#northern rebellion 1569

[jurijurijurious]

History ramble: the Northern Rebellion 1569

I've read 3-and-a-bit books about Sir Francis Walsingham within a week — the warm weather and being furloughed until next week has left me with plenty of free time and so it seemed apt to delve into my expansive history book collection which needs to be read.

I find that the milestones of Walsingham's timeline are becoming clearer in my head, more, now than ever before, probably just because I've read so much in a short time and it's fresh. I find it both interesting and a little bit frustrating to read so many different takes on the same event/thing though — I think, once upon a time, when I was young and foolish, I thought I could read a history book and then know history, so to speak, but this is bollocks — all you know is one person's perception and opinion on history; it's not until you read another book on the same topic that you hear an alternative take/view and realise that you still, in fact, probably know very little.

Aside from this, there's a certain event which happened in Walsingham's lifetime which I keep stumbling on and somehow feel that it's impact has been lost: the Northern Rebellion.

Stepping back a second, I think it's fair to say, if you were raised in England, and whether or not you like history, you have no doubt heard of "Bloody Mary" and her propensity to burn Protestants. In truth, it is alleged she burned under 300 people during her reign for religious heresy. It would be too simple to call her a monster or condemn her outright as we need to take into context the era, the mindset, the laws, and so on and so forth — of course, burning is a terrible way to go whichever way you look at it — but I feel that we need to pause to compare and critically look at the events which happened during her half-sister's reign, which successful propaganda and rose-tinted-spectacled-patriotism have over the many years left us with an image of having been "a golden age".

Catholics were certainly entrapped and killed during Elizabeth's reign, and the numbers of Catholics killed weren't drastically fewer, I think I'm right in saying, than the Protestants burned by Mary. (I think this point was raised in History's Greatest Fibs on the BBC fairly recently by Lucy Woirsley?) But the point of comparison in human loss in Elizabeth's reign which I feel perhaps warrants more attention is that which resulted from the Northern Rebellion.

In 1569, the Northern Catholic magnates, Neville and Percy, armed their tenants, gathered together and marched on Durham. I won't go into the complexities of it all, but there was a essentially a scheme hatched to free Mary of Scots who was by this point a prisoner in England. The rebellion managed to kick the royalists out of Barnard Castle (funny these places have been in the news recently for very different reasons!) before they retreated back to Durham once they got wind that the Queen's forces were being levied in London to march.

In short, the "rebellion" fizzled out, but Elizabeth was not happy and apparently ordered 700 of the rebels to be executed. 700! Ultimately, fewer than this were executed — but imagine if she had got her way. Those 300 burnings over 5 years pale in comparison to this one act of sweeping vengeance in 1569. I can't find a figure for how many men were hanged in the end, but my books' claims vary with vague ideas of it having been "scores" or "hundreds", and they also claim that the loss of so many men in so short a time meant that the economy in the area did not recover for nearly 200 years.

And yet this event is summarised in a few paragraphs in each of my Walsingham books. Maybe it wasn't relevant enough to Walsingham's life to warrant more analysis in biographies on him — he wasn't secretary of state at this point and indeed was only just on the bottom rungs of the ladder so to speak at this point. I wonder if I go get some books specifically about Elizabeth rather than Walsingham if the Rebellion might be given more attention. Still when I consider all the big things we know of Elizabeth's reign through popular culture alone, which is mainly the armada, Shakespeare, Robert Dudley, pomp and pageantry, I find it astonishing that we don't think it's important to also mark this event in Elizabeth's reign? I'm sure the North probably haven't forgotten, but it's conveniently brushed over by history otherwise.

I guess we could argue that when comparing this to Bloody Mary and her Protestant martyrs it was a totally different set of circumstances, that one would expect losses when people mobilise against the ruling monarch with an aim to displace them, and I certainly know very well that we have to be careful about judging Medieval-cum-Renaissance rulers with modern standards — but I think my thoughts were more centring on the fact that we have long tarred Mary I as being "bloody" due to her Protestant purges which amounted to around 300 deaths, and yet in the same breath glorify her half-sister Elizabeth as "Gloriana" when she had in one case alone wanted to kill 700 insurgents against her crown — and though fewer than this number died, the results of her vengeance still ultimately meant that a Northern economy was left decrepit for two centuries. It's a sobering thought.

Ultimately, there are no black and white "good and bad guys" in history; there are just people and their choices.

--x-posted to http://jurious.livejournal.com/

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

“The main occasions for individual pardons were disturbances or rebellions. Pardons were undoubtedly political decisions, though not necessarily exercises in state-formation. They are the subject of two overlapping chapters, 'public performances of pardon' and 'protest and pardons'. Since Kesselring's approach is derived from 'the pioneering studies done by Marxist historians of popular protest', the specific examples are examined thematically rather than chronologically. Yet the graph of the incidence of specific pardons on page 74 shows a dramatic peak in Mary's reign. Kesselring observes that this was the product of the large numbers of pardons granted by Mary to supporters of Lady Jane Grey. But she then goes on to admit that 'the large numbers of pardons given after Wyatt's Rebellion and the Northern Rising have been excluded . . . as they would seriously distort these averages'. Which averages? This looks suspiciously like an attempt to make the evidence fit theory.”

Simon Adams reviewing Mercy and Authority in the Tudor State by K. J. Kesselring.  Parliamentary History (Edinburgh University Press), vol. 25, no. 2, July 2006, pp. 265–267.

So there were pardons given after the Northern Rising after all? But we are not told about it. How interesting, isn’t it?

[cincinnatusvirtue]

Sarmatism: A cultural immersion that both illuminated and darkened Poland-Lithuania (1569-1795)

Cultural movements and the concepts they espouse can reflect a society’s potential, it can also showcase its limitations, reflecting social tensions.  In some cases ideals can burn so bright, it’s social engineers can become somewhat blind and complacent to the reform needed to breathe new life into it.  Some ideals can also showcase weaknesses ripe for exploitation by other societies as well.  One historical case that could be said to demonstrate this kind of tension is that of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the concept of Sarmatism in the 16th and 17th centuries with ramifications into the 18th century and beyond...

Background & Union of Lublin:

-It goes by many names, Poland-Lithuania, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or simply Poland.   It was a nation that existed as a bi-federation from 1569-1795 and was the precursor to modern states of Poland and Lithuania.  It covered more than those modern nations it also covered parts of Belarus and Ukraine as well.

-Both Poland & Lithuania had a long history of interaction in the centuries prior to their union.  With Poland, being made up primarily of the Western Slavic people, the Poles, who were largely Catholic in religious orientation.  Meanwhile, Lithuania and Lithuanians were a grouping of various Baltic peoples who officially remained one of the last bastions of European paganism untouched by Christianity, in some pockets well into the 15th century.

-The Poles & Lithuanians were at times antagonistic and other times partners.  Poles in the Duchy and later Kingdom of Poland suffered raids from the pagan Lithuanians and other Balts and requested help from the Pope in converting them to Catholicism.  This lead to the Northern Crusades from the 13th-15th centuries which saw a gradual conversion of Lithuanians and other Baltic pagans to Christianity.  The cross was largely taken up by Germanic religious military orders like the Teutonic Order which became powerful in their conquest of Baltic lands and they began to contribute to the German colonization of Baltic territories.  

-This German colonization gradually led to a permanent German presence in the area, one that the fellow Christian Poles felt started to overstep the bounds of their initial mandate, convert the pagans by force of arms.  Now the Teutonic Order and other Germanic religious orders were becoming de-facto power players in the area which the Poles sought for themselves.

-1385 saw one the earlier lasting attempts to unify the two nations when Jogalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania converted to Christianity and married Jadwiga, Queen of Poland.  This established the Union of Krewo and the Jagilleon dynasty which would rule Poland and Lithuania as separate nations with a common monarch, at least nominally.  Though Lithuania would have separate Grand Dukes at times as well.  This also lead to the official Christianization of Lithuanian nobility.  

-1410 saw the greatest example of cooperation with Polish-Lithuanian forces combined with other Slavic and Turkic Tatar support defeated a Germanic army of the Teutonic Order’s knights at the Battle of Grunwald, also known as the Battle of Tannenberg.  This battle would be important in the cultural psyche of later generations of Slavs and Germans who sought to romanticize as part of a centuries long struggle between two broader ethnolinguistic groups in Europe.  Another battle fought further east but in the general vicinity would be fought in 1914 during the opening months of World War I between the German & Russian Empires, both seeking to invoke this 15th century battle.

-Over time, Lithuania and Poland signed a number of other unions or treaties that effectively maintained their de-jure separation were in fact both nations were closely interlinked.

-1569′s Union of Lublin,  under Sigismund II Augustus, the childless king and last of the senior line of the Jagilleon dynasty evolved the personal union of a shared monarch into a real union between the two.  Now both nations shared a common legislature made up of two houses, a Senate & parliament (Sejm).  While nominally a joint partnership between Poland-Lithuania, Poland was in fact the dominant power.  It had the greater population, the capital, more developed economy and infrastructure. Also cultural Polonization took place en masse among the Lithuanian nobility, with Polish along with Latin being the official languages of country and its nobility.  Lithuanian was still spoken among the commoners in the Grand Duchy but over time the nobility increasingly was viewed both insiders and foreigners as “Polish” regardless of ethnicity, this also extended to a lesser degree in the Polish controlled parts of Belarus and Ukraine, where the Eastern Slavs were known as Ruthenians (modern Belarussian & Ukrainians).  Though the commoner class remained “Ruthene” and practiced Eastern Orthodoxy.

Sarmatism:

-At its core, Sarmatism is the idea of the supposed origins of the Polish people.  That they descend from an ancient nomadic Iranian people, the Sarmatians.  The Sarmatians were part of the broader Scythian peoples who were Iranian in terms of ethnolinguistic grouping and ruled over the steppes of Eurasia stretching from Siberia and Central Asia to modern day Hungary in the west.  The Sarmatians did become the most powerful of tribal confederations among the Scythians.  Like all Scythians they were nomadic and equestrian ruling over the vast grasslands of mostly Ukraine and southern Russia north of the Black Sea.

-The Sarmatians and more broadly the Scythians were mostly known from Greco-Roman sources for most of history, though more recent archaeology and genetic testing has given us a somewhat better understanding of them.  They were warlike and practiced horse archery and in the Sarmatian case, developed heavy armor.  It was believed the Sarmatians were the descendants of Scythian tribesmen and the warrior women known to the Greeks as the Amazons.

-The truth of whether the Poles descended from the Sarmatians is debated, though the Sarmatians did live in the area of modern Poland and Ukraine and the Romans gave it the name Sarmatia.  What is often said is that the Early Slavs who are believed to have lived near the Sarmatians and other Scythians, absorbed the last of them in roughly the first few centuries AD.  Sarmatians became culturally and linguistically and eventually genetically subsumed into the Slavs greater numbers.

-While Sarmatians or other Scythian tribes are part of the Slavic makeup, the extent of it is still widely debated and controversial.  More pointedly here, the extent to which this directly translated into the modern day Poles, a West Slavic people, is a topic of ongoing discussion that isn’t resolved with certainty.

-By the 16th century, the notion of the Sarmatians being the direct antecedents to the Poles took real stock, mostly among the nobility who saw itself as directly descended from these Iranian nomadic warriors and in some ways not even Slavic.  The landed gentry which largely made up the Sejm was called the szlachta and the Sarmatism concept took root primarily amongst them.

-Sarmatism was translated into many forms, took on many aspects and was not uniform in its beliefs or manifestations.  Its unifying belief was the Sarmatian ancestry to the Poles.

-Sarmatism affected all aspects of identity for the szlachta.  From fashion, funeral rights, art, literature, science, politics, history and plain self-identity.

-As a cultural movement and identity was coupled with a companion political concept within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, “Golden Liberty” which contained many of the elements of the Commonwealth’s unique political structure and reflected the Polish nobility’s strong sense of self.  Both concepts intertwined and became mirror reflections of the broader Polish society.  They arose with the cultural flourishing that became known as the “Golden Age of Poland” roughly lasting from 1569 to the 1660′s.

-Golden Liberty as a political system was summed up with the key phrases: “Our state is a republic under the presidency of the king,”  Or the “king reigns but does not govern.”

-Its key features made the Commonwealth unique in the 16th-18th centuries among European powers.  It had an elected king, one elected by the szlachta.  It essentially made the nobility the real power within the nation and the king as their figurehead and sometimes legislative partner.  It also required the king to hold a parliament, at least every two years, laws/oath binding elected monarchs to uphold certain laws and privileges' and rights of the nobility. 

-The szlachta also had the right of rebellion by force of arms against the king should their rights be threatened by the king’s policies.  There was also religious freedom, the right of confederation or of association to band together for a common political purpose.  Finally, it granted each member of the Sejm the right of liberum veto or free veto.  Which effectively meant if one single member of the body didn’t like a proposal, they could choose to exercise their veto right and strike down the legislation.  This practically nullified the idea of majority rule as a check and balance.

-Sarmatism as a political concept early on transcended the multiethnic nobility as they effectively were Polonised, non-Poles who were nobles could still claim Sarmatian roots.  In theory this smoothed out ethnic tensions and promoted tolerance.  In practice it simultaneously developed an elitist culture, one built somewhat around class with nationalist overtones rather than promoting overt ethnic divides.

-It also promoted a martial tradition, especially of equestrian nature in tune with the Sarmatian-Scythian horse archer tradition.  The Poles developed a powerful cavalry tradition most famously their Winged Hussars while the Lithuanians proved to be expert light cavalry troops which was further complimented by the Turkic Tatars, (Lipka Tatars) that moved from the Golden Horde (Turco-Mongols) into Lithuania.

-Sarmatism promoted a host ideals, aside from the somewhat transcendent inclusion of Polonized nobility from many ethnicities it promoted equality among all nobles, no matter their wealth or material possession so long as they were a member of the szlachta.  Women were highly regarded as honorable as  supposed descendants of the Amazons.  Noble pastimes such as horseback riding, hunting and leisurely pacifism were celebrated ideals.  Ultimately pushing a preference for a gentrified country lifestyle over an urban based one.

-Conversational culture was regarded as important and something to be encouraged and celebrated.  Whole porches were created at estates for people of all background and classes who were passersby to engage in conversation with the owner and family on a host of topics.

-Sarmatism celebrated the good life not only in conversation but large feasts, alcohol fueled parties and accompanied by traditional dances like the polonaise & marzuka.

-Fashion and the arts were touched upon by Sarmatism as well.  In fashion, clothing tastes tended to blend oriental and occidental styles.  Crimson and scarlet red were ubiquitous.  Feathered caps weren’t uncommon and the kontusz (long robe) was a common feature of dress for outer garments.

-The Sarmatists tended to believe they had a kindred culture in the Turks and Tatars both within their own realm and the Ottoman Empire, viewing them as fellow equestrian nomads who were merely misguided by the adoption of Islam. Yet with religious freedom, Islam was tolerated despite the Catholic dominance.  Muslims and Jews were sometimes better tolerated than Eastern Orthodox Christians in Polish Ruthenia as well as some Protestant believers.  These people were often peasants and regarded as not only misguided but stubborn and uneducated.

-The szlachta also celebrated their “origins” and wealth with oriental architecture in their manors and castles, with eastern architecture, including Chinese influences, along with oriental rugs to adorn their walls and floors being an not unfamiliar sight.

-Even in death Sarmatism played a role, with funerals being elaborate productions and a trend of having coffin portraits made to decorate the coffin and allow for “commune” with the deceased became fashionable as well.  These portraits were unique to Baroque Polish art in Europe and provide unique and realistic portraits of the nobility as they lived at the time.

-Politics at end of the day was always intertwined with the Sarmatist culture.  They viewed self-government & law & order as sacred rights.  Poland-Lithuania could rightly boast that it was unique among its European contemporaries in that it didn’t pursue an absolutist or centralized monarchy.  It had relative decentralization, elements of democracy albeit limited to the voting rights of male nobility which at most constituted no more than 15% of the population.  Leaving the rest disenfranchised and many to be serfs and the szlachta benefitted from serfdom.  Their own self-concept was one that viewed themselves in the tradition of the ancient Greek polis or patrician class of Rome’s Republic in antiquity.  They also confidently viewed Golden Liberty as the best system of governance in the world, elitist in more than one sense.  One to protected at all costs.

Aftermath & Legacy:

-Poland-Lithuania peaked in the first half of the 17th century and began a long gradual decline due to multiple factors.  Ineffectual kings, wars, foreign influence namely from Russian, Prussian & Austrian interference.  Changes in the economy, social disorder and political corruption.  

-The szlachta and Sarmatism contributed to its decay.  They built up its political system which promoted tolerance, strains of which had long existed in Polish politics predating the Commonwealth, such as religious tolerance for Jews and in the Commonwealth era this extended to loyal Muslim Tatars and even some Protestant Christians or foreign religious exiles.  There was also promotion of education and the humanities in the sponsorship of renowned universities which promoted mathematics and science.  Additionally a renaissance of art and literature among other cultural aspects.

-However, despite all that Sarmatism and Golden Liberty promoted, its designers: the szlachta, also set it motion the very fatal mechanisms which was to end the Commonwealth.  Their limitations on the king worked as an effective check on absolutism but their use of the liberum veto, intended as a exercise in equality in practice became a cynically used political device, one that stifled potential reforms from being passed into law.  Furthermore, Poland’s enemies in Russia, Prussia and Austria recognized this flaw and using bribes of increased land and money meant they could influence Sejm members to deny legislation which their governments found objectionable.  This soon brought divided loyalties among the Sejm, some becoming increasingly corrupt and self-interested, placing foreign influence at the very heart of Polish lawmaking.

-The szlachta in its decentralization had rendered any chance at absolutism which is saw as a threat to its privledged existence.  This approach to achieving “equality” in fact morphed into paranoia which spurred resentment towards the szlachta as a class by not extending political rights to other social groups, namely the commoners and in particular the Eastern Orthodox Ruthenians and Cossacks which increasingly sought Russia’s help.  This turning of a blind eye on political rights to other social classes within the Commonwealth lead to rebellion and anarchy which drained the economy and increased foreign interference.

-The szlachta had setup a system intended for them and it served them and by extension the country well initially.  Ultimately, this same system turned on itself: its very design coupled with changing external factors prevented the reforms needed to sustain and grow the very nation it shaped.  Finally, in the 18th century Russia, Prussia and Austria in a series of military actions of varying lengths gradually partitioned the Commonwealth directly into their realms, increasingly the more subtle political bribery gave way to a state so weakened it couldn’t fund an army to defend its borders.  Again, by design the miltary had funding issues to prevent the king from using it as a tool against the szlachta and the rights they possessively guarded with increasing suspicion and paranoia.

-1791 saw a long overdue constitution being developed, one that could have corrected the Commonwealth’s flaws and gradually extended political equality to all regardless of economic class.  However, it came too little too late, the partitioning powers, namely Russia saw any chance of a revitalized Poland as a threat to their goals and their combined military might proved too much so that by 1795 after a failed military defense, the already reduced Commonwealth was completely annexed. It removed Poland and Lithuania entirely from the map as independent countries until the aftermath of World War I.

-Sarmatism as an ideology and way of life can be viewed in a number of ways and indeed its legacy in Poland has gone through periods of revision casting it in both positive and negative lights.  It certainly promoted qualities that can be seen as unique to itself and a system of governance that despite its flaws was ahead of its time.  It also help shape a new nation’s identity and one that lasted nearly 250 years.  An identity which carries on in the more romantic strains of Polish nationalism to this very day.  Taken as a whole, Sarmatism, a concept whose very central claim is a subject of debate could be summed up by the following description from Catherine Leach who translated and edited the memoirs of a 17th century szlachta nobleman named Jan Chryzostom Pasek.  Leach says...

"Was the Sarmatian way of life worth preserving? Some aspects of it, no doubt. But because the gentry insisted on jealously guarding its privileges, preventing their extension to other social groups, it doomed the structure of the Commonwealth to atrophy and to the revenge of the lower orders.  Sarmatism was an ideological shield against the historical realities which contradicted it at every turn.” 

[thursdayplaid]

Time for Some Sandwiths

Because the Benn family simply must insist on being difficult we’re turning our attention to the Sandwith family.  There were two Richard Sandwiths having families about the same time and because the two clergymen during the time period, Anthony Nicholson and James Grindall, were both deeply useless at keeping records it is very difficult to tell which children belong to what family.  It is certain that at the very least five children are part of the family of the first Richard:

Elicia Sandwith christened 19 Feb 1538

Agneta Sandwith christened 11 Oct 1542

John Sandwith christened 6 June 1543

William Sandwith christened 1 Oct 1546 and buried 28 Dec 1566

Elisabeth Sandwith christened 12 Apr 1548 and buried 9 December 1551

Agneta married Anthony Borradell 27 June 1569.  Anthony was the son of William Borradell, another man having children at the same time as someone with the same name.  Anthony was christened 3 Mar 1539.  Agneta was 26 at the time of her marriage and Anthony was 30. 

This was a very exciting year to get married.  It was the year of The Rising of the North, an attempt led by Northern Catholics to replace Queen Elizabeth with Queen Mary.  Cumberland is included in the North and was involved in the rebellion.  While reprisals for the rebellion would affect the whole of the North, the worst of Queen Elizabeth’s wrath was reserved for Yorkshire.  Leonard Dacre, one of the leaders of the Rising served in Parliament for Cumberland between 1558 and 1563 before heading for Norfolk.  This affected the new couple by making their early married years tumultuous.  

[minervacasterly]

~Uneasy Alliances & Parallels Between the Tudor Queens & the First Tsar of Russia~ Fun fact about the Tudors & Russia: Out of the many monarchs in Western Europe who could have agreed to an alliance with the first Tsar of Russia, it was Mary I of England who established relations with the controversial monarch. Knowing that Spain and her other in-laws weren’t going to be enough to counter the foreign threat of France, Scotland and their allies, she chose Ivan IV as her ally. Mary I was well aware of his reputation as he was aware of hers. The vicious conflict between Catholics and Protestants in England and Mary’s actions when she turned down the title of Head of the Church didn’t scape Ivan and his Russian nobles. Nevertheless, like her -and her successor- if he wanted to keep himself on the throne, he needed to keep his country from being isolated economically. The alliance between England and Russia was continued by Mary’s half-sister and successor, Elizabeth I. Like her sister, Elizabeth I knew what type of man Ivan was and -like with so many others- rejected his offers of marriage, and continued amicable relations with him. The same can’t be said for his successor, Feodor (I), who was the last member of the Rurik Dynasty to rule over Russia. Feodor opened the country to everyone which spelled economic doom, and as soon as he dismissed the English ambassador, Sir Jerome Bowes, Elizabeth I sent Giles Fletcher, the Elder, with the hopes that he would get through to Feodor via his councilor, Boris Godunov. He had no such luck and to the end of her reign, Elizabeth I continued to insist that they maintain good relations and strengthen their alliance. Otherwise, he’d be open to enemies from all sides. Feodor, completely unready to rule over his father’s empire did not listen. He died in 1598, leaving no heir to succeed him. This left a power vacuum which many boyars tried to fill. This period was known as the “time of troubles”. One of the strongest parallels between Ivan and the Tudor sisters and their father was his praetorian guard. To those who watch Game of Thrones or are Ancient Roman history buffs, you will probably be familiar with this. To squash uprisings, Ivan established a government division that would be separate from the royal army and be strictly loyal to him. This secret guard was known as the Oprichnik. They were immediately known by their black horses and uniforms. Sometimes Ivan would ride with them to make sure that his praetorian guard would carry out his orders. Fellow Tudor nerds know that no Tudor monarch, especially the Tudor sisters, left nothing to change. Any form of uprising, they dealt with it swiftly. Elizabeth faced a Northern rebellion in 1569 which ended with over six hundred hangings and the execution of her cousin, Norfolk. Before that, Mary had executed their cousin and would-be-queen, Jane Grey after her father tried to stage an uprising in her name. When it became too much for her to ignore, she also launched an investigation against those closest to her (including her sister Elizabeth, although no concrete evidence was found against her so she had to let her go and put her under house arrest instead) after she had squashed Wyatt’s rebellion. Mary I was the first Christian Queen Regnant of England and Ireland, and as such, the first female king to give an inspiring speech to her troops after inspecting them like any general who’s about to go into battle would. These actions were mirrored by her sister, Elizabeth I, after she became Queen. Elizabeth didn’t mince her words when it came to these matters either. She had deliberated over executing her cousin and fellow monarch, Mary, Queen of Scots, until she could no longer. Although she always maintained that she was tricked into signing her death warrant, the truth is that Elizabeth could not have waited to be rid of her Stuart cousin. A few years before Mary Stuart’s execution, Elizabeth had drafted a bill that made it legal for ANYONE to kill Mary, Queen of Scots if she was suspected of treason. Since nobody was bold enough to do this, Elizabeth had no choice but set a dangerous precedent for her future successors and Mary’s descendants. Likewise, Ivan could be both cruel and merciful. Some historians view his actions as a product of their times and the power struggle going in Russia at the time. Nevertheless, some of Ivan’s actions against his family members (namely his son) were frowned upon. The death of his son at his hand wasn’t forgotten, especially by Ivan. Ivan always lamented it and tried many times to excuse his behavior. Named after his father, the Tsarevish, Ivan Rurik, grew angry with his father when he didn’t let him have full command of the army. To make matters worse, Ivan IV assaulted his own daughter-in-law, young Ivan’s wife. When he heard of this, he confronted his father. The two quarreled and long story short, in a fit of anger, Ivan IV struck his son with his scepter on the head, causing his death. There have not been as many depictions in popular culture about the Ruriks as there have been about the Tudors. It is a shame because they are just as interesting as the Tudors, and as the Tudors, their stories make everything we see in adult fantasies and sci-fis of families clashing against one another, pale in comparison. For more information about the Russian Tsars, including Ivan IV, I highly recommend Lucy Worsley's docu-series on them (which is currently on Netflix and YouTube), and of course "The Romanovs" by Simon Sebag Montefiore (although it focuses on the Romanovs, it spends a great deal on the Rurik dynasty and the "time of troubles"). As for the Tudor sisters, I recommend "Myth of Bloody Mary" by Linda Porter, "Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen" by Anna Whitelock, "Elizabeth: The Forgotten Years" by John Guy, "Game of Queens" by Sarah Gristwood, "The Sultan and the Queen: The Untold Story of Elizabeth and Islam" by Jerry Brotton, and "Tudor Age" by Jasper Ridley. Each of these Tudor biographies not only deals with their reigns but also their alliances with other foreign powers (besides Russia).

[scoobydoojedi]

Abe Clan

the Abe were descended from a son of Emperor Kōgen.They also clam descent from a legendary figure named Abi. Abi is said to have opposed Emperor Jimmu, the first legendary emperor of Japan, in his plans to conquer the Yamato plain.

The Abe clan were one of the oldest of the major Japanese clans; and the clan retained its prominence during the Sengoku period and the Edo period.The clan's origin is said to be one of the original clans of the Yamato people; they truly gained prominence during the Heian period (794-1185), and experienced a resurgence in the 18th century. Abe is also a very common Japanese surname in modern times, though not everyone with this name necessarily is descended from this clan.

*Prominent People*

*Abe no Hirafu* ( 575-664) was a governor of Koshi Province and a subordinate general of Buyeo Pung. In 660, defeated theMishihase in "Watarishima" at the request of the native inhabitants. In 661, he led an expedition to the Korean peninsula to help the allied kingdom of Baekje in the Battle of Baekgang.

*Abe no Yoritoki* (????- 1057) Yoritoki and the Abes came into conflict with the Minamoto clan as it began to expand north into Abe territory. The Abe clan began to raid territories south of their border. In 1051 Yoritoki led an army of Emishi into northern Miyagi and defeated a government army at Onikiribe that had been sent to stop the raids. This event triggered the Former Nine Years' War (Zenkunen War).Minamoto no Yoriyoshi was then deputized as the new Chinjufu Shogun and sent to chastise Yoritoki in 1053. In 1056 Yoritoki's eldest son, Sadato, began skirmishing with the Minamotos. War erupted in 1057 and Yoritoki was killed in battle by a stray arrow.Yoritoki's sons continued fighting for a time but were finally overwhelmed by combined Minamoto and Kiyowara armies in 1062

*Abe no Sadato* (1019–1062) Sadato was the son of Abe no Yoritoki, the chinjufu shogun (general in charge of overseeing the Ainu and the defense of the north). In the Zenkunen War, Sadato fought alongside his father against the Minamoto.Minamoto no Yoriyoshi and his son Yoshiie came to the Abe's northern province of Mutsuto restore power over the province to the Governor; Abe no Yoritoki, Sadato's father, had been acting beyond his station. As a result, the two clans fought for roughly nine years, with some truces, over the course of a total of twelve years from 1051 to 1063.Sadato's father was killed in 1057, and so he became head of the clan and head of the military effort against the Minamoto. He fought them in the battle of Kawasaki, in a snowstorm, defeated them and pursued them through the blizzard for a short time.Other battles followed, during which Sadato's attacks, along with the harsh weather and terrain weakened his enemies. However, in 1062, the Minamoto received reinforcements, and Sadato faced them for the last time. He came under siege in a fortress on the Kuriyagawa, and after several days of fighting, his water supply diverted, his defenses attacked, and his fortress set a flame, Sadato surrendered. The Minamoto returned to Kyoto the following year, carrying his head."He was said to be more than six feet tall, the circumference of his waist seven feet and four inches. He had an extraordinary face, his skin was white, and he was fat.

*Abe Masakatsu* (1541 –1600) Abe Masakatsu

served Tokugawa Ieyasu from a young age, first accompanying him to Sunpu as a hostage. In 1590, Ieyasu gave him Ichihara in Izu Province, and Hatogaya, in Musashi Province, which brought Masakatsu's income to 5,000koku. Masakatsu also received the honorary surname of Toyotomi from Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1594. Masakatsu died at Osaka in 1600

*Abe Masatsugu* ( 1569 –1647) He distinguished himself as a general during the 1614 Siege of Osaka, taking the most enemy heads of any of Ieyasu's generals. He was awarded with the rank of daimyō in 1617, and was given the 30,000 koku Ōtaki Domain inKazusa Province. In 1619, following the disgrace of the Ōkubo clan, he was reassigned to Odawara Domain (50,000 koku) in Sagami Province. In 1623, he was reassigned, this time to Iwatsuki Domain(55,000 koku) in Mutsu Province, where his descendants remained for the next several generations.

In 1626, he was appointed Osaka jōdai, a position which he held for the next 22 years until his death, and which raised his revuenues to 86,000 koku. In 1637, he played an active role in the suppression of theShimabara Rebellion. On April 22, 1638, he divided his holdings between his sons Abe Shigetsugu (46,000 koku) and Abe Masayoshi (10,000 koku), while retaining the remaining 30,000 koku for himself. Msatsugu died in Osaka in 1647

*Abe Tadaaki* ( 1602 –1671) he was a high-ranking government official in Japan under Tokugawa Iemitsu and Ietsuna, the third and fourthTokugawa Shogun. Iemitsu died in 1651 and was succeeded by his ten-year-old son Ietsuna. In accordance with the custom of junshi, a number of Iemitsu's closest retainers and advisors committed suicide so as to follow their lord in death; Abe did not engage in this practice, and was left, along with a handful of other high-ranking officials and advisors, to handle the affairs of government.

Especially remembered for his integrity, high morals, and practical sense of good government, Abe Tadaaki is known for his attempts to find employment for a number of samurai who became rōnin in the wake of theKeian Uprising, a coup d'état which failed to be executed that same year, just after Iemitsu's death. While other government ministers reacted to the uprising with the instinctive desire to expel all rōnin from Edo(the shogunal capital; today Tokyo), Abe thought it more pertinent to take a somewhat softer tack, aiding the rōnin in seeking legitimate employment, and thus drastically reducing the number who would have reason to take up arms against the shogunate.

Several years before Tadaaki's death in 1671, Sakai Tadakiyo was appointed head of the council of rōjū; Tadaaki constantly rebuked Sakai for his poor sense of proper policy, and his laidback nature. He accused Sakai of taking bribes, and of handling situations on a case-by-case basis, without any sense of overall policy or progress towards a goal. Nevertheless, after thirty-eight years of loyal service to the shogunate, Tadaaki died at the old age of 69, leaving the government in the hands of the likes of those whose policies (or dire lack thereof) would lead over the course of several decades to the Genroku period (1688–1704), which saw a peak in corruption, hedonism, and wastefulness.

[clancarruthers]

CLAN CARRUTHERS CCIS - BORDER REIVERS - THE NORTHERN REBELLION OF 1569

CLAN CARRUTHERS CCIS – BORDER REIVERS – THE NORTHERN REBELLION OF 1569

BORDER REIVERS HERITAGE AND FAMILY HISTORY   THE NORTHERN REBELLION OF 1569   In 1569 Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland and Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, rose in rebellion against the English queen, Elizabeth 1 and her government. Ostensibly the rebellion, to which thousands of men from the north of England flocked in sympathy, was to smash the stranglehold that the Protestant…

[biblioncollection]

White Doe of Rylstone | William Wordsworth | Narratives | Audiobook full unabridged | English | 1/2 Content of the video and Sections beginning time (clickable) - Chapters of the audiobook: please see First comments under this video. A narrative poem in seven cantos, set during the Northern Rebellion of 1569. A group of Catholic nobleman from the North of England attempt to unseat Queen Elizabeth I and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots. They are soon routed and Elizabeth's forces exact their revenge on the people of the Yorkshire Dales. Inspired by a visit to Bolton Abbey, Wordsworth's poem details the sad fate of one Catholic family whose patriarch decides to lend support to the rebellion. Although it is not among his most popular poems, Wordsworth himself considered The White Doe of Rylstone to be one of his finest. - Summary by Phil Benson This is a Librivox recording. If you want to volunteer please visit https://librivox.org/ by Priceless Audiobooks

[caruthers32]

Border-Reivers-Their-Part-in-the-Northern-Rebellion-of-1569

In the autumn of 1569 Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland and Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, rose in rebellion against the English queen, Elizabeth 1 and her government.

Thomas Percy

  Ostensibly the rebellion, to which thousands of men from the north of England flocked in sympathy, was to smash the stranglehold that the Protestant religion, initiated by Elizabeth’s father, Henry…

[itsfreeaudiobook]

A narrative poem in seven cantos, set during the Northern Rebellion of 1569. A group of Catholic nobleman from the North of England attempt to unseat Queen Elizabeth I and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots. They are soon routed and Elizabeth's forces exact their revenge on the people of the Yorkshire Dales. Inspired by a visit to Bolton Abbey, Wordsworth's poem details the sad fate of one Catholic family whose patriarch decides to lend support to the rebellion. Although it is not among his most popular poems, Wordsworth himself considered The White Doe of Rylstone to be one of his finest. - Summary by Phil Benson via Libricox

[whyspeakin]

Humayun's Tomb

  Humayun’s Tomb 

Humayun's Tomb The lifetime of Humayun, the second Mughal emperor, was marked by battle and vicissitude.

Humayun Tomb Timing

He ascended the throne of Delhi after the demise of his father, Babur, in 1530.

Humayun's Tomb

The Mughal Empire was not but agency on its foundations and Humayun needed to suppress numerous rebellions on the outset of his reign. Early success was adopted by extended catastrophe. In 1539 Sher Khan, an Afghan nobleman who dominated over tracts of what's now Bihar and Bengal, rose victoriously in opposition to him and the vanquished emperor fled the nation. He spent 15 years in exile; a few of them on the court docket of Shah Tahmasp of Persia, and in 1555 returned with a borrowed Persian military, recovered his misplaced dominion and re-established the Mughal Empire. He didn't lengthy survive his return and died on January 19, 1556, after a fall on the steps of his library in Sher Mandal, a monument inside what's at this time referred to as Purana Qila. Humayun was buried in Purana Qila, however, in keeping with some students, the emperor’s stays have been faraway from there to a momentary tomb in Sirhind when Hemu superior upon Delhi in 1556 and the Mughals needed to vacate the town. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCqRiQZgyk0 He was reburied within the Sher Mandal once more when Akbar defeated Hemu and was moved into the mausoleum erected in 1569 by his widow, Haji Begum, often known as Bega Begum, at an estimated value of rupees fifteen lakhs. Students have disagreed over the date of development. Sayyid Ahmad Khan in his e-book AsarusSanadid (1846), Half III, offers the date of its development as AH 973 (AD 1565) and this date has been adopted by all later writers. However an older manuscript of the Siyarul Manazil by Sangin Beg (late 18th century. Humayun Tomb is the most visited tourist attraction in Delhi, India. he was the second Mughal Emperor of India. Humayun tomb is situated near the bank of Yamuna River in Delhi.

How to reach Humayun's Tomb.

Humayun Tomb is located at Nizammudin Area and is well connected with Road, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. How to Reach Humayun Tomb by Metro? Reach Through Metro             The nearest Delhi Metro Station are: JLN Stadium Metro Station (Jawaharlal Nehru Metro Station) Violet or Purple Line - Delhi Metro is well connected Jor Bagh Metro Station  - Yellow Line - Delhi Metro is well connected. Reach through OLA, UBER or other driving modes from Airport or Railway Station.   Humayun Tomb Delhi GANGTOK Situated in EAST SIKKIM is capital of Sikkim At current in Delhi’s Crimson Fort Museum, states that the inspiration of the tomb was laid within the 14th yr of Akbar’s reign, that's, 1569.

TOMB AND MOSQUE OF ISA KHAN

AFSARWALA MOSQUE

CHILLAH NIZAMUDDIN AULIA

PURANA QILA

    GANGTOK Situated in EAST SIKKIM is capital of Sikkim Northern Atolls Maldives https://destination.live/places-sikkim-gangtok-do-drul-chorten/ Read the full article

[aerotrekka]

Lithuania – today the most westerly of the Baltic trio that includes Estonia and Latvia, but in the past the capital of the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which united with Poland in 1569, until it was incorporated into Russia in the late 18th century.  Medieval Lithuania was for a time one of the largest states of Central Europe, extending southeast from today’s Lithuania, controlling what are now parts of Poland, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, and played a decisive part in defeating Mongol invaders in the 15th Century.

Gedimas Castle Tower, 15th Century.

Independent in 1918 after the collapse of the Russian empire, occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, then by Germany until the Soviets returned and stayed between 1944 and 1991, Lithuania is independent again. Vilnius missed out on independence in 1918 however, as it was claimed by the also newly re-independent Poland. After back and forth between Lithuanian, Polish and Soviet forces it was annexed by Poland in 1922, remaining under Polish control until the Soviets occupied Poland in 1939. The Lithuanian government was able to regain control of the city for a brief time until 1940 in exchange for Soviet military basing in the country.

Apart from some medieval remnants, Vilnius has a mix of Polish renaissance and baroque architecture, a lot of functional 19th century Russian buildings that give a typical Eastern European feel, balanced out by Baltic German buildings and of course postwar Communist brutalist concrete.

There is a cathedral center next to the remnants of the original fortified city, highlighted by the 15th-century hilltop Gediminas Castle Tower. The Kalnu park just east of the tower is good for a stroll overlooking the Neris River.

Grand Duke Gedimas Statue

Like many former Soviet Bloc countries, Lithuania experienced the heavy hand of Soviet totalitarian oppression, and have converted the former KGB building into the Genocide Museum, at Auku 2A (immediately south of the City Courthouse at Gedimino 40). It’s a grim experience, but then so was being stuck behind the Iron Curtain.

Rather like the House of Terror in Budapest and the KGB Building in Riga, personnel record photos of the KGB staff – both Russian and local hires – were located post-independence and are displayed. I would not want to be interrogated by some of the characters who worked here. Lithuania had a partisan resistance movement based in its extensive forests, that ran from 1944 to about 1953 and which was eventually crushed, and so there was armed rebellion for some time. The museum also explains the role of Lithuanians in supporting the Nazi occupation and genocide between 1940 and 1944.

Of course, any fascist police state needs its finance department. You can just imagine the budget discussions and complaints from the Interrogation Division about how the bean counters are always getting in the way.

And because, whether it is GE, McKinsey or the KGB, people always come first, so your supportive HR team is here to help. These guys look like the more cooperative type.

What surprised me was that inmates at the much feared Vorkuta prison camp – part of the Gulag Archipelago described by Solzhenitsyn where many Lithuanians were deported to – got to send Christmas cards back home. The Northern Lights and the reindeer are a nice touch and the camps by 1955 might have been relatively liberal compared to the 1930s, but still quite rough and likely to wreck your health assuming you were ever able to leave. Lithuania experienced two major waves of deportations to the Soviet Union, in 1940 and then post-World War Two.

If this isn’t enough to absorb, you are reminded that Vilnius was one of the largest Eastern European Jewish communities (around 55,000) before WW2, with Lithuania having a significant Jewish population. Reminders of the Vilnius ghetto are placed at some of it’s entrances.

The Holocaust Exposition on Pamėnkalnio 12 is worth visiting, which records much of the Jewish community’s pre-war life as well as documentation of the genocide carried out once the area was occupied in 1941.

After that, a walk in the snow is a good idea. Some other places worth a look include:

Lithuanian Art Museum, Didžioji 4 – mainly regional art and a neat 19th century photographic exhibition.

National Museum, Arsenalo 1.

Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, Katedros 4.

Logistics. I stayed at the Shakespeare B&B on Bernadinu Street, close to the city center which was a comfortable and low-key place.  The main culinary range is traditional Lithuanian through to more modern Baltic/Scandinavian-style places, along with traditional Eastern bloc favorites such as Georgian. A few recommendations are:

Etno Dvaras, Pilies 16 – a local chain that hits all the high points for Lithuanian cooking. Not elaborate but a good menu and reasonable prices.

Busi Trecias, Totoriu 18 – traditional pub restaurant that brews its own beer.

Lokys, Stikliu 10 – higher end new Lithuanian.

Aline Leiciai, Stikliu 4, – another casual local place.

A few places that are good for trying Lithuanian microbrews:

Alaus Biblioteka, Traku 4 – good range of taps and bottles and a lighter space. Staff are very helpful on the local recommendations. As ever in the Baltics, there is interesting craft beer with neat labels.

Bambalyne, Stikliu 7 – basement retreat with a good bottle selection.

The airport is a 10-minute cab or uber ride; and the railway station is about a 15-minute walk, located on the south side of the old town. You can buy your tickets on the train, so don’t need to mess around at ticket offices; just get on board.

Vilnius, Wilno, Vilna, Vilne Lithuania - today the most westerly of the Baltic trio that includes Estonia and Latvia, but in the past the capital of the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which united with Poland in 1569, until it was incorporated into Russia in the late 18th century.  

[clancarruthers]

CLAN CARRUTHERS-BORDER REIVERS-THE NORTHERN REBELLION-1569

CLAN CARRUTHERS-BORDER REIVERS-THE NORTHERN REBELLION-1569

CLAN CARRUTHERS INT SOCIETY CCIS                    PROMPTUS ET FIDELIS

  THE NORTHERN REBELLION 1569

  In the autumn of 1569 Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland and Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland, rose in rebellion against the English queen, Elizabeth 1 and her government.

Ostensibly the rebellion, to which thousands of men from the north of England flocked in sympathy, was to…

[biblioncollection]

White Doe of Rylstone | William Wordsworth | Narratives | Audiobook full unabridged | English | 2/2 Content of the video and Sections beginning time (clickable) - Chapters of the audiobook: please see First comments under this video. A narrative poem in seven cantos, set during the Northern Rebellion of 1569. A group of Catholic nobleman from the North of England attempt to unseat Queen Elizabeth I and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots. They are soon routed and Elizabeth's forces exact their revenge on the people of the Yorkshire Dales. Inspired by a visit to Bolton Abbey, Wordsworth's poem details the sad fate of one Catholic family whose patriarch decides to lend support to the rebellion. Although it is not among his most popular poems, Wordsworth himself considered The White Doe of Rylstone to be one of his finest. - Summary by Phil Benson This is a Librivox recording. If you want to volunteer please visit https://librivox.org/ by Priceless Audiobooks

[scoobydoojedi]

Akamatsu clan

The Akamatsu claimed descent from Minamoto Morifusa (d.1077) of the Murakami-Genji (Minamoto). The Akamatsu became a powerful family in the Muromachi Period and owed their success to the actions of Akamatsu Norimura. At first a supporter of Emperor Go-Daigo in the Kemmu Restoration, Norimura had later switched to the Ashikaga side. In 1336 he was awarded the governorship of Harima. By the time of the 3rd Ashikaga shôgun, Yoshimitsu, the Akamatsu were shugo for Harima, Bizen, and Mimasaka as well as one of the four families that provided members of the Bakufu’s samurai-dokoro (Board of retainers). The assassination of Ashikaga Yoshinori in 1441 by Akamatsu Mitsusuke resulted in a damaging response by the Yamana and others, and by the Sengoku Period, their power had waned. They were weakened by rebellions and at length became vassals of the Toyotomi.

*Prominent People*

*Akamatsu Norimura* (1277 - 1350) Norimura supported Emperor Go-Daigo and Ashikaga Takauji in the struggle to overcome the Kamakura shogunate(Minamoto clan Rule).He became a part of the Ashikaga shogunate. Norimura constructed a fort on a hill which later became the site for Himeji Castle.Norimura was a patron of Sesson Yūbai who established Hōun-ji and Hōrin-ji in Harima.In records about the establishment of land rights for Daitoku-ji in Kyoto, Norimura's help is recognized.

*Akamatsu Mitsusuke*(1381-1441) In 1408 Shogun Yoshimitsu died and was succeded by Ashikaga Yoshimochi (1385-1428). Some years after he came to power, Yoshimochi decided to replace the head of the Yamana (currently the wily and possibly unbalanced Mitsusuke) with one of his favorites, a certain Akamatsu Mochisada, rumored to be the shogun’s lover. Learning of the plan, Mitsusuke departed Kyôto in 1427 and entrenched himself in Mimasaka. Yoshimochi declared the act treasonous and called for his lieutenants to prepare for battle, to no avail. Yoshimochi’s retainers managed to talk the shôgun out of the business, creating an embarrassing situation Mochisada took responsibility for and committed suicide.

Things quieted after a time, and to help smooth matters over, Mitsusuke became a monk. He spent only a year in a monk’s habit, however; in 1428Yoshimochi died and Mitsusuke returned to secular life. Yoshimochi was succeded by his brother, Yoshinori (1394-1441).

In a bizarre twist in 1440, the events of 1427 were repeated. Mistusuke again learned that the shogun planned to have him ousted. Yoshinori had a favorite named Akamatsu Sadamura (again, a suspected lover) that he planned to have succeeded Mitsusuke (perhaps after the later was forced into retirement).

Mitsusuke responded to this second threat from the Bakufu to his position in a drastic fashion, perhaps emboldened by the Bakufu’s lack of resolve in 1428. In 1441 the shogun went on a campaign against the wayward Yûki family of northern Hitachi province. When Yoshinori returned, Mitsusuke invited him to his residence in Kyoto for a celebration that would include a victory feast. Yoshinori agreed, and during a presentation of dancing in the garden a number of horses suddenly burst from their stables and caused great confusion among the party. Mitsusuke had arranged this noisy diversion, and in the course of the pandemonium he had Yoshinori struck down. Without much further ado, the Akamatsu mounted their horses and departed for their home provinces.

The assassination of Yoshinori caused considerable shock and uncertainty in Kyoto. After three days a coalition of warriors drawn from the other important shugo families - Yamana, Hosokawa, and Hatakeyama - set out, only to hesitate at the borders of the Akamatsu’s lands. The one leader who did charge on ahead was Yamana Sozen (1404-1474), and this fiery character defeated the Akamatsu and forced Mitsusuke to commit suicide. For his efforts he was awarded most of the Akamatsu’s lands (including, no doubt as he had intended, Mimasaka), thereby greatly enhancing the power of the Yamana and helping set the stage for the later Onin War. Yoshinori’s assassination, though rarely mentioned in the west outside of strictly academic circles, was a notable contributor to the weakening of Ashikaga authority, although it could just as easily be argued that the event was a sign of just how weak the foundations of Ashikaga rule already were.

*Akamatsu Yoshisuke* (????-1576) He saw much of the former Akamatsu domain slip out of his hands between 1550 and 1570, though he did capture Akashi castle in 1554 from Hosokawa Harumoto. He was defeated in 1569 by Kuroda Kanbei and within a few years had been so weakened that he lived in Himeji at the sufferance of his nominal vassals, the Kodera (Kuroda's lord).

*Akamatsu Masanori*(????-1577) Cousin of Akamatsu Yoshisuke. He had a reputation as a discerning and proud general. He held Kôzuki castle in Harima province and came under attack by the Oda (as led by Toyotomi Hideyoshi) in late 1577. Masanori resisted stoutly but when a relief force sent by the Ukita was defeated and Kôzuki isolated, the Oda army launched an all-out attack. Masanori killed his family before committing suicide and thus died along with some 1,100 of his men.

*Akamatsu Norifusa* (????-1598) Norifusa was a son of Akamatsu Yoshisuke. He served Toyotomi Hideyoshi and assisted in the Battle of Shizugatake, the Komaki campaign, the 1585Invasion of Shikoku, and the Korean invasion of1592. Norifusa was given a 10,000 koku fief in the Itano district of Awa province.