Dracula Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the

Impaler 2nd Edition Kurt Treptow install

download

https://textbookfull.com/product/dracula-essays-on-the-life-and-
times-of-vlad-the-impaler-2nd-edition-kurt-treptow/

Download more ebook instantly today - get yours now at textbookfull.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit textbookfull.com
to discover even more!

State of Democracy in India Essays on Life and Politics

of Contemporary Times Manas Ray

https://textbookfull.com/product/state-of-democracy-in-india-
essays-on-life-and-politics-of-contemporary-times-manas-ray/

Essays on Life Science and Society The World through

the Eyes of a Life Scientist Shaw M. Akula

https://textbookfull.com/product/essays-on-life-science-and-
society-the-world-through-the-eyes-of-a-life-scientist-shaw-m-
akula/

More Than a Rock 2nd Edition Essays on Art Creativity

Photography Nature and Life Guy Tal

https://textbookfull.com/product/more-than-a-rock-2nd-edition-
essays-on-art-creativity-photography-nature-and-life-guy-tal/

Powers of Darkness The Lost Version of Dracula Bram

Stoker

https://textbookfull.com/product/powers-of-darkness-the-lost-
version-of-dracula-bram-stoker/
The Semantics of Plurals Focus Degrees and Times Essays
in Honor of Roger Schwarzschild Daniel Altshuler

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-semantics-of-plurals-focus-
degrees-and-times-essays-in-honor-of-roger-schwarzschild-daniel-
altshuler/

Einstein s Monsters The Life and Times of Black Holes

Chris Impey

https://textbookfull.com/product/einstein-s-monsters-the-life-
and-times-of-black-holes-chris-impey/

The Chief the life and turbulent times of Chief Justice

John Roberts First Edition Biskupic

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-chief-the-life-and-
turbulent-times-of-chief-justice-john-roberts-first-edition-
biskupic/

Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition Kurt Menke

https://textbookfull.com/product/mastering-qgis-2nd-edition-kurt-
menke/

The epistemic life of groups : essays in the

epistemology of collectives 1st Edition Michael S.
Brady

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-epistemic-life-of-groups-
essays-in-the-epistemology-of-collectives-1st-edition-michael-s-
brady/
 DRACULA

Essays on the Life and Times of

Vlad the Impaler
 DRACULA

Essays on the Life and Times of

Vlad the Impaler

Edited by Kurt W. Treptow

 The Center for Romanian Studies
Las Vegas ¸ Oxford ¸ Palm Beach

Published in the United States of America by

Histria Books, a division of Histria LLC
7181 N. Hualapai Way
Las Vegas, NV 89166 USA
HistriaBooks.com

The Center for Romanian Studies is an imprint of Histria

Books. Titles published under the imprints of Histria Books
are exclusively distributed worldwide through the Casemate
Group.

This is a revised and expanded version of a book originally published

in 1991: Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad Țepeș, ed. Kurt
W. Treptow (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991).

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, me-
chanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing
from the Publisher.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018943574

ISBN 978-1-59211-009-4 (hardcover)

ISBN 978-1-59211-010-0 (paperback)

Copyright ã 2019 by Histria Books

 Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................... 9

The Historical Dracula .................................................. 15

The Equilibrium Policy of the Romanian Principalities

in East-Central Europe, 1444-1485 .............................. 33

The Reign of Dracula in 1448 ........................................ 61

The Social and Economic Crisis in Southeastern Europe

in the Time of Vlad the Impaler ..................................... 73

Vlad the Impaler’s Relations with Transylvania

and Hungary ................................................................ 95

Vlad II Dracul and Vlad III Dracula’s Military

Campaigns in Bulgaria, 1443-1462 ............................. 125

Vlad III Dracula and the Church ................................. 141

Vlad the Impaler

and the Campaign of Mehmed II, 1462 ........................ 147

Aspects of the Ottoman Campaign

against Vlad III Dracula in 1462 ................................. 155

Military Actions of Vlad the Impaler

in Southeastern Europe in 1476 ................................. 175
Stephen the Great....................................................... 195

An Analysis of the Dracula Tales ................................. 211

The German Stories about Vlad the Impaler ................ 251

An Historical Appraisal of the Image of Vlad the Impaler

in Contemporary Romanian Folklore ........................... 265

A Philological Analysis of Dracula and Romanian Place-

Names and Masculine Personal Names in-a/ea*.......... 305

The Heroic Figure in Romanian Political Culture:

The Case of Vlad the Impaler ...................................... 315

Portraits of Vlad the Impaler: Literature, Pictures,

and Images of the Ideal Man ....................................... 323

A Genealogy of the Family of Vlad the Impaler............. 335

Vlad the Impaler:

Chronology and Historical Bibliography ...................... 339

Ottoman Chronicles concerning Vlad the Impaler ....... 393

Selected Documents and Letters

concerning Vlad the Impaler ....................................... 411

Extracts from the Chronicle of Laonikos

Chalkokondyles concerning Vlad the Impaler .............. 429

Note on the Pronunciation of Romanian Words ........... 441

 In memory of
Gheorghe Buzatu
scholar and mentor
 Introduction

Dracula, generally referred to in Romanian history as Vlad Țepeș

[the Impaler, pronounced Tsepesh], is the best internationally known
Romanian historical personality. Thanks to the novel of Bram Stoker
and the many films that his book inspired, the name Dracula has ac-
quired a universal character. From a historical perspective, this has had
both a positive and negative impact. It has helped attract attention to one
of Romania’s most interesting historical figures, but, at the same time,
it has also obscured the true history of Vlad the Impaler, the fifteenth
century prince of Wallachia, behind a veil of myths. It is fair to say that
these myths are still persistent.
Outside of Romania, the history of Vlad the Impaler, who signed
his name as Dracula in several letters (meaning the son of Dracul ‘the
Dragon,’ referring to his father, Vlad Dracul), is too often connected
with the fictional vampire of the same name created by the Irish novelist
at the end of the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, in Romania, Vlad the
Impaler has gained the status of a national hero who saved his country
from becoming a Turkish pashalik; the greatness of the deeds attributed
to him forms a different category of myths. This book, which is a col-
lection of studies by the leading specialists in the world on this subject,
is intended to present a historical portrait of the life and times of this
Romanian prince which can be used as a basis for penetrating through
the many different myths surrounding him.
The origins of the myths about Vlad the Impaler can be traced back
to his own lifetime. It is the growth of these legends throughout the fol-
lowing centuries that accounts for his remarkable fame; as the eminent
historian, the late Constantin C. Giurescu stated, “Romanian history has
10 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

had princes more important than Vlad, with longer reigns, and who re-
alized greater accomplishments, such as Mircea the Old and Stephen the
Great, but their fame did not become so great in Europe.” Thus, to un-
derstand his fame, it is essential to study the historical figure of Vlad the
Impaler and the times in which he lived.
Rather than presenting here a general survey of the history of Vlad
the Impaler, which the eminent historian Constantin C. Giurescu skill-
fully does in his contribution to this book, I will instead discuss the his-
tory of this volume, which is interesting in itself. International collabo-
rative projects are never easy. The origins of this one date back to over
forty years ago.
Credit for the initial idea for this collection of studies belongs to
Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally, pioneers in the study of
Dracula in the United States. In connection with their first book on this
subject, In Search of Dracula (New York, 1972), Florescu and McNally
conceived of the idea for a collaborative project between Romanian,
American, and British historians about Vlad the Impaler. Constantin C.
Giurescu recorded part of the history of this project in his Jurnal de
călătorie (Bucharest, 1977): “The second volume was intended to be a
collection of studies about Vlad the Impaler, a collection which, apart
from the studies of Florescu and McNally, would also include a general
study, as an introduction to the volume, a study by George D. Florescu,
a profound genealogist, a meticulous researcher of Bucharest’s past, and
uncle of Radu, a study by Anton B.I. Balotă, and one by Matei Cazacu,
a doctoral candidate in history who prepared a thesis about Vlad the Im-
paler. Things changed in the meantime; at the suggestion of McNally,
the articles mentioned above will appear in a separate volume published
by a university press in America, with the help of Stephen Fischer-Galați
(p. 117).”
For a variety of reasons, this project was never realized, until, in
the fall of 1989, while on a visit to the University of Illinois at Urbana-
 Introduction 11

Champaign, Stephen Fischer-Galați told me about the articles in his pos-

session and suggested that I should prepare them for publication. After
reading the articles originally intended for this volume, I selected and
edited those which were publishable after these many years, and set out
to enlist additional contributors. The result is the present volume which,
apart from the core articles mentioned by Giurescu, is a new collection
of studies.
A quarter of a century later we have undertaken to revise and ex-
pand the initial edition of this work. The translations have been revised
and updated and a few new studies added to the original collection. The
technical challenges of printing the original edition in Romania shortly
after the fall of communism also demanded that a new edition be pub-
lished.
The articles contained in this book present, in a scholarly manner,
some of the most important and controversial problems relating to the
life and times of Vlad the Impaler. They also include analyses of the
sources and historiography concerning him. Some of these studies have
previously appeared in Romanian, French, or English, while others are
published here for the first time in any language. The appendixes to this
volume include English translations of some of the most important doc-
uments and narrative sources about Vlad the Impaler. These are intended
to be of use to those who cannot read them in the original languages or
in Romanian translations. Those sources which are readily available in
English translations, such as Doukas or Kritoboulos, are not included
here.
The contributors to this volume are the leading specialists on the
life and times of Vlad the Impaler in the world: The late Constantin C.
Giurescu must be considered one of Romania’s greatest historians; his
prodigious work spanned more than half a century and is essential read-
ing for all students and historians about Vlad the Impaler. Veniamin Ci-
obanu is a researcher at the A.D. Xenopol Institute of History in Iași and
is one of the leading experts on international relations in Eastern Europe
12 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

during the Middle Ages. Matei Cazacu, working in France, has pub-
lished several important studies about Vlad the Impaler. Nicolae
Stoicescu, one of the finest scholars of medieval Romanian history, as
well as the author of one of the leading monographs about Vlad. Radu
R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally of Boston College are the histo-
rians first responsible for popularizing the study of Dracula in America.
The late academician David Prodan was one of Romania’s greatest
scholars. Eric D. Tappe served as professor of Romanian studies at the
University of London for many years, and must be considered as one of
the pioneers in this field in Great Britain. Ștefan Andreescu, a researcher
at the Nicolae Iorga Institute of History in Bucharest, a leading expert
on Vlad the Impaler; his book and articles are required reading for any-
one studying this subject. Anton Balotă and Grigore Nandriș were two
of the best Romanian scholars of Slavic studies. Alexandru Duțu, former
director of the Institute of Southeast European Studies in Bucharest, an
expert in the field of Romanian intellectual history. George D. Florescu
was one of Romania’s greatest genealogists. Constantin Rezachevici,
another researcher at the Iorga Institute, one of the leading specialists on
medieval Romanian history, particularly with regard to international re-
lations. P.P. Panaitescu was one of Romania’s greatest medieval histo-
rians and an expert in the field of Slavic studies. To all of these contrib-
utors, I would like to express my gratitude. As this was the first interna-
tional collaborative effort on the history of Vlad the Impaler, it was only
fitting that such excellent scholars took part in it.
A volume like this requires the assistance of many people. I would
like to thank my friends, Dr. Stephen Fischer-Galați for asking me to
undertake this project, and Dr. Ștefan Gorovei who found for me the
previously unpublished study of P.P. Panaitescu contained in this vol-
ume. I would also like to thank the Slavonic and East European Review
in London for kindly granting me permission to re-publish the study of
Grigore Nandriș which originally appeared in that journal in 1959. I was
also blessed to have the late Academician David Prodan as a mentor in
 Introduction 13

the last years of his life and I wanted to include an article he had pro-
vided me about Vlad’s cousin, Stephen the Great, in this new edition.
I am also grateful to those who helped with many of the original
translations included in this volume: Laurențiu and Irina Constantin,
Sorin Pârvu, Ioana Lupușoru, and Jeanine Brittin, as well as Gheorghe
Buzatu, Corina Luca, and Stela Cheptea for their help with the publica-
tion of this book. This new edition is dedicated to the memory of Gheor-
ghe Buzatu, a friend and a mentor, who helped make possible the origi-
nal publication of this work and who, together with Stephen Fischer-
Galați, taught me about the world of publishing.
I would also like to thank Dr. Keith Hitchins of the University of
Illinois for his encouragement and support throughout my career. In ad-
dition, I want to use this occasion to express my gratitude to colleagues
and friends Michael Lang, Sorin Pârvu, Alexandru Zub, Ioan Bolovan,
Marcel Popa, Florin Constantiniu, Cornelia Bodea, Ioan Talpeș, Valeriu
Florin Dobrinescu, Ioan Saizu, Stela Cheptea, Mihail Ionescu, Ernest H.
Latham, Jr., Paul E. Michelson, Petronela Postolache, and many others,
not forgotten, with whom I worked over the years. Last, but not least, I
express my gratitude to my wife Dana for her love and support.

Kurt W. Treptow
 Chapter I

The Historical Dracula

Constantin C. Giurescu

Dracula is one of the few Romanian princes whose personality and

deeds have aroused exceptional interest, not only among his contempo-
raries, but also as far as modern historiography and literature are con-
cerned. Stories about this prince circulated in the German-speaking
world while he was still alive, and by the end of the fifteenth century
many incunabula had been printed about this voivode Dracula.1 During
this same period, around 1486, a story on the same subject was written
in Slavic script and circulated in the Russian speaking world.2

1
For these pamphlets in German, see I. Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, și narațiunile germane
și rusești asupra lui (București, 1986), pp. 85-105, and C. Karadja, “Incunabulele
povestind despre cruzimile lui Vlad Țepeș,” in Închinare lui Nicolae Iorga, (Cluj,
1931), pp. 196-206.
2
Ioan Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, pp. 106-170, P. P. Panaitescu, Cronicile Slavo-Române
din sec. XV-XVI publicate de Ion Bogdan, re-edits the Russian text from
Sedelnikov’s edition (1929), giving a new Romanian translation and adding certain
comments. It should be pointed out that this account about Dracula cannot be
considered as, “the only Wallachian chronicle in Slavonic yet known” (p. 199) as
there is also the mural chronicle in Slavonic at Bucovăț Monastery, of which the
16 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

Modern Romanian historiography has paid close attention to this

prince, but many contradictory opinions have been put forward. Some
historians consider him as a hero who fought for the independence of his
country and for Christendom and who maintained order within his
realm,3 while others hold that he was pathological case, a sick man who
killed and tortured out of sadistic pleasure.4 Dracula’s fascinating per-
sonality also made a strong impression upon some modern writers. The
great Romanian poet Mihai Eminescu saw in Dracula the type of harsh
but just prince who hated lies, falsity, and indolence, the lawgiver whom
the people desired,5 while the famous novel by Bram Stoker6 centers on
a person called ‘Dracula,’ which is the popular name given to their
prince by the people of Wallachia and finally adopted by the ruler him-
self.7 Although, like so many novels, Stoker’s book contains a whole
series of imaginary events and even a number of errors, it has been
widely read, published in numerous editions and translated into many

same commentator affirms five pages before (p. 199) is, “the only known
Wallachian chronicle in Slavonic of the sixteenth century.”
3
This is the manner in which he was seen by August Treboniu Laurian, Istoria
Românilor, III, (Iași, 1853), pp. 2-3; A. D.Xenopol, Istoria Românilor din Dacia
Traiană, 3rd ed., (București, 1927), vol. IV, pp. 19-32; Grigore Tocilescu, Istoria
Românilor, (București, 1894), p. 45; and Grigore Popescu, Vlad Țepeș, (București,
1964), pp. 48-49.
4
See for example, M. Kogălniceanu, Histoire de la Dacie, (Berlin, 1837), pp. 89-
90; Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, pp. IV-X.
5
Mihai Eminescu, Opere Alese, ed. Perpessicius, (București, 1964), vol. I, p. 152;
[Scrisoarea III – The Third Letter].
6
Bram Stoker, Dracula, 14th edition, (London, 1921). Also see H. Ludlum, A
Biography of Dracula: The Life Story of Bram Stoker, (London, 1962). Stoker’s
novel has also been published in a Romanian edition, see Bram Stoker, Dracula,
trans. Barbu Cioculescu and Ileana Verzea, (București, 1990).
7
Dracula refers to himself as “Dragkulya” in a letter written on 13 October 1457,
and as “Drakulya” in one written in 1476, see Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, p. 61.
 The Historical Dracula 17

foreign languages.8 The novel was adapted for the theatre and a film
version was shown throughout the world. Thus, it may be said that this
prince enjoyed widespread fame both during his lifetime and in modern
times, a fame not enjoyed by other Romanian princes who reigned
longer and performed greater deeds, a fact which may be explained by
the peculiar impact made by certain characteristic features traceable to
the personality of this prince.
Dracula was one of four legitimate sons (there were also two ille-
gitimate children) of Vlad Dracul, prince of Wallachia from 1436 to
1447.9 As can be seen, his father had a similar name, Dracul [the Devil],
which some historians connect with the Order of the Dragon, conferred
on Prince Vlad by the Emperor Sigismund, while others attribute it to
his diabolical cruelty, a feature inherited by his son.10 On his father’s
side, Dracula was a direct descendant of the great prince Mircea the Old
(1386-1418) of the Basarab dynasty who fought for decades against the
Turks and whom Leunclavius, a Turkish chronicler and therefore one of
his adversaries, called “the shrewdest and most valiant” of Christian
princes.11 Through his mother, the daughter of the Moldavian prince Al-
exander the Good (1400-1432), Dracula was a descendant of the Muşat
dynasty of Moldavia.12 Therefore, in Dracula’s veins ran the blood of
the two reigning dynasties of the Romanian principalities during the
fourteenth to sixteenth centuries. He was also a first cousin of Stephen

8
Stoker’s novel has been translated into German (see Dracula, Ein Vampir-Roman,
trans. Stasi Kull) and French (see Dracula, l’homme de la nuit, trans. Eve and
Lucie-Paul Marguerite, (Paris, 1920).
9
Ilie Minea, Vlad Dracul şi vremea sa, (Iași, 1929).
10
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, 4th edition, (București, 1943), vol. II,
p. 8.
11
Leunclavius, Historiae Musulmanae Turcorum, (Frankfurt, 1591), p. 418.
12
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II p. 11.
18 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

the Great, the brilliant prince of Moldavia (1457-1504) who acceded to

the throne with military assistance from Dracula.13
The exact date of Dracula’s birth is unknown. If, as recent research
reveals, he first came to the throne of Wallachia in 1448,14 then one can
assume that at that date he must have been at least twenty years old;
therefore, he was born in 1428 or earlier. In any case, he was not an old
man when he began his principal reign which lasted from 1456 to 1462.
When one examines the portraits of him as prince, both the one in an
early German publication and the other in Ambras Castle in the Tyrol,
he appears to be a man in the prime of his life, between thirty and forty
years old.15
His popular name, Dracula or ‘Drăculea,’ belongs to the category
of Romanian morphemes ending in ‘-ulea,’ such as, for instance, Mamu-
lea, Tătulea, Rădulea, etc. The fact that his father was named Dracul
suggests that Dracula inherited this name from his father. Thus, it would
mean the son of Dracul, just as Tătulea means the son of Tatul and Rădu-
lea means the son of Radul.16
The people also gave him another name, the Impaler [Țepeș], be-
cause of his favorite form of capital punishment – impaling. But he was
not an innovator as far as this punishment was concerned for it had long
been known and applied by other rulers, some of whom were Dracula’s
contemporaries, such as his cousin Stephen the Great of Moldavia.17 The

13
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, p. 11 and 25-26.
14
Matei Cazacu, “În legătură cu participarea românilor la bătălia de la Kossovo
(1448),” (Unpublished manuscript, 1968).
15
Concerning the portraits of Dracula, see reproductions in the works mentioned in
note 1. A commentary of the portrait has been made by B.P. Hasdeu, Filosofia
portretului lui Țepeș, Schița Iconografică, (București, 1864).
16
Concerning the Romanian word ‘Dracul’ and its derivatives, see N.A.
Constantinescu, Dicţionar Onomastic Românesc, (București, 1963), pp. 263–264.
17
A Moldo-German chronicle, written towards the end of Stephen the Great’s reign
states that Stephen, “impaled by the navel, diagonally, one on top of the other,
 The Historical Dracula 19

nickname ‘the Impaler’ was recorded for the first time in a deed issued
in 1550;18 thus he was subsequently known in Wallachian chronicles and
is also known in Romanian historiography as Vlad Țepeș (the Im-
paler).19
His father’s tragic death (he was beheaded in 1447 by John Hun-
yadi, the great Transylvanian crusader of Romanian origin) made Drac-
ula incline towards the Turks, Hunyadi’s adversaries, and enter into re-
lations with the pashas along the Danube, particularly the pasha of
Nicopolis. With the latter’s assistance, he succeeded in seizing the Wal-
lachian throne in the fall of 1448, while his father’s successor, Prince
Vladislav II, was fighting at the side of John Hunyadi in the Balkan cam-
paign which ended in disaster for the Christians at the battle of Kosovo
in October, 1448.20 But the young Dracula was unable to maintain his
position when Vladislav returned from Kosovo with his army, and he
was forced to abdicate. His first reign, therefore, was of short duration –
a month or two at most.21
Until 1456, little is known about Dracula, but a radical change in
his foreign relations is discernible for he abandoned the Turks and made

“2,300 Turkish prisoners in 1473,” (see Cronica Moldo-Germană in Cronicile

Slavo-Române din sec. XV-XVI, p. 31). The Polish chronicler Dlugosz states that
Stephen impaled 99 of the 100 Tartars who had come to demand the return of the
Khan’s son, taken prisoner by the Moldavians at the battle of Lipinţi (20 August
1470).
18
B.P. Hasdeu, Cuvinte din Bătrîni, I, p. 243.
19
See, for example, Istoria Țării Românești, 1290-1690. Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc,
ed. C. Grecescu and D. Simonescu, (București, 1960), p. 4; and Radu Popescu,
Istoriile Domnilor Țării Românești, ed. C. Grecescu, (București, 1963), p. 15.
20
Matei Cazacu, “În legătură cu participarea românilor la bătălia de la Kosovo,
1448)” Concerning the participation of the Wallachian army at the battle of Kosovo,
see Ștefan Andreescu, “Une information négligée sur la participation Valachie à la
bataille de Kosovo (1448),” in Revue des études sud-est européenes, 6:1 (1968),
pp. 85-92.
21
Matei Cazacu, “În legătură cu participarea românilor la bătălia de la Kosovo
(1448).”
20 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

contact with John Hunyadi. This reversal is not surprising; such was the
spirit of the times. Dracula’s father, Vlad Dracul, had alternated between
Hunyadi and the Turks.22 The explanation for this change of attitude on
the part of the young Dracula must be sought in his ardent desire to re-
cover the throne of Wallachia. To this end he paid careful attention to
Vladislav’s relations with Hunyadi and when he observed a deteriora-
tion in these relations in the spring of 1452 (after 23 April) when Hun-
yadi took away Vladislav’s Transylvanian possessions of Făgăraș and
Amlaş,23 he offered himself as a pretender, assuring Hunyadi of his al-
legiance and seeking his support. Vladislav, angered by the loss of these
two possessions, attacked the citadel of Făgăraș and burned down sev-
eral Saxon villages in 1456.24 Vladislav’s raid into Transylvania took
place before 6 April, when King Ladislas of Hungary ordered the inhab-
itants of Sibiu to fight against him.25 Dracula, who now resided in Tran-
sylvania, placed himself at the head of a body of soldiers and set out
against the Wallachian prince. Dracula’s expedition, which probably
took place immediately after 15 April, the date of Vladislav’s last deed,26
had a favorable outcome; Vladislav was defeated, captured, and appar-
ently executed at Târgșor. This is the interpretation given to a chronicle
which states that Vladislav fell by the sword in the center of that town.27
On 3 July 1456 Dracula assumed the Wallachian throne and as-
sured the inhabitants of Brașov that he would defend them against an

22
Minea, Vlad Dracul; and Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, pp. 8-
11.
23
I. Bogdan, Documente privitoare la relațiile Țării Românești cu Brașovul și cu
Țara Ungurească în sec. XV și XVI, (București, 1905), pp. 86-87.
24
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, p. 14.
25
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, p. 14.
26
Documenta Romaniae Historica, B, Tara Românească, (București, 1966), vol. I,
pp. 196-197.
27
Radu Popescu, Istoriile domnilor Țării Românești, p. 16: and Istoria Țării
Românești, 1290-1690, p. 4.
 The Historical Dracula 21

eventual Turkish attack.28 On 6 September of that same year he signed

another letter to the inhabitants of Brașov in which he acknowledged the
support that he had received from them and promised that he would de-
fend them against the Turks with all his might, while they in turn
pledged to give him shelter should he be obliged to retreat from Walla-
chia. He also assured the inhabitants of Brașov that they could continue
to trade in his land without any hindrance.29 Only three months later,
however, the Saxons of Transylvania and the Hungarian government
changed their attitude toward Dracula. On 17 December 1456, Ladislas
Hunyadi wrote to the inhabitants of Brașov urging them to support the
Wallachian pretender Prince Dan.30 Moreover, a second pretender, Vlad
the Monk, another son of Vlad Dracul and a half-brother of Dracula, had
taken shelter in the duchy of Amlaş.31 This brought a vehement protest
from Dracula who, on 14 February 1457, reminded the Saxons that it
was not he who had initiated the hostilities and requested that the one
who was plotting against him be driven out of Amlaş.32 It appears that
Dracula’s protest, accompanied by certain reprisals that are mentioned
in a letter signed by King Matthias of Hungary on 3 March 1458, had a
momentary effect, for normal relations prevailed during the year 1458.
For instance, on 25 May Dracula asked the inhabitants of Brașov for
some artisans and on 13 June he recommended one of his envoys to
them.33 But at the beginning of the next year there appeared yet a third
pretender to the Wallachian throne in Transylvania, near Sighișoara,
Prince Basarab.34 The continuous support given by the Saxons of Tran-
sylvania to all those who coveted his throne was sufficient to justify the

28
Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, p. 57.
29
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 45.
30
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 46.
31
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 48.
32
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 48.
33
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 49.
34
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 50.
22 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

bloody reprisals taken by Dracula. Forty-one merchants from Brașov

found in Wallachia were impaled, while another three hundred, includ-
ing many youths who acted as informers for the Saxons, were burned
alive.35 At the same time, he launched an attack against the district of
Sibiu, plundering and burning several villages to the ground, including
Noul Săsesc, Hosman and Bendorf. Another body of soldiers invaded
the district of Bârsa; Brașov was attacked and its suburbs and St. Bar-
tholomew’s Church went up in flames. All of these events took place
before 2 April 1459.36 The Wallachian merchants who usually resided
in Brașov did not suffer from retaliations because Dracula secretly re-
called them to Wallachia beforehand.
Because of these events, in March, 1460, Dan the Pretender, sup-
ported by the inhabitants of Brașov, crossed the mountains with a body
of soldiers in an attempt to remove Dracula from the Wallachian throne.
In the ensuing battle, he was defeated and taken prisoner. Dracula gave
orders that a grave be dug for him (another version says that he had to
dig it himself). The burial service was read over him while he was still
alive, after which the executioner cut off his head.37 This was to serve
as an example for other pretenders to the throne. Because Dan had re-
ceived support from the inhabitants of Făgăraș and Amlaş, in August,
1460, Dracula sent an army which plundered and burned these districts
without mercy. Some villages, such as Șercaia and Mica, were destroyed
and had to be recolonized two years later. Amlaş was taken on 24 Au-
gust; the villagers, led by their priest, were all impaled on the orders of

35
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, pp. 50-51.
36
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, pp. 50-51.
37
See the deed signed by Dan, as pretender, dated 2 March 1460 at Brașov, in
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, pp. 53-54. Concerning the expedition
and its end, see N. Iorga, “Lucruri nouă despre Vlad Țepeș,” in Convorbiri Literare,
XXXV, (1901), pp. 52-59; Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 54,
nt. 1; and Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, pp. 45-46.
 The Historical Dracula 23

Dracula.38 Brașov was spared and on 26 July Dracula even sent a letter
to the inhabitants reassuring them that his only quarrel was with the dis-
trict of Făgăraș, which he referred to as “our possession.”39
After he had consolidated his rule in this way, by decapitating one
of the pretenders and terrifying the others and their supporters, Dracula
set out against the Turks. He did not pay them tribute for three years and
he refused to send them the children they demanded for the janissary
corps. Sultan Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, who appar-
ently knew what the Wallachian prince was capable of, sought at first to
remove him by guile rather than force of arms. He sent an envoy, a
Greek named Catavolinos, to meet with Dracula at Giurgiu, a Danubian
citadel and port, to settle a frontier problem. Dracula came to the meet-
ing and brought with him the tribute and fifty children to deceive the
enemy, while he also secretly brought an army which, at the prince’s
signal, surrounded the Ottoman detachment; its commander, Hamza, the
bey of Nicopolis, and the Greek envoy Catavolinos were among the pris-
oners. The captured were taken to Târgoviște where a stake was erected
for each soldier, those destined for Hamza and the Greek being the high-
est.40 Giurgiu fell to Dracula; the right bank of the Danube, from the
mouth of Zimnicea, was pillaged and burned. Another Turkish com-
mander, Mehmed Pasha, saved his life by fleeing. In a letter sent to King
Matthias of Hungary on 11 February 1462, Dracula stated that 23,884
men had been slain in this campaign. It was possible for him to give such
a precise figure because their heads had been carefully collected, “not
including those who were burned in their houses and whose heads were

38
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, p. 46. Concerning the re-
colonization of the villages of Șercaia and Mica, see Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente,
vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 58.
39
Hurmuzaki-Iorga, Documente, vol. XV, pt. 1, p. 56.
40
Regarding the episode with Hamza and Catavolinos, see Laonic Chalcocondil,
Expuneri Istorice, trans. V. Grecu, (București, 1956), pp. 283-284. For the account
of a contemporary Venetian, see N. Iorga, Acte și Fragmente, vol. III, pp. 12-13.
24 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

not presented to our officials.”41 The terror that seized the Turks can be
seen by the fact that even the inhabitants Constantinople prepared to
leave the city, fearing that Dracula might succeed in reaching that far.
“The multitudes [of Turks] were so terror stricken,” states a contempo-
rary chronicler, “that those who could cross to Anatolia considered
themselves fortunate.”42
Such an audacious provocation could not be left unanswered by
Mehmed II. On 26 April 1462, a large army (the Greek chronicler
Chalkokondyles gives the highly-exaggerated figure of 250,000) and
fleet set out for the Danube. Dracula could only confront this Turkish
host with his yeoman army, consisting mainly of cavalry, some twenty
thousand men in all.43 Battle on the open field was, therefore, out of the
question. The Romanian troops could not prevent the Turks from cross-
ing to the left bank of the Danube, opposite Nicopolis. There followed a
number of clashes in places of Dracula’s choosing where the Turkish
commanders could not deploy their troops and where the rapid move-
ments, daring, and valor of the Wallachian prince inflicted heavy losses
on the invaders. One night Dracula attacked the Turkish encampment
itself, in an attempt to reach the Sultan and kill him. Under the cover of
darkness and amidst the confusion created by the surprise attack, the

41
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, pp. 46-47. For Dracula’s letter
to Matthias, see a version published by I. Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, pp. 78-82. It is dated
11 February 1462 and gives the number killed as 23,884; addition of partial figures
by localities, however, gives a figure of 20,199. See also appendix IV.D.
42
Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, p. 44.
43
Laonic Chalcocondil, Expuneri Istorice, p. 287, states that the army with which
Dracula made his night attack on the Sultan’s camp numbered, “even less than
10,000 horsemen,” and adds that, “some say that he had no more than 7,000
horsemen,” The same source states that Dracula, “dividing his army into two, took
one part with him and sent the other against the prince of Black Bogdania,” i.e.
against Stephen the Great, who was attacking Chilia. According to the news sent
from Constantinople to the Doge of Venice on 28 July 1462. Dracula had 30,000
men (see I. Bogdan, Vlad Țepeș, p. 28). A. D. Xenopol, Istoria Românilor, vol. IV,
p. 22 says Vlad had “some 22,000 men.”
 The Historical Dracula 25

Romanians butchered a large number of Turks (the janissary Konstantin

Mihailović, who took part in the battle, gives the highly-exaggerated
figure of 100,000) and withdrew without heavy losses. It was clear that
Dracula could not obtain a decisive result by battle in the open field,
while the Sultan, who had advanced to Târgoviște, could not hope to
destroy the army of the Wallachian prince, especially as the Turks were
short of provisions because the Wallachians had practiced the traditional
scorched earth policy in face of the invaders and plague had broken out
in the Turkish ranks. Moreover, the fleet sent to conquer the citadel of
Chilia on the Danube delta, garrisoned by Hungarian troops, failed in its
task and was forced to retreat. The campaign would have ended in fail-
ure if the Sultan had not found the man he needed in the person of Radu
the Handsome, who had won this surname in the Imperial harem. This
man, who was Dracula’s brother, had accompanied the Sultan on his
expedition against Wallachia and promised him allegiance and tribute.
He won over a number of boyars, especially after he had gained posses-
sion of the monastery of Snagov where many of them had sent their
families and fortunes for shelter.
Mehmed II invested Radu as prince of Wallachia, ordered Ali bey
to enthrone him, and then withdrew across the Danube; on 11 July 1462,
he arrived in Constantinople. Dracula, deserted by the greater part of his
supporters, who apparently preferred a prince devoid of personality, was
forced to retreat into the mountains of Transylvania where he awaited
assistance from King Matthias.44 The latter sent an army to put him back

44
For the 1462 campaign of Mehmed II in Wallachia, see especially Laonic
Chalcocondil, Expuneri Istorice, pp. 284-291; and Ducas, Istoria Turco-Bizantină
(1341-1462), ed. V. Grecu, (București, 1958), pp. 430-432. For descriptions of the
campaign in secondary works see, A. D. Xenopol, Istoria Românilor, vol. IV,
pp. 22-32; Constantin C. Giurescu, Istoria Românilor, vol. II, pp. 47-48; N. Iorga,
Istoria Românilor, vol. II, pp. 47-48; N. Iorga, Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, pp. 136-
142; and Franz Babinger, Mahomet II le conquerant et son temps (1432-1481),
(Paris, 1954), pp. 248-252.
26 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

on the throne, but Dracula’s enemies intrigued against him (in all prob-
ability the Saxons of Brașov, who could not forget the reprisals of 1459).
Three letters, purportedly written by Dracula, were presented to Mat-
thias, including one addressed to Mehmed II in which he begged for
pardon and promised to help the Sultan conquer Transylvania, after
which it would be easy to subdue the whole of Hungary. These letters
were forgeries, similar to the forgery perpetrated later to justify the as-
sassination of Michael the Brave. There was no reason for Dracula to
write anything of this kind after all that had happened. Moreover, the
address from which the letters were supposedly written, Rothel, does not
exist. But Matthias withheld his support and instead captured Dracula
and imprisoned him at Vișegrad, a fortress on the Danube above Buda,
where he remained for twelve years, after which he was assigned a house
in Pest, opposite Buda. He succeeded in recovering his throne in 1476,
but only for a short time.45
In recent years, by giving a certain interpretation to some sources
and ignoring others, credence has been given to the opinion that Dracula
was actually victorious in his struggle with Mehmed II, who was forced
to retreat from Wallachia, and that it was only in the autumn of 1462
that a revolt by discontented boyars obliged Dracula to renounce the
throne in favor of Radu the Handsome and to withdraw to Transylva-
nia.46 This view is not shared by the present author. If Dracula had de-
feated the Turkish army and forced the conqueror of Constantinople to
withdraw in disorder his authority and prestige would have been so great

45
For a text of the letter addressed to the Sultan, see A. D. Xenopol, Istoria
Românilor, vol. IV, pp. 30-31. N. Iorga, Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 141, believes
that ‘Rothel’ is actually Cisnădie; it should be pointed out, however, that in Saxon
Cisnădie is called Heltau, and Cisnădioara is called Michelsberg. See S. Moldovan
and N. Togan, Dictionarul numirilor de localitâți cu poporoațiune românâ din
Ungaria, (Sibiu, 1909), p. 61.
46
B. Câmpina, “Complotul boierilor și ‘răscoala’ din Tara Românească din iulie-
noiembrie 1462,” in Studii și referate privind Istoria României, (București, 1954),
vol. I, pp. 599-624; and Istoria României, vol. II, pp. 474-477.
 The Historical Dracula 27

(recall the deep impression produced by John Hunyadi’s victory in de-

fending Belgrade in 1456) that any uprising by the boyars would have
been impossible. In any case, why should the boyars rebel after a victory
in which they had participated; why should they desert Dracula and side
with Radu the Handsome, who had accompanied the defeated Turkish
army and who had not proved his merits on the battlefield, but in the
imperial harem? If one accepts the hypothesis of Dracula winning a mil-
itary victory, then there is no explanation for the events which took place
between the summer and fall of 1462. However, if one accepts that Drac-
ula was, in reality, forced to retreat in the face of Mehmed’s greatly su-
perior strength and to abandon both Bucharest and Târgoviște, the two
seats of government, then the boyars’ behavior becomes explainable:
they deserted the loser and sided with the man who accompanied the
victorious army of Mehmed the Conqueror. Such conduct is not un-
known; it has repeatedly occurred in the course of our history, for ex-
ample, the cases of Petru Rareș in 1538, of Prince Despot, and Prince
Ion vodă cel Cumplit, and not only in the history of the Romanians, but
also in world history. Thus, the recent opinion regarding the military
outcome of the campaign of 1462 and the boyars’ revolt must be con-
sidered as inconsistent with historical reality.
Some historians, especially A. D. Xenopol, make much of the in-
gratitude shown by Stephen the Great, prince of Moldavia, who attacked
the citadel of Chilia in June, 1462, when Dracula, with whose help Ste-
phen had secured his throne, was standing up to the Sultan’s army.47 But
it was impossible for Stephen to act otherwise. If he had allowed the
Turks to occupy Chilia, the vital port through which the greater part of
Moldavian trade passed and an important citadel protecting southern
Moldavia, this would have meant renouncing his military and economic
independence. For this reason, when he found out about the Turkish ex-
pedition and that a fleet was headed for the mouth of the Danube, he was

47
Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, pp. 31-32.
28 Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler

forced to forestall them and besiege the citadel, which was not in Drac-
ula’s possession, but had had a Hungarian garrison since the time of
John Hunyadi. Thus, Stephen’s conduct was determined by high inter-
ests of state; when a choice had to be made between such interests and
sentiments of personal gratitude, there can be no doubt that the former
take precedence.
Little is known about Dracula’s long period of captivity at Vișegrad
and his subsequent forced residence at Pest, apart from what the German
and Russian stories narrate. The account contained in the Russian stories
about Dracula’s beheading an officer who entered his house in Pest in
pursuit of a malefactor who had sought refuge there, appears to be close
to the truth. Dracula justified his act to King Matthias by saying that he
had punished the officer for taking it upon himself to enter, “the house
of a great ruler, like a thief,” without previously asking for permission.48
This tallies with what we know of his conception of his princely rank.
From the time of his installation in the house at Pest in 1474, Drac-
ula’s situation began to improve. He was awaiting a favorable oppor-
tunity to recover his throne and his chance came when fighting broke
out between his Moldavian relative, Stephen the Great, and the Turks. It
is conceivable that Dracula was a member of the Transylvanian and
Hungarian contingent sent by King Matthias to assist Stephen before the
battle of Vaslui (10 January 1475). It is certain that in February, 1476,
he fought against the Turks in Bosnia,49 and that, at the side of Prince
Stephen Bathory of Transylvania, he led the army which crossed the
mountains into Wallachia in the autumn of the same year, while Stephen
the Great moved towards the Milcov, the border between Wallachia and
Moldavia. In the ensuing battle, the Wallachian Prince Laiotă Basarab
was defeated and forced to take refuge with the Turks. On 8 November
1476, this news was announced to the inhabitants of Brașov by Dracula

48
Cronicele Slavo-Române, p. 213.
49
N. Iorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, (Gotha, 1909), vol. II, p. 177.
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
— 185 He caused his soldiers to shoot their flights towards the Lord
Audeley's company, which lay on the other side of the said water,
and then he and all his company made a sign of retreat. The Lord
Audeley suddenly blew up his trumpet and passed the water. The
earl of Salisbury, who ' knew the sleights, stratagems, and policies of
war, suddenly returned ' and encountered Audeley when his forces
were only partly across the water. ' The fight was sore and dreadful,'
but in the end ' the earl's army so eagerly fought that they slew the
Lord Audeley and all his captains, and discomfited all the remnant of
his people.' 178 Paston Letters, \, 265 ; Dugdale, Baronage (ed.
1675), i, 165. m Diet. Nat. Biog. 'Stafford.' 180 Coll. (Salt Arch. Soc.
New Ser.), vi (2), 217. 1SI Ibid. 249. 188 The peerage had practically
originated in the writ summoning John Sutton to Parliament in 1440,
though a predecessor had been summoned as feudal baron of
Dudley. He had been wounded at St. Albans in 1455. He was a
successful 'trimmer,' as, though a supporter of Henry, he gained
Edward IV's favour, and derived grants of land both from Richard III
and Henry VII. Coll. (Salt Arch. Soc.), ix (2), 68. 183 Paston Letters,
i, 282. 184 Rot. Par!. (Rec. Com.), v, 369. 185 Hall, Chnn. (ed.
1809), 240. Holinshed's account is identical. 243
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.23%
accurate

A HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE If Holinshed 188 is correct

in saying that 2,400 were slain in this battle the fight must have
indeed been ' sore and dreadful,' as allowing the usual proportion of
wounded to killed, more than half the two forces must have been
put hors de combat. Among the prisoners taken by Salisbury was
Lord Dudley ; on the other hand two of Salisbury's sons, pursuing
the defeated enemy too far, were captured, but their father after his
victory succeeded in effecting a junction with York at Ludlow. The
Duke of Buckingham, who had been wounded187 by an arrow 'in
the vysage ' at the battle of St. Albans, where his eldest son was
killed, did not remain quite loyal to Henry, no doubt recognizing the
rising sun and fearing to lose his vast wealth.188 However, on the
whole he favoured the Lancastrians, and was with the queen in
London in I458189 at the ' loveday ' between the two parties, and in
1460 received a grant of land from that party for his services.1'0 He
was slain just before the battle of Northampton in July of the same
year.191 In 1470 Sir Walter Wrottesley, a staunch supporter of
Warwick the kingmaker, probably lost his life in that cause. He was
with Warwick and Clarence when they were on their way to join Sir
Robert Welles, who had been defeated in Lincolnshire. Welles
disclosed the conspiracy that these two had entered into, and on the
king summoning them to answer this charge they fled ; but Sir
Walter was probably among those of Warwick's followers who were
hanged at Southampton.198 During the Lancastrian period
Staffordshire was until the Wars of the Roses well represented in
Parliament ; the county, the borough of Stafford, and Newcastle
under Lyme generally sending two members each, but Lichfield is
not mentioned. The last-named town was one of those that did not
value highly the privilege of representation. In fact it was regarded
more as a burden than a privilege, so that there was great difficulty
in finding duly qualified members. The only men who were anxious
to be elected were the lawyers, who ' saw the advantage of
combining the transaction of their clients' business in London with
the right of receiving wages as knights of the shire at the same
time.' m To the Parliament of 1414 held at Leicester, Stafford county
sent two members, John Meverell and William Walshale,194 the
boroughs being unrepresented. In the ' Parliament of bats ' or
bludgeons, summoned to meet at Leicester in February, 1425-6,
where the parties of Gloucester and Beaufort met in hostile attitude,
and Bedford arbitrated between them,195 six members represented
Staffordshire : the county sending Richard Lane of Bentley and
Thomas Arblaster ; Newcastle, Robert Wodehous and Henry Lilie ;
Stafford borough, Robert Whitegreve and William Preston.196 At the
Parliament held at Westminster in 1455, when, after the battle of St.
Albans, Henry was obliged to declare his enemies loyal, no returns
have 1M Holinshed, op. cit. ii, 251. 1SI Paston Letters, i, 327. 88
Ibid, i, 335. "' Ibid. 416, 426. 190 Rymer, Foedera (orig. ed.), xi,
443. 191 Hall, Cbnn. (ed. 1809), 244. "' Coll. (Salt Arch. Soc.), vi,
(2), 227 (New Scr.). 193 Stubbs, Const. Hist. (4th ed.), iii, 407. "'
Par/. Accts. and Papers, Ixii (i), 282. 19sStubbs, Const. Hist, iii, 103,
387 ; Rot. Par!. (Rec. Com.), iv, 296-7. 116 Par!. Accts. and Papers,
Ixii (i), 311. 244
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.88%
accurate

POLITICAL HISTORY been found at all for Staffordshire ;

the same is the case in 1459 and 1460, doubtless owing to the
confusion of the times ; while of the Parliaments of 1461 and 1462—
3 no returns for any part of England have been discovered.
Constitutional forms were in abeyance, and the regular machinery of
government paralysed. From 1462—3 to 1483 Parliaments were only
summoned irregularly.197 The part played in the reign of Richard III
by Henry Stafford the second Duke of Buckingham, grandson of the
duke killed before the battle of Northampton, and descended both
on his father's and mother's side from Edward III,198 was as
important as from his lineage and wealth we should expect. He was
the greatest of the old nobility, possessing lands in half the counties
in England, including in Staffordshire the castle and manor of
Stafford and the manors of Billington, Bradley, Tillington, Madeley,
Eaton, Darlaston, Doddington, Stalbroke, Packington, Wigginton,
Hartwell, Tittensor, and the fourth part of the manor of Blymhill.199
He was married to Catherine Woodville, but regarded his wife's
family as upstarts, and was naturally in return hated by them. On
the death of Edward IV he threw all his influence upon the side of
the Duke of Gloucester, and he was mainly instrumental in effecting
the arrest of his own brother-in-law Lord Rivers, and Lord Grey, and
obtaining possession of Edward V. Gloucester was not lacking in
gratitude for the support of the head of the old nobility, and he was
invested with extraordinary powers in Wales and five of the English
counties, made chief justice and chamberlain of the principality of
Wales, and constable and steward of all the royal castles there, in
the marches, and in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Somerset,
Dorset, and Wilts.200 In Richard's coronation procession
Buckingham's magnificence outshone everyone, his retainers all
wearing his livery of the Stafford knot,201 and immediately
afterwards he was made steward of the honour of Tutbury and other
Duchy of Lancaster estates in Staffordshire, and vast additions, by
reason of his descent from the Bohuns, were promised to his
enormous possessions.202 Yet in a little while he was in revolt, why
it is impossible to determine ; and after some hesitation, during
which visions of claiming the throne for himself may have crossed
his mind, he decided, with the connivance of his prisoner Morton,
Bishop of Ely, to marry the earl of Richmond to Elizabeth of York,
and place them on the throne.203 His fall was terrible in its
suddenness : the army he had collected dispersed in a few days, and
he was a fugitive. He had been proclaimed a ' false traitor and rebel,'
m his hiding-place was discovered, and on i November he was
brought to Salisbury, where he was executed next day, and his vast
estates confiscated.205 But the period of constant strife was nearly
over. On 7 August, 1485, Henry Tudor landed at Milford Haven, and
marched by way of Shrewsbury 197 C. H. Parry, Parliaments and
Councils of England under the above dates. 198 His mother was
Margaret, daughter of Edmund Beaufort, second Duke of Somerset,
great-grandson of Edward III. '"Dugdale, Baronage (ed. 1675), i,
166 ; Cal. of Inj. p.m. (Rec. Com.), iv, 294. ""Dugdale, Baronage (ed.
1675), i, 169 ; Diet. Nat. Biog. Stafford. 101 Hall, Chron. (ed. 1809),
375. "'Dugdale, Baronage (ed. 1675), i, 168. ""Dugdale, Baronage
(ed. 1675), i, 169. *" Rot. Par!. (Rec. Com.), vi, 245. 104 Hall,
Chron. (ed. 1809), 395. 245
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.12%
accurate

A HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE to Stafford, having by that

time collected a considerable force. In the mean time Richard had
entrusted the defence of Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Wales to
Lord Stanley and his brother Sir William, and had taken up his head
quarters at Nottingham. From Stafford Henry marched to Lichfield,
and lay without the walls in his camp all night, entering the town
next morning, when he was received ' with all honour like a prince.'
A day or two before, Lord Stanley with 5,000 men had been in the
town, but evacuated it, being afraid to commit himself by any
definite action, for he had been summoned both by Henry and
Richard, and was as yet undecided. Henry left Lichfield and marched
towards Tamworth, meeting on the way Sir Walter Hungerford, Sir
Thomas Bourchier and others who joined him.206 ' Divers other
noble personages which inwardly hated King Richard worse than a
toad or serpent,' also came to him now. Hall 207 gives a quaint
account of Henry's wandering away from his own army near
Tamworth, perplexed as to the future conduct of Stanley, and
passing the night in a small village, three miles from the head
quarters of his force, much fearing least he should be captured by
King Richard's scouts. However he was unmolested, and next
morning after giving an excuse to his men for his absence, and
riding through the streets of the town so that all could see him, he
went to Atherstone, where he had an interview with the Stanleys,
then either returned to Tamworth, or slept where he was, and next
day was joined by his army and marched on to Bosworth.
Shakespeare makes him return to Tamworth, where on ' the plain
near Tamworth ' 208 he makes his address to his troops. Among
those who died fighting for Richard at Bosworth was Walter
Devereux, who had married Anne the heiress of William Lord Ferrers
of Chartley, and had been advanced to the dignity of a baron under
the title of Lord Ferrers.209 Henry VII had the good fortune to enjoy
a reign which, compared with those immediately preceding it, was
peaceful and quiet, and he had leisure to enjoy the sport of hunting,
of which he was fond. Needwood Forest was one of his hunting
grounds, and he often brought his court to Tutbury for that purpose
when on his way to Lathom House in Lancashire to see his mother
the Countess of Derby.210 In 1512 Staffordshire was summoned to
provide a contingent for war with France, Henry VIII having joined
the Holy League ; and the Earl of Shrewsbury was directed to
muster ' as many of our subjects able men for the war under the
degree of a baron to do unto us service as be our own tenants, and
other our subjects within our counties of Derby, Salop, and Stafford,'
and those retained for the war were to have delivered to them
tokens or badges to wear, but the expedition was a failure.811 The
chief connexion of the county of Stafford with the political history of
England during the reign of Henry VIII is furnished by the life of
Edward, third Duke of Buckingham. In England, by the time of
Edward I most of the feudal nobility of the Norman period had
disappeared. In Staffordshire, as we have seen, Fitz Anculf was soon
only a memory, and the great 106 Hall, Chrm. (ed. 1 809), 413. *»
Ibid. ™ Ric. Ill, Act v, sc. 2. ™> Dugdale, Baronage (ed. 1675), ">>
177- "° Mosley, Hist, of Tutbury, 132. 111 Rymer, Foedera (orig. ed.),
xiii, 337. 246
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.27%
accurate

POLITICAL HISTORY Ferrers family forfeited their estates

after Evesham, the male line of the Earls of Chester came to an end
with John Scot the last earl, and the Paynels in 1194 handed on their
estates through a woman. In England, as a whole, between 1290
and the opening of the Wars of the Roses, many more great houses
of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had vanished ; and those
wars exterminated so many noble families that by the time of Henry
VII their power and wealth were concentrated in a few hands.
Stafford, Nevill, Percy, Howard, and Berkeley, were the chief of
these. Edward Stafford, the third Duke of Buckingham, had received
back his father's lands on the accession of Henry VII, with whom he
was high in favour, and this royal favour he retained at the beginning
of the reign of Henry VIII. He accompanied Henry to the Field of the
Cloth of Gold, 'fitting himself212 with more splendour than any other
nobleman.' The state he maintained was almost regal. But he was
too great a man by descent, wealth, wide estates, and connexions to
be allowed to live by his king. He was brother-in-law of the Earl of
Northumberland ; his three daughters had married the Earl of Surrey
afterwards Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Westmorland, and Lord
Abergavenny, and his son had married Ursula, sister of Cardinal Pole,
grandson of George Duke of Clarence. He was the mouthpiece of the
old nobility for expressing their hatred of the upstart Wolsey, and it
was to Wolsey he was betrayed. The charges against him when
brought to trial were that he had listened to prophecies of the king's
death and his own succession, and had expressed an intention to
assassinate the king, a frivolous accusation, and probably untrue,
but sufficient to get so dangerous a subject out of the way, and he
was beheaded on Tower Hill, 17 May, 1521. On hearing of his death
Charles V is said to have exclaimed, ' A butcher's dog has killed the
finest buck in England.' 213 The history of this illustrious house had
of late been marked by a long list of calamities, the last four heads
of the house had all met violent deaths as well as the eldest son of
the first duke, and with the third duke the magnificence of the house
departed for ever. His son Henry received back some of the family
estates in Staffordshire and elsewhere, and in 1531 he was granted
the castle and manor of Stafford.21* In Edward VI's first Parliament
he was member with Richard Forssett for the borough of
Stafford,215 and by that Parliament he was restored in blood and
made Baron Stafford. This barony devolved at last upon Roger, who
sold the dignity to Charles I for £8oo.215a New names were now
arising in Staffordshire, as all over England, and old ones springing
into greater prominence, and from the family of Dudley came men
who had a decided influence on the history of their country, an
influence which does not redound to their credit. Edmund Dudley,
who with Empson is notorious for filling the coffers of Henry VII, was
a representative of a younger branch of the Suttons of Dudley
Castle, and was rewarded by Henry VIII for the vast stores of 112
Dugdale, Baronage (ed. 1675), i, 170. 11 Ibid. ; Burke, Extinct
Peerage, Stafford ; Rupert Simms, Bibliotheca StaforJiensis ; Diet.
Nat. Biog. 114 Dugdale, Baronage (ed. 1675), i, 170. "5 Part. Accts.
and Papers, Ixii (i), 376. I15a G.E.C. Peerage, vii, 214. 247
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.00%
accurate

A HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE wealth s18 which had

been accumulated for him to squander by execution on Tower Hill.
He had married his ward, Elizabeth daughter of Lord de Lisle, and
their son was John, said to have been born near Okeover in 1502.
John Dudley was able, tactful, and resolute, and soon made his way
to the front. In 1536 he was sheriff of Staffordshire, and about that
time bought the Dudley estates from a member of the Sutton
family.217 Created Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland, his
ambition overleaped itself, and his design of bringing the crown into
his own family is familiar to every one.218 He was the ablest man of
his time, but unscrupulous ; he supported the reformers for his own
gain, but on the scaffold attributed the troubles of England to the
quarrel with the Papacy. His fifth son was Robert Dudley, Earl of
Leicester, whose story is too well known to need repetition ; he is
chiefly connected with Staffordshire by the fact that about the time
he married his third wife Lettice, countess of Essex,219 whose
husband he was suspected to have poisoned, he bought Drayton
Basset, where he visited her ; her son Robert, the second Earl of
Essex, living conveniently near at Chartley. In 1547 the county had
to bear its share in the war against Scotland, and the Earl of
Warwick was commissioned for the ' North partes,' including
Staffordshire, to levy all and singular the king's subjects who were '
habill and mete for the warres,' whenever he should think fit, and to
drill and arm them at his discretion. To carry out this commission
effectually all justices of the peace, sheriffs, mayors, bailiffs,
stewards, and constables were to obey his orders.220 In 1570 Pius V
issued a bull excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and declaring her to
be deposed from the throne, an act which placed the Roman
Catholics in England in a most unenviable position, as Romanism
thereby became identified with disloyalty. It also had its effect on the
conduct of Parliament, which in 1571 enacted penal statutes against
the Catholics and made assent to the Thirty-nine Articles obligatory.
Yet John Giffard of Chillington, a ' prominent papist,' in the year
when the Armada brought forth all the patriotism of the country, did
as many Roman Catholics did, took the oath of allegiance to
Elizabeth.221 His fourth son, as we shall see, was one of
Walsingham's tools for intercepting the correspondence of Mary
Queen of Scots when at Chartley. The intrigues of the Jesuits against
Elizabeth provoked her to deal still more strongly with the recusants.
In 1583 the sheriff of the county was ordered by Burghley and
Walsingham to make an inventory of the property of Lord Paget at
Beaudesert who was ' affected to the Romish religion ; ' and for
favouring Mary his lands were forfeited. Elizabeth evidently had 116
Henry VII after Bo^worth had rewarded many of his followers by
grants of land in Staffordshire, but the greatest change was in the
reign of Henry VIII, who dissolved thirty-six religious houses in the
county, and gave them to different persons ; Harwood, ErJestvick, xi.
The effects of the suppressior. of the monasteries are discussed in
the Ecclesiastical and the Social and Economic Articles. 117 Dugdale,
Baronage (ed. 1675), ii, 216. 118 Lord Guildford Dudley, the
husband of Lady Jane Grey, was fourth son of the Duke of
Northumberland. " This lady, of vigorous character and wonderful
vitality, lived until 1634, when .she died at the age of 94. She was
the great-niece of Anne Boleyn. "• Acts of the P.C. 1547, pp. 118-19.
MI Cal. ofS.P. Dam. 158:1-90, p. 561. 248
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.71%
accurate

POLITICAL HISTORY good cause for watching the recusants

in Staffordshire ; Thomas Morgan, Mary's most trusted agent,
advised her 'if possible not to go out of Staffordshire which is
altogether in her favour,' SM and ' Ridworth ' (Ridware ?) is
described as being ' a town where all are recusants.' 22S In 1585
people refusing to attend church were disarmed, and later on the
arms taken from such persons were given to the queen's good
subjects ; !2* consequently fifteen recusants were formally
disarmed, of whom Sampson Erdeswick of Sandon was one. The
commissioners appointed to search for recusants displayed in some
cases too much zeal, some of them having searched Sampson
Walkeden's house at Stone in a manner which led to inquiry by the
sheriff on the order of the council. There is a list dated I592225 of
recusants in the county divided into three classes, first those
remaining at liberty, who were John Draicot of Painesley and Francis
Gatagrea of Swynnerton, esquires ; William Stapleton of Bradley,
John Stapleton of the same place, Philip Draicot of Leigh, Sampson
Erdeswick of Sandon, William Maxfield of Mere, gentlemen ;
secondly those imprisoned, Humphrey Cumberford of Cumberford,
Erasmus Wolseley of Wolseley Bridge, Hugh Erdeswick of Sandon;
and thirdly those at liberty upon bonds, John 'Jifford ' of Chillington,
Brian Fowler of the 'Manor upon Sow.' Queen Elizabeth visited the
county in 1575 after her entertainment by Leicester at Kenilworth,
from which place she came to Lichfield on 27 July, and thence went
for some days to Chartley, whose owner, Walter Devereux,226 had
just sailed to Ireland. Stafford made great preparations for her
coming ; every house was newly painted, the streets gravelled, and
the cross repaired. She arrived on 8 August, and was met by the
bailiffs on foot, who presented to her a cup ' two foote or more in
height,' which she most lovingly received, ' saying most gracious
favourable words,' which were duly responded to. She then passed
on to the market-place, and pausing there, asked the cause of the
decay of the town, and was told that the decay of ' Capping ' and
the taking away from the town of the assizes were the chief causes.
Elizabeth answered she would renew and establish better the statute
relating to capping, and the assizes should be held there for ever.
After this gracious promise, she passed on through the town to the
castle, where she dined and ' sopted.' The petition of the Stafford
citizens to the queen on the matter of the capping statute was
backed up by a letter dated 27 September in the same year from
Lord Paget to Burghley, bringing to his recollection a petition of the
poor cappers of Lichfield for the better execution of the statute for
the wearing of caps, and commending the petitioners to his
lordship's notice as the cappers were so poor.227 Elizabeth kept her
promise, for not long m Rep. on Salisbury MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.),
iii, 148. m Cal. S.P. Dom. 1581-90, p. 540. *" Hist. MSS. Com. Rep.
iv, 330. 2" Ibid, iv, 272. 8M Walter Devereux, created Earl of Essex in
1572, was the grandson of Walter Devereux, Viscount Hereford, the
grandson of Sir Walter Devereux, who had married the heiress of
Lord Ferrers, and fell at Bosworth. The family of Devereux provided
recorders of Lichfield for eight successive generations, probably a
unique record. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xi, App. v, 122. ™ Rep.
onSaRsbury MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), ii, 116. I 249 32
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.00%
accurate

A HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE afterwards we read that

the statute was daily put in execution in all parts of the realm.839
We have now to narrate the part which Staffordshire played in the
captivity of Mary Queen of Scots, the most romantic figure in English
history. In February, 1568-9, Mary arrived at Tutbury from
Bolton,289 having been transferred thither because of her many
intrigues, in order that she might be in closer custody. Tutbury was
at that time one of the seven mansions of George Talbot, the sixth
Earl of Shrewsbury, who held it on a lease from the crown, and was
used by him as a hunting box. His wife, the famous ' Bess of
Hardwick,' owned two more in her own right, so that Shrewsbury
was almost a king in that neighbourhood. As he was ' half a Catholic
' and a nobleman of high rank and character, he seemed peculiarly
fitted to be Mary's guardian. It cannot be said, reading the provision
made for Mary, that she was so badly treated, in spite of the house
being poor. She was allowed two physicians who slept in the house,
a large suite of more than fifty persons attended her, ten horses
were provided,230 and £52 a week was allowed for her
maintenance. She was not destined to stay at Tutbury long, for in
the middle of March Shrewsbury received orders to remove her to
Wingfield Manor, another of his mansions, and a great change for
the better for the captive. In September Mary was taken back to
Tutbury in order to be again in more strict custody, as Elizabeth had
awakened to the danger of Norfolk's plot to marry Mary, who
probably was all the time only using Norfolk as a tool whereby she
might obtain her freedom. Her second visit to Tutbury marked an
epoch in her captivity, for hitherto she had been treated leniently ;
now her retinue was diminished and her actions more closely
watched. She was at this time, indeed, the centre of plots against
Elizabeth and her government which were backed up by Spain, and
it was now that the conspiracy of the northern earls, Westmorland
and Northumberland, came to a head, and they resolved to march
and deliver Mary from Tutbury, an enterprise which failed miserably.
If it had been resolutely carried out it might well have succeeded, as
the earls got within fifty-four miles of the castle, a weak place and
easily stormed. It was to suppress this rebellion that Walter
Devereux Viscount Hereford raised a troop of horse, and for his
services was created Earl of Essex.231 The attempted rescue caused
Mary to be hurried off to Coventry 23a with orders that if she tried
to escape she was to be executed forthwith. 258 Acts of P.C. 1577-8,
p. 341. The evils arising from the decay of the trade of cap-making,
which had been the subject of several Acts of Parliament, by the
disuse of caps, had received attention in the statute 33 Eliz. cap. 19,
some time before the queen's visit. By this every person, except
maiden ladies, and gentlewomen, all noble personages, and every
lord, knight, and gentlemen of the possession of twenty marks in
land by the year, shall on Sundays and holidays wear on their head a
cap of wool made in England by the cappers. The penalty was 3/.
^d, per day. m Cal. of Scot. Pap. ii, 616. "° MSS. Mary Queen of
Scots, iii, 41 ; Cal. of Scot. Pap. ii, 617. 831 Dugdale, Baronage
(1675 ed.), ii, 177. There are many letters from Mary at this time in
the Cal. of Scot. Pap. iii. In one dated from 'Tutbury the ix of
November, 1569," to Cecil, she prays him to ask the queen to ' have
pitie on our estait ' as the writer is waiting on her ' loofing friendship
' and has in no ways done anything to offend her, albeit the queen
may be otherwise ' informit ' by the false inventions of 'our enemies.'
131 Cal. of Scot. Pap. iii, 9. 250
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.98%
accurate

POLITICAL HISTORY There is a letter from Mary dated from

' my prison at Tutbury, October ist,' complaining of the severity
shown to her servants, and that she was not allowed to receive any
news from Scotland or France : instead of which they have forbid me
to go out, and have rifled my trunks, entering my chamber with
pistols, not without putting me in bodily fear, and accusing my
people, rifle them and place them under arrest.233 As soon as the
rebellion was over Mary came back to Tutbury,234 where, to prevent
her escape, among other precautions, the lock of her outer chamber
door was removed so that her movements might be watched more
closely. Next May she went to Chatsworth. In the beginning of 1585
the ill-fated queen arrived again at Tutbury from Wingfield, most
reluctantly, as it was the most wretched of all her prisons in England,
and when she arrived she found her rooms had been unoccupied
since her last stay. The place was miserably furnished, the walls
damp, doors and windows ill-fitting, and in a letter written at the
time Mary thus describes it : — I am in a walled enclosure on the
top of a hill, exposed to all the winds and inclemencies of heaven.
Within the enclosure there is a very old hunting lodge, built of
timber and plaster cracked in all parts ; the said lodge, distant three
fathoms or thereabouts from the wall, and situated so low that the
rampart of earth behind the wall is on a level with the highest part
of the building so that the sun can never shine upon it on that side
nor any fresh air come to it ... The only apartments that I have for
my own person consists of two little miserable rooms so very cold
that but for the ramparts and entrenchments of curtains and
tapestry I have made it would not be possible for me to stay in
them. The garden for exercise was a potato ground ' fitter to keep
pigs in than to bear the name of a garden,' and it need hardly be
said that the sanitary arrangements were disgusting.235 The
neighbouring gentry238 lent her linen and bedding, otherwise she
would have fared ill, as she was now a martyr to rheumatism ; and
little pity could be expected from Sir Amyas Paulet, who was made
her guardian in April. Elizabeth apparently was not aware of the
wretched condition of the place, for when she heard of it she wrote
expressing her anger at the persons ' who had furnished Tutbury so
basely, and thus given the Queen of Scots such just cause of
complaint against her." When at Tutbury Mary was visited by
Nicholas White, who discreetly advised that ' very few should have
access to or conference with this lady, for besides that she is a
goodly personage, she hath without an alluring grace, a pretty
Scotch speech, and a searching wit clouded with mildness.' !S7 At
the end of the year she was removed to Chartley, avowedly in
answer to her own demands for a less rigorously unpleasant
residence, but really that Walsingham might trap her. Chartley was
now in the ownership of the second Earl of Essex, then a very young
man, whose consent to Mary's imprisonment there was not 233 Cal.
of Scot. Pap. ii, 682. *" Ibid, iii, 41. 235 Strickland, Letters of Mary
Queen of Scots, ii, 161. >3il An order was sent to Thomas Gresley,
sheriff of the county 7 Nov. 1 5 84, to convey the household stuff of
Lord Paget, who had lately been attainted, to Tutbury for the use of
the Queen of Scots, but it wasof indifferent quality, as the best had
been sold ; Harwood (ed. 1844), Erdeswick, 532 ; and see Cal. S.P.
Dm. 1581-90, p. 226. ™ Rep. on SaRibury MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), i,
400. 251
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.95%
accurate

A HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE asked, and who objected,

when told it had already been decided upon, that the house was too
small, and he wanted it for himself. It is described M8 * as low and
unhealthy, and the water surrounding it as of such depth as may
stand instead of a strong wall,' and as having only one kitchen. Here
Mary's health was very poor, so bad that an advocate of Elizabeth's
harshest measures wrote of her that she was ' so sickly and
impotent her majesty thought it impossible she should be anyways
able to annoy her or to do her any great harm.' Walsingham was
firmly convinced that Mary deserved death, and that her death was
necessary for the safety of England. He knew that Elizabeth would
not consent to her death unless she knew and could let the world
know that Mary had been plotting against her. At Tutbury Mary had
had no chance to plot because she was so rigorously guarded ; at
Chartley she was to have more scope, and the Babington conspiracy
followed in the next spring.239 The plot was given ample time to
develop, and it was not until August that the conspirators were
seized, and it was then resolved to take stronger measures. Mary's
health had improved at Chartley, and one day Paulet proposed a visit
to Tixall, a house belonging to Sir Walton Aston a few miles distant,
to see a buck hunt. On their arrival a party of horsemen awaited
them, who poor Mary hoped were her friends at last come to rescue
her. But their leader rode forward with a warrant for her removal to
Tixall, and the sending of her secretaries to London, and she was
forthwith hurried into the house and kept there seventeen days.
Paulet in the meantime hurried back to Chartley, ransacked all Mary's
papers, and sent every scrap to Windsor for Elizabeth's perusal. This
done Mary returned there.240 The conspirators were tried and
executed in September, a commission was appointed to try Mary in
October, and she was removed to Fotheringhay at the end of
September. In the year of the Armada letters were sent to the lords-
lieutenant of several counties, including Staffordshire, for the
training and mustering of soldiers,241 and from the abstract of the
certificate returned from the lordlieutenant, the Earl of Shrewsbury,
the following were the ' able trayned and furnished men in the
county, * reduced into bandes under Captaines, and how they were
soarted with weapons ' in April of that year.843 The ' ablemen '
numbered 1,910, the 'furnished' 1,000; there were two companies of
' trained ' men numbering 200 each, and one company of ' untrained
' men of the same strength. The captains of the two trained
companies were Ralfe Sneade and Thomas Horwood, and Ralfe
Sneade commanded the untrained. 138 Morris, Letters of Sir Amyas
Paulet, 94. ro Innes, England under the Tudors, 335. It was at
Chartley that the Queen of Scots received and dispatched her letters
in the false bottom of a barrel of beer which used to come every
week from Burton; and these Giffard read and betrayed. 140
Hosack, Mary Queen of Scots and Her Accusers, ii, 385 ; Morris,
Letters of Sir Amyai Paulet, 2506! seq. Paulet gives us a glimpse of
the wealth of the country gentlemen of the time : ' Sir W. Aston
saith he hath upon the point of a hundred persons uprising and
downlying in his house'; Letters of Sir A. Paulet, 98. Sir W. Aston was
thanked for 'yielding his house* ; Acts ofP.C. 1586-7, p. 210. 141
Acts of P. C. 1588, p. 1 6. 141 Harl. MSS. No. 168.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 26.17%
accurate

POLITICAL HISTORY Each of the trained companies was

armed thus : — Men Shott Cortletts Bows Bill* 200 85 cal.'43 60 20
2O 15 mus. The untrained company was armed in a slightly different
manner : — Men Shott Corsletts Bows Bills 200 80 60 20 40 The
cavalry consisted of the following : — Launces, 28 ; Light Horse, 50 ;
Petroneles, 26.244 The levies summoned to resist the Armada were
in a very bad state of discipline ; Shrewsbury, the lord-lieutenant,
complained to his deputy lieutenants that of the whole band of
horsemen in Staffordshire only six were serviceable and furnished as
they ought to be.245 It was the old tale enforcing the old lesson
which the English have never learnt, that false economy in peace
means extra risk and extra expense in war ; as Leicester wrote to
Walsingham : ' Great dilatory wants are found upon all sudden hurly
burlies. If the navy had not been strong enough what peril would
England now have been in.' 346 Of these inefficient troops
Staffordshire furnished the commander-inchief, Leicester, a man with
no military capacity, but he fortunately had at his elbow Sir John
Norreys, the one experienced captain available.247 In the order of
27 June, 1588, to the county levies in England to be ready to go
where directed at an hour's notice 248 Staffordshire is not
mentioned, but in August of that year the county was ordered
through the lord-lieutenant to furnish 400 foot, and share with
Derbyshire in providing thirty-four horsemen to join the Earl of
Huntingdon in the north, for the Spanish fleet was said to have
landed men at Moray Firth.249 In October again Staffordshire was
one often counties which with London provided 1,500 voluntary
soldiers to go to the Low Countries.250 In 1596 Staffordshire shared
with the counties of Warwick, Worcester, Gloucester, and Salop in
providing 800 men to go to Calles (Cadiz) in the brilliant expedition
of Howard, Essex, and Raleigh, the contingent being ordered to
march to Plymouth under Sir Christopher Blunt.251 In 1599 and
1600 constant levies of men were made in the county for the wars in
Ireland, a service which was evidently very unpopular, as many of
the men deserted and their places were filled up with much
difficulty, a task which the authorities were by no means ready to
perform.252 Under Henry VIII and his three successors a number of
old electoral boroughs were revived, and others newly summoned,
mainly for the purpose "* Presumably ' cal ' means calivers, which,
according to Clepham (Defensive Armour of Mediaeval Times and
the Renaissance, 225), means a 'harquebus or light musket, of a
standard calibre, introduced into England during Elizabeth's reign,
4ft. loin, in length.' The musket was making its first appearance at
this time. 144 Petronel, ' a kind of hand bombard fired by a
horseman from a forked rest fixed on the saddle.' When not in use it
hung suspended from the rider's neck; Clepham, op. cit. 219. 145
Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iv, 332. 146 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1581-90, p. 513. '"
Innes, England under the Tudors, 362. "8 Acts ofP.C. 1588, p. 137.
149 Ibid. 231 ; Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xii, App. iv, 259, which says
thirty-six launces instead of thirtyfour horse. 150 Acts ofP.C. 1588, p.
297. • '" Rep. on SaKsbury MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com.), vi, 206. M> Acts
ofP.C. 1 599-1600 passim, and Hut. MSS. Com. Rep. xii, App. iv, 276,
279, 331, 333. 253
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.60%
accurate

A HISTORY OF STAFFORDSHIRE of creating votes in the

interests of the crown, and the Parliamentary representation was
practically set upon the basis which it retained till 1 832."" Lichfield,
which had been unrepresented for 200 years, again sent two
members in 1552—3, Mark Wyrley and William Fitzherbert, the
county sending to the same Parliament William Devereux and Walter
Aston ; Newcastle, Roger Fowke and John Smyth ; and the borough
of Stafford, Edward Colborne and Francis Smith.354 In 1563
Tamworth appears for the first time, and the county in all was
represented by ten members. These members sat for a considerable
time, as this Parliament was repeatedly prorogued, partly on account
of the plague which was then raging in London and Westminster,265
and partly because under the Tudors it had become customary to
resume business in repeated sessions with the same body of
members.256 The Parliament of 1572, to which the county again
sent ten members, lasted eleven years. In 1601 a Northamptonshire
gentleman, Robert Browne, was one of the members for
Lichfield.267 At the famous Parliament of 1621, which attacked
monopolies, impeached Bacon, and entered in the journals of the
House a protestation of their privilege to speak freely on all subjects,
only to have it torn from the book by the king, Sir William Bowyer
and Thomas Crompton represented the county ; William Wingfield
and Richard Weston of Rugeley,268 Lichfield ; Sir John Davis and
Edward Kerton, Newcastle ; Matthew Cradock and Richard Dyott,
Stafford borough ; Sir Thomas Puckeringe and John Ferrour, '
merchant of London,' Tarnworth.259 In February, i 604, the
government, alarmed at the result of the toleration they had granted
to the Catholics, determined on sterner measures, and the result
was the Gunpowder Plot, of which Holbeche House saw one of the
closing scenes. The original conspirators, Catesby, Thomas Percy,
Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, and John Wright, were no obscure
fanatics, but gentlemen of name and blood, and if they had kept the
secret to themselves the House of Lords would probably have been
blown up. But they committed the fatal error of having too many
accomplices, and determined that arms and men should be ready in
the country to commence war as soon as Parliament was destroyed.
Tresham betrayed the plot, and even then the conspirators would
probably have escaped, but when they fled into the country, leaving
Fawkes grimly sticking to his post, they raised open insurrection.260
As they rode through the country on the morning of 5 November
they found that the zeal of most of their supporters had cooled, and
only a few score joined them. What followed may be told in the
words of the sheriff of Worcestershire to the council. After describing
how the rebellious assembly had broken into Lord Windsor's house
at Hewell on 7 November, 'taking there great store of armour and
artillery,' he relates how they passed that night into the county of
Stafford unto the house of one Stephen Littleton, gentleman, about
two miles distant from Stourbridge, ' whither we "' Lane Pool, Hist.
Atlas. Notes on Map xxiii ; Gneist, Hist, of Engl. Part. (ed. 3), 232.
154 Par/. Accts. and Pap. Ixii (i), 379 ; Shaw, Hist, of Staffs, i, 318.
'" Parry, Paris, and Councils of Engl. 216. >M Gneist, Hist, of Engl.
Par/, (ed. 3), 241. '" Par/. Accts. and Pap. Ixii (i),44O. m Afterwards
baron of the Exchequer. '"Par/. Accts. and Pap. Ixii (i), 453. M0
Trevelyan, Engl. under the Stuarts, 96. 254
The text on this page is estimated to be only 27.96%
accurate

POLITICAL HISTORY pursued, with the assistance of

several gentlemen and the power and force of the country.' We
made against them upon Thursday morning, and freshly pursued
them until the next day, at which time about twelve or one of the
clock in the afternoon we overtook them at the said Holbeche
House, the greatest part of their retinue, and some of the better sort
being dispersed and fled before our coming, whereupon and after
summons and warning first given, and proclamation in his highness's
name to yield and submit themselves, who refusing the same we
fired some part of the house and assaulted some part of the
rebellious persons left in the said house, in which assault one Mr.
Robert Catesby is slain, and three others verily thought wounded to
death as far as we can learn are Thomas Percy gentleman, John
Wright and Christopher Wright, gentlemen ; and these are
apprehended and taken, Thomas Winter, John Grant, Henry Morgan,
Ambrose Rokewood, gentlemen, and six others of inferior degree.
The rest of that rebellious assembly is dispersed.261 Percy, John
Wright, and his brother died of their wounds, so that only Fawkes
and Thomas Winter of the original five fell into the government's
hands alive. In the meantime Fawkes, under dreadful torture in the
Tower, was telling the council the whole of the plot, and it was not
long before the plotters were tried and punished. James I visited
Staffordshire more than once ; his fondness for hunting attracted
him to Needwood, where his favourite eminence for resting and
looking at the scenery was called ' The King's Standing.' 263 In 1 6 1
7 he visited Stafford, and was received most loyally, and in 1619,
1621, and 1624 he was at Tutbury, the scene of so much of his
mother's misery. In 1625 Staffordshire gentlemen were fined for
their non-appearance at the coronation of Charles I to receive the
order of knighthood, the qualification for which had been fixed in the
reign of Henry VI at the annual income of £40, an increase from the
£20 enacted by the Statute ' de Militibus.' The fines had been levied
at the coronations of Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, but not by
James I. The average fine imposed upon a defaulter in Staffordshire
was £10, whereas the average fee for knighthood was between £60
and £70. So wide was the net cast that in Staffordshire a yeoman
was summoned. The coronation was on 2 February, 1625-6, but it
was not until 1630 that decisive steps were taken to enforce the
fines on defaulters residing at a distance from the capital, when
special commissions were issued to prominent persons in each
county, that relating to Staffordshire being addressed to Robert Earl
of Essex, Walter Lord Aston, Sir Hugh Wrottesley, and Sir William
Bowyer, kts., and Richard Weston, esq. Another commission was
issued on 12 February, 1630—1, and another on 9 June, 1631.
Altogether about 260 gentlemen compounded, the compositions
varying from £10 to £$o, the former sum being that generally paid,
and no doubt the far-reaching nature of these exactions helped to
turn the country gentlemen against the king. The abolition of
compulsory knighthood was one of the first Acts of the Long
Parliament.263 In 1636 the Roman Catholics in the county felt the
benefit of Charles' more lenient treatment of their co-religionists, to
which he was urged by Henrietta Maria and the Archbishop of York.
Wentworth and others were commissioned to lease to recusants in
Staffordshire and other northern counties M1 S. R. Gardiner, What
Gunpowder Plot Was, 46-7 ; Cal. S.P. Dam. 1603-10, pp. 247, 255.
161 Mosley, Hist, of Tutbury, 207. *B 1 6 Chas. I, cap. 20. 255
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com