marshal Sir Stapleton Stapleton-Cotton, Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore 14.11.1773 at Llewenny – 21.2.1865 at Clifton, Bristol
    Reverend William ? – 16.8.1853
    Sophia c. 1777 – 24.5.1838, married Sir Henry Mainwaring of Over Peover, Cheshire.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Lynch c. 1780 – 1808 in India. Married Louisa Margaret (who secondly married General Sir William Lumley KC)..

    Cotton family coats of arms in the nave at Wrenbury church.

    Field-Marshal Sir Stapleton Stapleton-Cotton, Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore

    Stapleton Cotton, first Viscount Combermere

    1773 – 1865
    BORN: 14 Nov 1773 Llewenny Hall
    SURNAME: Took the surname of STAPLETON before that of COTTON by Royal licence, 21 Nov 1827.
    KINSHIP: 2nd but 1st surviving son and heir.
    EDUCATION: Admitted Westminster School, 1785-1789 Hon, D.C.L. of Oxford, 1830.
    MILITARY: 2nd Lieutenant – 23rd Regiment Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 1790 Lieutenant, 1791 Captain – 6th Dragoon Guards, 1793 Major, 1794 Lieutenant-Colonel – 25th Light Dragoons, 1794 Colonel – army Lieutenant-Colonel, 16th Light Dragoons, 1800 Major-General, 1805 Lieutenant-General, 1812 General, 1825 in command of the whole allied Cavalry, 1811-1814 Colonel – 20th Light Dragoons, 1813-1818 Colonel – 3rd Light Dragoons, 1821-1829 Colonel – 1st regiment of Life Guards and Gold Stick, 1829-1865 Field Marshall, 1855.
    MILITARY: Served in Flandersat Prémont and Catteau, 1793-1794 commanded his regiment at the Cape of Good Hope 1796-1797 served against Tippoo Sahib at Malavelly, and at the siege of Seringapatam, 1799 in command of a Brigade in the Peninsula, 1809 when in command of the 1st division of calvary he covered the retreat to Torres Vedras, 1809 as 2nd in command under Wellington, he led the charge at Salamanca, to victory, 1812 fought at the great victory of Toulouse, 1814 in command of the allied Cavalry in France, 1815 till the end of 1816 Commander in Chief in the East Indies, where he restored the English supremacy by his gallant capture of Bhurtpore, 1825.
    OFFICE: Member of Parliament (Tory) for Newark, 1809.
    OFFICE: Governor and Commander in Chief of Barbados, 1817-1820.
    OFFICE: Governor of Sheerness, 1821-1852.
    OFFICE: Commander in Chief, 1822-1825.
    OFFICE: Privy Councillor, 1822.
    OFFICE: 2nd member of the India Council, 1825-1829.
    OFFICE: Privy Councillor, 1834.
    OFFICE: Constable of the Tower of London and Lord Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets, 1852-1865.
    ACHIEVEMENTS: For his signal services at Talavera, 28 Jul 1809, he received the thanks of Parliament for leading the victorious charge at Salamanca, he again received the thanks of Parliament, 1812.
    MEDALS AND AWARDS: A medal for his service in battle gold cross with clasp, silver medal with three clasps for his military service in battle.
    HONORS: Knight of the Bath, nominated, 1812 Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, 1815 Knight Grand Cross of the Hanoverian Order, 1817 Knight Companion of the Order of the Star of India, 1861
    HONORS: Knight of the Grand Cross, of the Tower and Sword of Portugal, 1813 of St. Ferdinand of Spain and of Charles III of Spain.
    TITLES: Succeeded father in 1809 as sixth Baronet.
    TITLES: Created Baron Combermere, 1814 created Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, 1827
    RESIDENCE: Combermere from 1809.
    FINANCES: A pension of £2,000 per year to him and his two successors.
    DIED: 21 Feb 1865, Colchester House, Clifton, Gloucestershire, England. Buried in Wrenbury church
    MARRIAGE: Firstly, 1801, Anne-Marie Pelham-Clinton of Clifton, Bristol, 29.7.1783 – 31.5.1807

    Robert Henry Stapleton-Cotton, heir apparent, 19.1.1802 at Galway, Ireland – 13.2.1821. Died unmarried.
    MARRIAGE: Secondly, 18.6.1814 at Lambeth Palace, Caroline, daughter of William Fulke Greville of Dover, Kent. Couple lived apart from 1830 until her death in 1837.

    Caroline Frances 1815 (Malmaison, France) – 10.5.1893. Married, 1837, Arthur Hill, Lord Hillsborough, son and heir of the Marquis of Downshire.
    Wellington Henry Stapleton, heir, second Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore. 24.11.1818 at Bridgetown, Barbados – 1.12.1891 in London. Married Susan Alice, daughter of Sir George Sitwell.
    Meloria Emily Ann ? – 18.9.1897. Married, 1853, John Charles Frederick Hunter of Straidarran, County Londonderry.
    MARRIAGE: Thirdly, on 2.10.1838, Mary Woolley Gibbings of Kilbolane, County Cork, Ireland 1799 – 1889 (died in Bedford)
    CHILDREN: None

    Wellington Henry Stapleton-Cotton, second Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore

    The second Viscount Combermere

    1818 – 1891
    BORN: 24 Nov 1818, Bridgetown, St. Michael, Barbados, Windward Islands, Lesser Antilles, West Indies
    KINSHIP: Only surviving son and heir, being by 2nd wife.
    EDUCATION: Eton matriculated at Oxford (Christ Church), 1837.
    MILITARY: Entered the army Captain – 1st Life Guards, 1846 Secretary to the Master General of the Ordnance, 1852 Colonel – army, 1861 retired, 1866.
    OFFICE: Member of Parliament (Conservative), for Carrickfergus, Ireland 1847-1857.
    TITLES: Succeeded father, in 1865, as Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, title created 1827 as Baron Combermere, title created 1814 as a Baronet, title created 29 Mar 1677.
    DIED: 1 Dec 1891, St. James’s Place, Westminster, London, England. Buried at Wrenbury church.
    PROBATE: Will dated 30 Nov 1887 codicil dated 20 Feb 1888 will proved 17 Feb 1892
    MARRIED: At Eckington, Derbyshire, 29,7.1844, Susan Alice Sitwell of Derbyshire 1819 – 12.8.1869, daughter of Sir George Sitwell, Bt.
    Robert Wellington Stapleton, third Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, 16.6.1845 – 20.2.1898. Married, 1866, Charlotte Anne, daughter of Jacob Fletcher of Peel Hall, Lancashire divorced 1879.
    Caroline Susan Mary 1.11.1846 – 28.81916. Married Lieutenant-Colonel Cecil Lennox Peel, of Easthampstead, Berkshire on 3.12.1867, 18.4.1830 – 27.4.1910. Only son of Lawrence Peel and Jane Lennox.
    Hester Alice 5.5.1851 on Anglesey – 17.3.1930. Married Alexander Victor Paget 25.4.1839 – 26.10.1896 on 26.8.1880. His heir, third of four children, was Charles Henry Paget, sixth Marquess of Anglesey of Plas Newydd, Anglesey.
    Colonel Richard Southwell George, 9.10.1849 – 24.11.1925. Colonel in the Scots Guards. Married, 1870, Honourable Jane Methuen, daughter of Frederick, second Baron Methuen of Corsham.

    Robert Wellington Stapleton-Cotton, third Viscount Combermere

    1845 – 1898
    BORN: 16.6.1845, Upper Grosvenor Street, Westminster, Middlesex,
    KINSHIP: 1st son and heir.
    EDUCATION: Eton.
    TITLES: Succeeded father, in 1891, as Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, title created 1827 as Baron Combermere, title created 1814 as a Baronet, title created 29 Mar 1677.
    DIED: 20.2.1898, 11 Duchess Street, Marylebone.
    BURIED: Wrenbury church
    PROBATE: Will dated 3 Feb 1890 codicil dated 1 Feb 1898 will proved 10 May 1898
    MARRIED: Firstly, on 2.8.1866, Charlotte Anne Ellis-Fletcher of Deans, Lancashire. Divorced 20.11.1879
    Madeline c.1870 – ?
    Cecil c 1879 – ?
    MARRIED: Secondly, on 22.6.1880, Isabel Marian Chetwynd of Grendon, Warwickshire, daughter of Sir George Chetwynd, Bt. 10.2.1851 – 17.9.1930
    Francis Lynch Wellington, heir, 29.6.1887 – 8.2.1969

    Francis Lynch Wellington Stapleton-Cotton, fourth Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore

    Francis Lynch Wellington Stapleton-Cotton

    1887 – 1969
    BORN: 29 Jun 1887, Dover
    KINSHIP: Only son and heir, by 2nd wife.
    EDUCATION: Harrow.
    TITLES: Succeeded father, in 1898, as Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, title created 1827 as Baron Combermere, title created 1814 as a Baronet, title created 29 Mar 1677.
    RESIDENCE: Sold Combermere Abbey to Sir Kenneth Crossley 1919
    DIED: 8.2.1969
    MARRIED: Firstly, on 30.10.1913, Hazel Louisa Agnew (daughter of Henry de Courcy Agnew) dissolved 1916
    Married: Secondly, 1927, Constance Mary Katherine Drummond ? – 29.6.1968
    Michael Wellington, heir, 8.8.1929 – 3.11.2000
    Michael Peter Dudley 6.3.1932 –

    Michael Wellington Stapleton-Cotton, 5 th Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore

    1929 – 2000
    BORN: 8 Aug 1929
    KINSHIP: 1st son and heir.
    EDUCATION: Eton King’s College, London.
    TITLES: Succeeded father, in 1969, as Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, title created 1827 as Baron Combermere, title created 1814 as a Baronet, title created 29 Mar 1677.
    DIED: 3 Nov 2000
    MARRIED: 4.2.1961, Pamela, Elizabeth Jill Coulson
    Tara Christabel 21 Nov 1961 –
    Sophia Mary 20.7.1963 –
    Thomas Robert Wellington, heir, 30.8.1969 –

    Thomas Robert Wellington Stapleton-Cotton, 6th Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore

    1969 –
    BORN: 30.8.1969
    Succeeded father, in 2000, as Viscount Combermere of Bhurtpore, title created 1827 as Baron Combermere, title created 1814 as a Baronet, title created 29 Mar 1677.
    MARRIED: June 2005, Caroline Sarah Irby 21.5.1977 –
    Laszlo Michael Wellington, heir, 20.8.2010 –
    Elodie 15.12.2012 –


    No sphere of religious activity is held in greater esteem among the Jesuits than that of the foreign missions and from the beginning, men of the highest gifts, like St. Francis Xavier, have been devoted to this work. Hence perhaps it is that a better idea may be formed of the Jesuits missions by reading the lives of its great missionaries, which will be found under their respective names (see the Index), than from the following notice, in which attention has to be confined to general topics.


    When the Society began, the great colonizing powers were Spain and Portugal. The career of St. Francis Xavier, so far as its geographical direction and limits were concerned, was largely determined by the Portuguese settlements in the East, and by the trade routes followed by the Portuguese merchants. Arriving at Goa in 1542, he evangelized first the western coast and Ceylon in 1545 he was in Malacca in 1549 in Japan. At the same time he pushed forward his few assistants and catechists into other centers, and in 1552 set out for China, but died at the year's end on an island off the coast. Xavier's work was carried on, with Goa as headquarters, and Father Barzaeus as successor. Father Antonio Criminali, the first martyr of the Society had suffered in 1549 and Father Mendez followed in 1552. In 1559, Blessed Rudolph Acquiviva visited the court of Akbar the Great, but without permanent effect. The great impulse of conversions came after Ven. Robert de Nobili declared himself a Brahmin Sannjasi and lived the life of the Brahmins (1606). At Tanjore and elsewhere he now made immense numbers of converts, who were allowed to keep the distinctions of their caste, with many religious customs which, however, were eventually (after much controversy) condemned by Benedict XIV in 1744. This condemnation produced a depressing effect on the mission, though at the very time Fathers Lopez and Acosta with singular heroism devoted themselves for life to the service of the Pariahs. The Suppression of the Society, which followed soon after, completed the desolation of a once prolific missionary field. (See MALABAR RITES.) From Goa too were organized missions to the east coast of Africa. The Abyssinian mission, under Father Nunhes, Oviedo, and Paes lasted, with various fortunes, over a century 1555-1690 (See Abyssinia, I, 76). The mission on the Zambesi under Father Silviera, Acosta, and Fernandez was but short lived so too was the work of Father Govea in Angola. In the seventeenth century, the missionaries penetrated into Tibet, Fathers Desideri and Freyre reaching Lhasa. Others pushed out in the Persian mission, from Ormus as far as Ispahan. About 1700 the Persian missions counted 400,000 Catholics. The southern and eastern coasts of India, with Ceylon, were comprised after 1610 in the separate province of Malabar, with an independent French mission at Pondicherry. Malabar numbered forty-seven missionaries (Portuguese) before the Suppression, while the French missions counted 22. (See HANXLEDEN).


    The Japanese mission (see Japan, VIII, 306) gradually developed into a province, but the seminary and seat of government remained at Macao. By 1582, the number of Christians was estimated at 200,000, with 250 churches, and 59 missionaries, of whom 23 were priests, and 26 Japanese had been admitted to the Society. But 1587 saw the beginnings of persecution, and about the same period began the rivalries of nations and of competing orders. The Portuguese crown had been assumed by Spain, and Spanish merchants introduced Spanish Dominicans and Franciscans. Gregory XIII at first forbade this (28 January, 1585) but Clement VIII and Paul V (12 December, 1600 11 June 1608) relaxed and repealed the prohibition, and the persecution of Taico-sama quenched in blood whatever discontent might have arisen in consequence. The first great slaughter of 26 missionaries at Nagasaki took place on 5 Feb., 1597. Then came fifteen years of comparative peace, and gradually the number of Christians rose to about 1,800,000 and the Jesuit missionaries to 140 (63 priests). In 1612, the persecution broke out again, increasing in severity until 1622, when over 120 martyrs suffered. The "great martyrdom" took place on 20 September, when Blessed Charles Spinola suffered with representatives of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. For the twenty ensuing years, the massacre continued without mercy, all Jesuits who landed being at once executed. In 1644 Father Gaspar de Amaral was drowned in attempting to land, and his death brought to a close the century of missionary effort which the Jesuits had made to bring the faith to Japan. The name of the Japanese province was retained, and it counted 57 subjects in 1660 but the mission was really confined to Tonkin and Cochin-China, whence stations were established in Annam, Siam, etc. (see Indo-China, VII, 774-5 Martyrs, Japanese).


    A detailed account of this mission from 1552-1773 will be found under CHINA (III, 672-4) and Martyrs in MARTYRS IN CHINA, and in lives of the missionaries Bouvet, Brancati, Carneiro, Cibot, Fridelli, Gaubil, Gerbillon, Herdtrich, Hinderer, Mailla, Martini, Matteo Ricci, Schall von Bell, and Verbiest (qq.v.). From 1581, when the mission was organized, it consisted of Portuguese Fathers. They established four colleges, one seminary and some forty stations under a vice-provincial who resided frequently at Pekin at the Suppression there were 54 Fathers. From 1687 there was a special mission of the French Jesuits to Pekin, under their own superior at the Suppression they numbered 23.

    Central and South America

    The missions of Central and South America were divided between Portugal and Spain (see America, I, 414). In 1549, Father Numbrega and five companions, Portuguese, went to Brazil. Progress was slow at first, but when the languages had been learnt, and the confidence of the natives acquired, progress became rapid. Blessed Ignacio de Azevedo and his thirty-one companions were martyred on their way thither in 1570. The missions, however, prospered steadily under such leaders as José Anchieta and John Almeida (qq.v.) (Meade). In 1630, there were 70,000 converts. Before the Suppression, the whole country had been divided into missions, served by 445 Jesuits in Brazil, and 146 in the vice-province of Maranhão.


    Of the Spanish missions, the most noteworthy is Paraguay (see Guarani Indians Abipones Argentine Republic Reductions of Paraguay). The province contained 584 members (of whom 385 were priests) before the Suppression, with 113,716 Indians under their charge.


    Even larger than Paraguay was the missionary province of Mexico, which included California, with 572 Jesuits and 122,000 Indians. (See also CALIFORNIA MISSIONS MEXICO AÑAZCO CLAVIGERO DÍAZ DUCRUE etc.) The conflict as to jurisdiction (1647) with Juan de la Palafox y Mendoza, Bishop of La Puebla, led to an appeal to Rome which was decided by Innocent X in 1648, but afterward became a cause célèbre. The other Spanish missions, New Granada (Colombia), Chile, Peru, Quito (Ecuador), were administered by 193, 242, 526, and 209 Jesuits respectively (see ALEGRE ARAUCANIANS ARAWAKS BARRASA MOXOS INDIANS).

    United States

    Father Andrew White and four other Jesuits from the English missions arrived in territory now comprised in the state of Maryland, 25 March, 1634, with the expedition of Cecil Calvert. For ten years they ministered to the Catholics, of the colony, converted many of its Protestant pioneers, and conducted missions with the Indians along Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, the Patuxents, Anacostans, and Piscaways, which last were especially friendly. In 1644 the colony was invaded by the Puritans from the neighboring settlement of Virginia, and Father White was sent in chains to England, tried for being a Catholic, and on his release took refuge in Belgium. Although the Catholic colonists soon regained control, they were constantly menaced by their Protestant neighbours and by malcontents in the colony itself, who finally in 1692 succeeded in seizing the government, and in enacting a penal law against the Catholics, particularly against their Jesuit priests, which became more and more intolerable until the colony became the state of Maryland in 1776. During the 140 years between their arrival in Maryland and the Suppression of the Society, the missionaries, averaging four in number the first forty years, and then gradually increasing to twelve and then about twenty, continued their work among the Indians and the Settlers despite every vexation and disability, though prevented from increasing in number and extending their labours during the dispute with Cecil Calvert over retaining the tract of land, Mattapany, given then by the Indians, relief from taxation on lands devoted to religious or charitable purposes, and the usual ecclesiastical immunity for themselves and their households. The controversy ended in the cession of the Mattapany tract, the missionaries retaining the land they had acquired by the condition of plantation. Prior to the Suppression, they had established missions in Maryland, at St. Thomas, White Marsh, St. Inigoes, Leonardtown still (1912) under the care of the Jesuits, and also at Deer Creek, Frederick, and St. Joseph's Bohemia Manor besides the many less permanent stations among the Indians in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Conewego, Lancaster, Gosenhoppen, and the excursion stations as far as New York, where two of their number, Fathers Harvey and Harrison assisted for a time by Father Gage had, under Governor Dongan ministered as chaplains in the forts and among the white settlers, and attempted unsuccessfully to establish a school between 1683-89, when they were forced to retire by an anti-Catholic administration.

    The Suppression of the Society altered but little the status of the Jesuits in Maryland. As they were the only priests in the mission, they still remained at their posts, the nine English members, until death, all continuing to labor under Father John Lewis who after the Suppression had received the powers of vicar-general from Bishop Calloner of the London District. Only two of them survived until the restoration of the Society--Robert Molyneux and John Bolton. Many of those who were abroad, labouring in England or studying in Belgium, returned to work in the mission. As a corporate body, they still retained the properties from which they derived support for their religious ministrations. As their numbers decreased, some of the missions were abandoned, or served for a time by other priests, but maintained by the revenues of the Jesuits properties even after the Restoration of the Society. Though these properties were regarded as reverting to it through its former members organized as the Corporation of Roman Catholic clergymen, a yearly allowance from the revenues made over to Archbishop Carroll became during Bishop Ambrose Maréchal's administration (1817-34) the basis of a claim for such a payment in perpetuity and the dispute thus occasioned was not settled until 1838 under Archbishop Eccleston.

    French missions

    The French missions had as bases the French colonies in Canada, the Antilles, Guiana, and India while the French influence in the Mediterranean led to missions of the Levant, in Syria among the Maronites, etc. (See also Guiana Haiti Martinique China, III, 673.) The Canadian mission is described under Canada, and Missions, Catholic Indian, of Canada. (See also the accounts of the missions given in articles on Indian tribes like the Abenakis, Cree, Huron, Iroquois, Ottawas and the biographies of the missionaries Bailloquet, Brébeuf, Casot, Chabanel, Chastellain, Chaumonot, Cholonec, Crépieul, Dablon, Cruillettes, Garnier, Goupil, Jogues, Lafitau, Lagrené, Jacques-P. Lallemant, Lamberville, Lauzon, Le Moyne, Râle, etc.) In 1611, Fathers Biard and Massé arrived as missionaries at Port Royal, Acadia. Taken prisoners by the English from Virginia, they were sent back to France in 1614. In 1625, Fathers Massé, Brébeuf, and Charles Lalemant came to work in and about Quebec, until 1629, when they were forced to return to France after the English captured Quebec. Back again in 1632, they began the most heroic missionary period in the annals of America. They opened a college in Quebec in 1635 with a staff of most accomplished professors from France. For forty years, men quite as accomplished, labouring under incredible hardships, opened missions among the Indians on the coast, along the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay, and Hudson Bay among the Iroquois, Neutral Nation, Petuns, Hurons, Ottawas, and later among the Miamis, Illinois, and the tribes east of the Mississippi as far south as the Gulf of Mexico. When Canada became a British possession in 1763, these missions could no longer be sustained, though many of them, especially those that formed part of parochial settlements had gradually been taken over by secular priests. The college at Quebec was closed in 1768. At the time of the Suppression. there were but twenty-one Jesuits in Canada, the last of whom, Father John J. Casot, died in 1800. The mission has become famous for its martyrs, eight of whom, Brebeuf, Gabriel Lalemant, Daniel, Garnier, Chabanel, Jogues and his lay companions Goupil and Lalande were declared venerable on 27 February, 1912. It has also become noted for its literary remains, especially for the works of the missionaries in the Indian tongues, for their explorations, especially that of Marquette, and for its "Relations."

    Jesuit Relations

    The Origins of White Guilt

    There are several different approaches to the study of the pathology of White guilt, including linguistic, historical and religious. One needs, however, to critically look at this faulty verbal construct first, a construct which first appeared in America several decades ago, and which has been championed in the media and academia ever since.

    At first look, the expression “White guilt” defies lexical rules of Standard English. Should one accept this expression as a valid tool in social and political communication, one might just as well substitute the adjective “white” with the adjectives “brown,” “yellow,” or “black.” So far, however, no scholar, no journalist has ever ventured to use the expressions Black Guilt or Brown Guilt, for the simple reason that from the semantic point of view these colorful expressions sound silly in the standard English language. The same lexical rule, however, does not apply to White guilt, an expression that has become by now part of the everyday language. In addition, seen from the educational perspective, the expression “White Guilt” is designed to serve as a guidebook for reeducating and reprograming Whites, or short of that for having Whites expiate their real or alleged sins of racism. Conversely, all other non-White racial categories are automatically exonerated from any guilt feelings and thusly from any need for political penitence.

    The difficulty in dealing with the concept of “White guilt” is further exacerbated by the impossibility of having it properly translated into non-English languages in Europe. Over the last eighty years US college social science departments, mostly controlled by crypto-communist scholars, have been in the forefront of crafting outlandish political terms and creating new political concepts which, when translated and transposed into the European media and school curricula sound odd. Moreover, ill-defined American verbal constructs, such as “hate speech,” “ethnic sensitivity training,”” diversity,” “white supremacists,” “affirmative action,” have by now become a linchpin in the US education and legislation. These expressions, when used in other European languages often produce unintelligible verbal and legal equivalents.

    Of course Europe has concocted its own bizarre expressions, especially when used during legal proceedings against nationalist dissidents at local courts of justice. A case in point is the German highly obtrusive, abstract compound noun that figures prominently in the German Criminal code, e.g., Paragraph # 130, bearing the demonizing subtitle “Volksverhetzung.” This heavy-handed German compound noun is a clear-cut case of linguistic barbarism, having given birth by now to dozens of faulty English translations (popular incitement, sedition, etc.). It is also a word that during court hearings never ever explicitly denotes the defendant’s ethnicity. This word, which German prosecuting attorneys have been tossing around since the early 1990s when pressing charges against social undesirables, has thus far dispatched thousands of Germans to prison for varying durations.

    The sticky issue for many citizens in the US and Europe, regardless of their political beliefs is that they often take these expressions as a sign of erudite learning, never bothering to examine their etymology. Or worse, never scrutinizing those individuals who first put those words in circulation. The expression “White guilt,” along with hundreds of similarly ill-defined terms that have sprung up in the USA over the last fifty years, is just an embellished follow-up term of the now defunct Soviet-Speak, which likewise contained a myriad of similar surreal nouns and convoluted phrases, such as “democratization,” “domestic fascist terrorists,” “antifascist struggle,” “socialist fight against counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies,” “economic self-management,” “peaceful coexistence,” “interethnic tolerance,” etc. The Liberal System in the US and EU, along with its legal and academic apparatchiks, is now in the belated process of updating this old Bolshevik language.

    Historical Framework of White Guilt

    TOO has previously documented the timespan and major architects of this new verbal overhaul whose final objective is the dispossession of White peoples. One must look firstly at the period starting with 1945 and after, a period which brought about not just a new political order, but also marked the beginning of the use of a new sanitized, demonizing political vocabulary. Defeated Germany bore the brunt of the new notion of the political, although citizens in the victorious US and the UK swiftly followed suit with their own self-flagellating rhetoric. Words such as “colonialism,” “segregation,” “racial distancing,” “apartheid,” and “fascism,” soon became the metaphors for the absolute evil, with “fascism” now denoting pretty much anything to the right of center. Over the last seventy-five years, the West has embarked on a penitential passion play whose effects can be observed today in most media outlets. Incidentally, the System’s removal of president Donald Trump from office was in large part due to the fact that Trump’s rhetoric on “fake news” was incompatible with the media’s message of universal love that has inspired the post-World War II narrative as preached by the System.

    What is frequently overlooked, however, is that guilt-tripping Whites in the realm of politics has been unfolding hand in hand with a gradual criminalization of the White cultural heritage. The destructive role of the Frankfurt school and its mostly Jewish-Marxist scholars in instilling the concept of White guilt has been amply demonstrated (here), although the postwar brainwashing of Whites can by no means be attributed to Jewish scholars and activists only. I tried, quite some time ago, to summarize the history of intellectual purges in Europe, starting immediately after the end of World War, which gradually resulted in the growth of the language of guilt, leading subsequently to suicidal self-denial of millions of White students and politicians in Europe and the US. As I noted in Homo Americanus,

    Particularly harsh was the Allied treatment of German teachers and academics. Since National- Socialist Germany had significant support among German teachers and university professors, it was to be expected that the US reeducational authorities would start screening German intellectuals, writers, journalists and film makers. Having destroyed dozens of major libraries in Germany, with millions of volumes gone up in flames, the American occupying powers resorted to improvising measures in order to give some semblance of normalcy to what later would become “the democratic Germany.” [i]

    Likewise, French intellectual life from 1944–1950 was similarly depleted of hundreds of anticommunist and nationalist intellectuals suspected of fascist collaboration, with many becoming objects of public shaming. Dominique Venner:

    Of all professional categories, journalists and writers were hit the hardest. This underlines the ideological character of the conflict and the ensuing purges. The proportion of writers and journalists who were shot, imprisoned, and barred from their profession surpasses all other professional categories. Do we need to be reminded of the assassination of Albert Clément, Philippe Henriot, Robert Denoël, of the suicide of Drieu La Rochelle, of the death of Paul Allard in prison prior to court hearings and of the executions of Georges Suarez, Robert Brasillach, Jean Luchaire […] [or] the death sentence pronounced in absentia or a commuted prison sentence for Lucien Rebatet, Pierre-Antoine Cousteau, etc.?” [ii]

    Ironically, it was thanks to the threat of Soviet communism during the Cold War that many previously banned European thinkers and academics managed to resurrect their career. It didn’t last long. From 1950–1990, Western intelligence agencies, with the USA at the helm, had to rely heavily on skills of prominent anticommunist and White nationalist academics and scientists in an effort to contain the perceived Soviet threat. With the Cold War over, with the Soviet Union dead by 1990, the System, i.e., the Deep State, began to recuperate again its own crypto-communist repressive, albeit Covid-covered face, the grand finale of which was seen on January 20, 2021, during the System’s staged palace coup in Washington DC.

    The religious framework of White guilt

    Putting solely the blame on the liberal media and crypto-communist college professors for generating the culture of White guilt is only partially correct. In order to tentatively elicit a convincing answer regarding the pathology of White guilt one needs to raise some rhetorical questions about Christian teachings. Why are White Christian peoples, in contrast to other peoples of other races and other religions on Earth, more prone to excessive altruism toward non-White out-groups? Why are guilt feelings practically nonexistent among non-White peoples? One answer to these questions may be found in Christian teachings that have made up an important pillar of Western civilization over the centuries. Over the last one hundred years, modern Liberal and Communist elites have aggressively promoted those same feeling of White guilt, albeit in their own atheistic, secular and “multicultural” modalities. One must rightfully reject the Liberal or Antifa palaver about White guilt, yet the fact remains that the Vatican, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the German Bishops’ conference, along with all other Christian denominations in Europe and the US today are the loudest sponsors of non-White immigration to Europe and America, as well as the strongest advocates of White guilt (here). The Church’s ecumenical preaching about a global city under one god with all of humanity is fully in accordance with the early Christian dogma on man’s fall and his eventual redemption.

    It must be pointed out that early Christian apostles, evangelists and theologians who foisted the dogma of man’s guilt were all by birth and without any exception non-Europeans (St. Augustine, Tertullian, St. Paul, Cyprian, etc.) from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor and Judea. Having this in mind, lambasting Islam or Judaism in the present as the sole carriers of aggressive non-European anti-White ideology, as many White nationalists do, while downplaying the Middle-Eastern birthplace of Christianity, cannot be a sign of neither moral nor intellectual consistency. The Roman poet Juvenal, describes graphically in his satires the Rome of the late first century, a time when the city was swarming with multitudes of Syrian lowlifes, Chaldean star worshippers, Jewish conmen, and Ethiopian hustlers, all of them offering a quick ride to eternal salvation for some and eternal damnation for others (here). Similar messianic, redemptive beliefs about the shining future, under the guidance of prominent early Bolshevik agitators, most of them of Jewish origin, have found their new location, two millennia later, among credulous intellectuals and equality-hungry masses. After the fall of Communism, the same messianic drive to punish the guilty ones who defy modern Liberal and multicultural scholasticism found its loudest mouthpiece among US neocons and antifa inquisitors.

    This is not the place to rehash Friedrich Nietzsche’s own emotional ravings at Christians, nor quote dozens of thinkers and scholars who had earlier described the psychological link between early Jewish and Christian zealots of first-century Rome and communist commissars of the early twentieth century. Times have changed but the obsession as to how extirpate or reeducate those who doubt the myths of the System haven’t changed a bit. The psychological profile of US modern-day Antifa zealots and their college professor supporters bears a close resemblance with early uprooted, largely miscegenated, effeminate Christian masses in the late Roman empire. The Jew St. Paul and later on the North African St. Augustin — judging by their own convulsive contrition — suggest that they suffered from bipolar disorder. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (7:18) may be the key to grasping the modern version of neurotic White self-haters put on display by prominent news anchors and humanities professors today: “And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.”

    Walter F. Otto, a renowned author on ancient Greek gods [iii] and one of the most quoted Hellenistic scholars, describes the differences between the ancient Greek vs. Christian notion of the sacred. He notes that ancient pagan Greeks laid emphasis on the feelings of shame, unaware of the meaning of feelings of guilt. In his still untranslated book dealing with Christian vs ancient Greek spirituality, he writes:

    Mentally sick were their leaders the weaklings only followed them. The impetus to this large (Christian) movement came from Paul the Apostle, i.e., from one of those tormented souls who carry an incurable wound within themselves. His furious, bloodthirsty hatred of the new (Christian) faith, his just as furious commitment to it, his ecstatic experience turning him at a single blow from the executioner of Christians into their most fanatical champion — this all tells how terrible [Christianity] basically stood and what was to be expected from its spirituality.[iv]

    At some point Whites will need to realize that a successful healing of their feelings of guilt presupposes a critical reassessment of their Judeo-Christian-inspired origins. If Whites in Europe and the US were once upon a time all eager to embrace the Semitic notion of original sin, no wonder that two thousand years later they could likewise be well programmed to put up with a variety of World War II necrophiliac victimhoods, as well as tune in to fake news delivered by their politicians. Eventually Whites will need to make a decision about where to choose the location of their identity. In Athens or in Jerusalem.

    [i] T. Sunic, Homo americanus Child of the postmodern Age (London: Arktos, 2018), p. 75-76.

    [ii] Ibid, p. 88. (Translated and quoted in Dominique Venner, Histoire de la collaboration (Paris: Pygmallion, 2000), p. 515-516).

    [iii] Walter F. Otto, The Homeric Gods (translated by Moses Hadas) (London: Thames & Hudson, 1954).

    [iv] Walter F. Otto, Der Geist der Antike und die christliche Welt (Bonn: Verlag F. Cohen, 1923), p. 44.

    July 16, 2015: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez began shooting at the Armed Forces Career Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, wounding a U.S. Marine. The shooter then drove to the Navy and Marine Reserve Center, where he killed 4 U.S. Marines and wounded a law enforcement officer and a U.S. navy sailor who died a few days later.

    July 9, 2015: The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “concluded with high confidence that sensitive information, including the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of 21.5 million individuals, was stolen from the background investigation databases.” — OPM

    What happend on 22. January in History

    In our data base we found 365 events happened on 22. January:
    &bull 239: Cao Rui (Wei Ming Di), emperor of the Kingdom of Wei (b. 205) [category: Deaths]
    &bull 565: Eutychius is deposed as Patriarch of Constantinople by John Scholasticus. [category: Events]
    &bull 1263: Ibn Taymiya, Islamic scholar (d. 1328) [category: Births]
    &bull 1440: Ivan III of Russia (d. 1505) [category: Births]
    &bull 1506: The first contingent of 150 Swiss Guards arrives at the Vatican. [category: Events]

    &bull 1536: Bernhard Knipperdolling, German religious leader (b. 1495) [category: Deaths]
    &bull 1553: Mori Terumoto, Japanese warrior (d. 1625) [category: Births]
    &bull 1555: Ava Kingdom falls to Toungoo Dynasty of Burma. [category: Events]
    &bull 1561: Sir Francis Bacon, English philosopher (d. 1626) [category: Births]
    &bull 1570: Sir Robert Bruce Cotton, English politician (d. 1631) [category: Births]
    &bull 1575: James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault, regent of Scotland (b. 1516) [category: Deaths]
    &bull 1592: Pierre Gassendi, French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist (d. 1655) [category: Births]
    &bull 1599: Cristofano Malvezzi, Italian composer (b. 1547) [category: Deaths]
    &bull 1654: Richard Blackmore, English physician and writer (d. 1729) [category: Births]
    &bull 1666: Shah Jahan, Mughal Emperor of India (b. 1592) [category: Deaths]
    &bull 1689: The Convention Parliament convenes to determine if James II and VII, the last Roman Catholic monarch of England, Ireland and Scotland, had vacated the thrones when he fled to France in 1688. [category: Events]
    &bull 1690: Nicolas Lancret, French painter (d. 1743) [category: Births]
    &bull 1729: Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, German author and philosopher (d. 1781) [category: Births]
    &bull 1733: Philip Carteret, British Naval Officer (d. 1796) [category: Births]
    &bull 1740: Noah Phelps, American Spy (d. 1809) [category: Births]

    Watch the video: February 22, 2020 (January 2022).