Mohammad Afzal Guru (1969 - 9 February 2013), an Indian national, was convicted by Indian court for the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, and sentenced to death by a special Prevention of Terrorism Act Court in 2002. The Delhi High Court confirmed the judgment in 2003 and his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of India in 2005. The Supreme Court did not find any evidence as to his membership to any terrorist organisation but stated that the circumstances clearly established that Guru was associated with the deceased terrorists in almost every act done by them in order to achieve the objective of attacking the Parliament and there was sufficient and satisfactory circumstantial evidence to establish that he was a partner in the conspiracy. The sentence was scheduled to be carried out on 20 October 2006, but Guru was given a stay of execution after protests in Jammu and Kashmir and remained on death row. On 3 February 2013, his mercy petition was rejected by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee. He was secretly hanged at Delhi's Tihar Jail around 08:00 am on 9 February 2013 and afterward buried inside jail grounds in Operation Three Star. His family was not informed prior to execution and his dead body was later denied to his family, while his execution resulted in violent protests across the Kashmir region.
↧
THE 2001 INDIAN PARLIAMENT ATTACK TACTICIAN: AFZAL GURU (EXECUTED ON 9 FEBRUARY 2013)
↧
THE ZEN GOD OF WAR: SUGIMOTO GORO 杉本五郎 (MAY 25, 1900 TO SEPTEMBER 14, 1937)
![]() |
“Warriors who sacrifice their lives for the emperor will not die. They will live forever. Truly they should be called gods and Buddhas for whom there is no life or death. Where there is absolute loyalty there is no life or death.” Sugimoto Goro, the posterboy of the Zen office. [PHOTO SOURCE: http://isaacmeyer.net/2016/06/] |
![]() |
Lt. Col. Sugimoto Goro [PHOTO SOURCE: http://apjjf.org/2013/11/30/Brian-Victoria/3973/article.html] |
“Warriors who sacrifice their lives for the emperor will not die but live forever. Truly, they should be called gods and Buddhas for whom there is no life or death. . .. Where there is absolute loyalty there is no life or death. Where there is life and death there is no absolute loyalty. When a person talks of his view of life and death, that person has not yet become pure in heart. He has not yet abandoned body and mind. In pure loyalty there is no life or death. Simply live in pure loyalty!”– Sugimoto Goro
Colonel Sugimoto Goro (May 25, 1900 to September 14, 1937) was a Japanese army officer and Buddhist philosopher, he was killed in combat during the Battle of Taiyuan in sept 1937, Sugimoto was a very pure imperialist, when he was shot he moved his sword to the left hand and gave a salute to the direction of the imperial palace, after his dead his friends and family decided to publish a posthumous book called Great Duty (Taigi) and became especially popular among Japanese army officers and soldiers, 1,200,000 copies were sold from 1938 to 1945, in his book he said: The reason that Zen is necessary for soldiers is that all Japanese, especially soldiers, must live in the spirit of the unity of the sovereign and subjects, eliminating their ego and getting rid of their self. It is exactly the awakening to the nothingness (mu) of Zen that is the fundamental spirit of the unity of sovereign and subjects. Through my practice of Zen I am able to get rid of myself. In facilitating the accomplishment of this, Zen becomes, as it is, the true spirit of the imperial military.
![]() |
[PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.ww2incolor.com/japan/AA+_35_.html] |
One can easily see how a belief in the transient unreality of the world could lead to an unsentimental attitude towards life. A seventh-century Chan (Chinese Buddhist) text, the Treatise on Absolute Contemplation, argued that killing is ethical if one recognizes that the victim is only empty and dream-like.[4] A millennium later, the seventeenth-century Zen master Takuan Sōhō wrote that:
The uplifted sword has no will of its own, it is all of emptiness. It is like a flash of lightning. The man who is about to be struck down is also of emptiness, and so is the one who wields the sword. None of them are possessed of a mind that has any substantiality. As each of them is of emptiness and has no “mind,” the striking man is not a man, the sword in his hands is not a sword, and the “I” who is about to be struck down is like the splitting of the spring breeze in a flash of lightning.[5]
The samurai appear to have had little difficulty in reconciling their Zen religion with their warrior ethos.
![]() |
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. – Sun Tzu [PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/539584] |
In the twentieth century, the Imperial Japanese developed soldier-Zen as a particular spiritual ethos compatible with their nation and state. This was advocated in particular by Lieutenant Colonel Sugimoto Gorō (1900-1937), who died in battle in China, and was honored by the Zen orders as a “military god” (gunshin).
![]() |
Buddhist monks practice military drill in the 1930s under the gaze of an army officer. By the 1930s, Buddhism had effectively been militarized to support Japan’s wars abroad. |
The Zen that I do . . . is soldier-Zen. The reason that Zen is important for soldiers is that all Japanese, especially soldiers, must live in the spirit of the unity of sovereign and subjects, eliminating their ego and getting rid of their self. It is exactly the awakening to the nothingness of Zen that is the fundamental spirit of the unity of sovereign and subjects. Through my practice of Zen I am able to get rid of my ego. In facilitating the accomplishment of this, Zen becomes, as it is, the true spirit of the Imperial military.* * *The emperor is identical with the Great [Sun] Goddess Amaterasu. He is the supreme and only God of the universe, the supreme sovereign of the universe. All of the many components [of a country] including such things as its laws and constitution, its religion, ethics, learning, art, etc. are expedient means by which to promote unity with the emperor. That is to say, the greatest mission of these components is to promote an awareness of the non-existence of the self and the absolute nature of the emperor. Because of the nonexistence of the self everything in the universe is a manifestation of the emperor . . . including even the insect chirping in the hedge, or the gentle spring breeze. . . .* * *If you wish to penetrate the true meaning of “Great Duty,” the first thing you should do is to embrace the teachings of Zen and discard self-attachment.* * *War is moral training for not only the individual but for the entire world. It consists of the extinction of self-seeking and the destruction of self-preservation. It is only those without self-attachment who are able to revere the emperor absolutely.* * *Life and death are identical. [Compare the Zen concept: “Unity of life and death” (shōji ichinyo)] . . . Warriors who sacrifice their lives for the emperor will not die, but live forever. Truly, they should be called gods and Buddhas for whom there is no life or death. . . . Where there is absolute loyalty there is no life or death. Where there is life and death there is no absolute loyalty. When a person talks of his view of life and death, that person has not yet become pure in heart. He has not yet abandoned body and mind. In pure loyalty there is no life or death. Simply live in pure loyalty!* * *In Buddhism, especially the Zen sect, there is repeated reference to the identity of body and mind. In order to realize this identity of the two it is necessary to undergo training with all one’s might and regardless of the sacrifice. Furthermore, the essence of the unity of body and mind is to be found in egolessness. Japan is a country where the Sovereign and the people are identical. When Imperial subjects meld themselves into one with the August Mind [of the emperor], their original countenance shines forth. The essence of the unity of the sovereign and the people is egolessness.
There is an almost “national-pagan” quality to soldier-Zen’s sublimation of the self into an assertive nation mystically united around a divine monarch.
![]() |
Monks at Asakusa Temple, in Tokyo, perform air raid drills with gas masks in 1936 [PHOTO SOURCE: https://japandaily.jp/was-wwii-a-holy-war-1830/] |
Following his death in battle, Sugimoto was honored as a national hero by Yamazaki Ekijū, the head of the Rinzai Zen school. This is unsurprising given that Yamazaki’s Zen was firmly national and self-sacrificing. He said, “Japanese Buddhism must be centered on the emperor; for were it not, it would have no place in Japan, it would not be living Buddhism. Even Buddhism must conform to the national structure of Japan. The same holds true for Shakyamuni [Buddha]’s teachings.” He claimed that the Japanese had so cultivated selflessness that, “[f]or Japanese there is no such thing as sacrifice.”[6]
A grenade fragment hit him in the left shoulder. He seemed to have fallen down but then got up again. Although he was standing, one could not hear his commands. He was no longer able to issue commands with that husky voice of his. . . . Yet he was still standing, holding his sword in one hand as a prop. Both legs were slightly bent, and he was facing in an easterly direction [toward the imperial palace]. It appeared that he had saluted though his hand was now lowered to about the level of his mouth. The blood flowing from his mouth covered his watch.In the past it was considered to be the true appearance of a Zen priest to pass away while doing zazen [seated meditation]. Those who were completely and thoroughly enlightened, however, . . . could die calmly in a standing position. . . . The reason this was possible was due to samādhi[concentration] power.To the last second Sugimoto was a man whose speech and actions were at one with each other.When he saluted and faced the east, there is no doubt that he also shouted, “May His Majesty, the emperor, live for 10,000 years!” [Tennō-heika Banzai]. It is for this reason that his was the radiant ending of an Imperial soldier. Not only that, but his excellent appearance should be a model for future generations of someone who lived in Zen.[7]
For Yamazaki, Sugimoto “demonstrated the action that derives from the unity of Zen and sword [zenken ichinyo].” Furthermore, “[t]hrough the awareness Sugimoto achieved in becoming one with death, there was, I think, nothing he couldn’t achieve.”[8]
INTERNET SOURCE: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/03/sugimoto-goro-soldier-zen/
![]() |
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Isoroku Yamamoto [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/ARMSINCORPORATED/photos/a.713319898712839.1073741828.713292685382227/1802745709770247/?type=3&theater] Isoroku Yamamoto(山本五十六Yamamoto Isoroku, April 4, 1884 – April 18, 1943) was a JapaneseMarshal Admiral of the Navy and the commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet during World War II until his death. Yamamoto held several important posts in the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), and undertook many of its changes and reorganizations, especially its development of naval aviation. He was the commander-in-chief during the decisive early years of the Pacific War and therefore responsible for major battles, such as Pearl Harbor and Midway. He died when American code breakers identified his flight plans and his plane was shot down. His death was a major blow to Japanese military morale during World War II. |
![]() |
“The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants.” - Isoroku Yamamoto [PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/752994] Statement in opposition of the planned construction of the Yamato class battleships, as quoted in Scraps of paper: the disarmament treaties between the world wars (1989) by Harlow A. Hyde. In this statement, Yamamoto implies that even the most powerful battleships can be sunk by a huge swarm of carrier planes. This remark also proved prophetic as both Yamato and Musashi would be sunk by overwhelming air attacks. |
OTHER LINKS:
↧
↧
RYOZO WATABE THE CHRISTIAN JAPANESE SOLDIER
![]() |
Ryozo Watabe |
Demons still haunt Christian soldier
He didn't kill but couldn't stop atrocities
by Setsuko Kamiya
He didn't kill but couldn't stop atrocities
by Setsuko Kamiya
26th in a series
Before and during the war, Japanese believed the Emperor was a living god. They also believed they were fighting for him and dying on the battlefield was honorable.
Christians were often the targets of discrimination during the era of Emperor worship, largely because they were judged as not regarding the monarch’s divinity as absolute. Some people may have even viewed Christians as followers of an enemy religion. During the war, however, Christian churches obeyed authorities and were controlled by the military government.
Ryozo Watabe, 86, is highly critical of Japanese churches for giving in to what he now sees as a government that misled the people into wars of aggression. A devout Christian, Watabe followed his faith and refused to kill as a soldier.
And though he never took anyone’s life, Watabe is still in agony. He says he has no words to express how much he regrets not being able to stop others from killing.
“As a Christian, the answer was clear. ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ But I couldn’t say that to others,” Watabe said.
To this day, he is filled with remorse that he lived in fear rather than faith during the war.
Watabe was a 21-year-old economics student at Chuo University in Tokyo when he was drafted in January 1944. He was among the university students who were forced after 1943 to give up their studies and make up for the shortage in soldiers.
Watabe said he didn’t consider refusing the mandatory service, not because it would have been futile but because, as he put it, the Bible says everyone must submit to the governing authorities.
“But I was determined to refuse (to do certain things) without reservation, if I faced a situation where I should do so based on my faith,” Watabe said.
There were a few people around Watabe who advised him to follow orders if he wanted to avoid getting into trouble in the military.
Growing up in the town of Oguni, Yamagata Prefecture, Watabe developed his religious beliefs under the influence of his father, Yaichiro, a dedicated Christian and disciple of Kanzo Uchimura, an important figure in Japan’s Christian community in the early 1900s. The rural area had very few other Christians.
Watabe said he grew up in an environment where it was natural that his father welcomed his nanny to the table for meals with the family, teaching him that discrimination was not the way of their God. In those days, it was common for masters and servants to eat separately.
Before Watabe’s departure to China in January 1944, his father begged him to come home alive because the war was not worth dying for. On the night before his departure, “my father also told me to always pray to God,” Watabe said.
While Watabe was in China, his father was seized by the special police because of his Christian beliefs. His mother and sisters meanwhile suffered unfair distribution of food and supplies, he said.
Once staff officers learned of Watabe’s religious beliefs, he was blacklisted. “In the military, they had a term for those who were considered at risk of disobeying the regime — ‘tagged’ — and I became one of them,” he said.
Watabe was assigned to a brigade based in Hebei Province in northern China. He was in a group of 49 new recruits who were trained for combat.
In April that year Watabe faced his first test. One morning, a senior soldier announced that as part of the recruits’ training and to test their nerve, they were going to bayonet Chinese Eighth Route Army prisoners of war.
Watabe said he could only pray to God for guidance.
Later, when the first POW was brought to the execution site, an officer instructed the trainees to thrust their bayonets upward when they stabbed and demonstrated the technique. Watabe said he couldn’t believe the horrific sight.
The recruits were ordered to follow suit. Watabe recalled how the first one shook as he ran to bayonet the Chinese victim. The soldier’s first attempt failed, or at least it wasn’t the way the officer had shown them. The commander shouted at him and ordered to do it again. And he did.
“No one had killed others before this. Murder was a crime that resulted in a life sentence or the death penalty, but now it was an act of service to the Emperor,” he said. “I just feel that there were actually few people who could accept that without much hesitation.”
But one after another, the recruits took turns executing the POWs. Watabe’s turn was approaching.
Right before his turn came, Watabe said he heard the voice of God: “Put on Christ. It is a sin not to follow God’s teaching. Refuse the slaughter with your life.”
Watabe later heard that the human body can feel pain when one is under extreme pressure, but he believes it was God talking to him. And on hearing his voice, Watabe did not move.
The commander came to him and asked: “Are you telling me that you refused to kill the POW because of your faith?” To this, he replied “Yes, sir!”
Several hardened troops cursed Watabe and spat on him. One seized him by the collar. The ranking officer stopped them and ordered the training to resume. He said Watabe would be punished later.
Watabe said he was not court-martialed or locked up. Nor was he condemned. Instead, he was subjected to torture. It began at night a few days later and it came in many variations.
Ranking officers would take any occasion to beat him, using gaiters, boots and belt buckles. They also kicked and punched him. On other occasions, he was made to hold a wash basin with a hole over his head and bear the water dripping from it in the cold weather.
Sometimes when one soldier failed to follow orders, all of the recruits had to face each other and slap the other. Watabe said that because his platoon had 15 soldiers, he was always the odd man out and had to face a hardened veteran who would use any tool at hand to beat him.
“I thought it was happening to me because my faith was not strong enough,” Watabe said.
On one such occasion, Watabe passed out. When he came to, a medic talked to him. “He told me that I was a fool, and I should just shut my eyes and stab (the POW) and that would be the end of it,” Watabe said. “These words still give me the shivers.”
Standing out as a rebel, Watabe was assigned several times to other duties. He thinks the officers didn’t want a troublemaker under their command. In the end, he became one of the unit’s two communications soldiers. Watabe was trained in Morse code and became good at it. He feels luck was on his side as this assignment helped him survive.
Despite avoiding direct combat, however, the two years he spent in the military forced him to witness many atrocities.
Of all the horrific sights, Watabe said the memory of taking a village with around 500 households still haunts him. The combat lasted six days, and Watabe estimates that around 500 out of the 800 Japanese soldiers taking part were killed or severely wounded. All of the villagers were killed.
During the operation, Watabe helped treat wounded soldiers with the medics. He saw soldiers turning ferocious as the combat became severe. But the image that haunts him to this day is the execution of a young Chinese woman and her small child.
“I just cannot forget the innocent look in the eyes of the baby. I don’t think he knew what was happening,” Watabe said. “At that moment, I should have shouted not to kill them, or stood in front of the baby and the mother and be killed with them. That’s what a man with faith should have done. But I closed my eyes.”
Watabe said he is ashamed he was intimidated by something other than God, believing this means his faith wavered.
He secretly kept a diary in the form of tanka. Soldiers were strictly prohibited from keeping diaries and their belongings were inspected, but Watabe wrote his poems in a small notebook when he was in the latrine. Luckily, it was never found.
After the war, Watabe worked as an official at the Board of Audit. He kept quiet about his experiences until about 15 years ago, when his granddaughter sat on his lap and innocently asked him whether war was scary.
In 1994, Watabe published “Chiisana Teikou” (“Small Resistance”), a compilation of around 600 of his wartime tanka. Each describes what he saw or felt as he lived through the ordeal.
Since then, Watabe has given numerous speeches and has written about his experiences and thoughts on the war in the hope that young people will not repeat the same mistake.
He repeatedly said that the fact he could not try to stop others from killing was not simply out of fear of being persecuted, but because he also could not stand up to authority, a quality he feels is typical of Japanese. And he feels people need to overcome this.
“It’s easy for a person to blindly follow the decision of a government or a nation, but that decision is not always right,” Watabe said. “Even though one may end up disobeying orders, each person must establish a strong ‘self’ and act according to their conscience. This could be anguishing, but in the long run that’s the only key to happiness.”
In this occasional series, we interview firsthand witnesses of Japan’s march to war and its crushing defeat who wish to pass on their experiences to younger generations.
![]() |
Military portrait of prison camp guard Takashi Nagase |
Resisting immoral leadership
Dec 3, 2009
Thank you for running Setsuko Kamiya’s Nov. 19 article, “Demons still haunt Christian soldier.” The story of Ryozo Watabe is important. I was moved to read his words of personal struggle against what he knew to be immoral, and I am thankful for his desire to share his experiences with others.
Watabe spoke of the Japanese church obeying the government during the time, and yet there are examples of churches that refused to obey the government, such as the Mino Mission church in Ogaki, Gifu Prefecture, in 1933. This church stood against “kokutai” (state structure) and Shinto militarism, and was persecuted because of it. It was a conflict between the principles of “Don’t resist that which is more powerful” and “We must obey God rather than man.”
Watabe’s Christian faith served him as a guide for what was moral or immoral, whereas those around him gave their allegiance to whatever power was winning at the time. Another example of resistance is found in the founder of the Mukyoukai in Japan, Uchimura Kanzo. Watabe is right when he says we must learn to resist following immoral leadership.
↧
BILLY RAY IRICK THE PEDOPHILE OF TENNESSEE (AUGUST 26, 1958 TO AUGUST 9, 2018)
![]() |
[PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.wbir.com/video/news/local/billy-ray-irick-under-death-watch-ahead-of-execution/51-8212956] |
Billy Ray Irick | |
Born | William Ray Irick August 26, 1958 Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S. |
Died | August 9, 2018 (aged 59) Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. |
Criminal penalty | Death (December 3, 1986) |
Criminal status | Executed |
First degree murder (November 1, 1986) Two counts of aggravated rape (November 1, 1986) | |
Details | |
Victims | Paula Kay Dyer |
Date | April 15, 1985 |
William Ray Irick(August 26, 1958 – August 9, 2018) was an American convicted murderer from Tennesseewho was sentenced to death and executed for the 1985 murder of 7-year-old Paula Dyer in Knoxville. Irick, then aged 26, had been living with Dyer's family for over a year, and was babysitting five of the family's children (including Dyer) on the night of the girl's murder.
Irick is also notable for having been the first inmate executed in Tennessee in almost a decade.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Ray_Irick
Irick's background
Irick was born on August 26, 1958, in Knoxville, Tennessee. He allegedly suffered extensive abuse from his family from a young age, including one incident where a neighbor witnessed Irick's father clubbing him with a piece of lumber, as well as Irick telling stories about how his parents would tie him up and beat him from a young age. His mental health was reportedly first questioned in March 1965, when he was 6. A psychological evaluation was subsequently performed at the request of his school's principal, owing to his "extreme behavioral problems". Nina Braswell Lunn, a clinical social worker who performed the subsequent evaluation of Irick, described that Irick may have been suffering from mild organic brain damage since birth.
Irick was briefly institutionalized before being sent to an orphanage for emotionally disturbed children. During an arranged visit to his parents' home in 1972, Irick (then aged 13) reportedly hit the household's TV set with an axe of some description, destroyed flower beds, and cut up his sister's pajamas with a razor blade.
Relationship with the Jeffers family
In 1983, while working as a dishwasher at a truck stopin Knoxville, Irick met and befriended Kenny Jeffers, an auto mechanic who lived in nearby Clinton. Jeffers later introduced Irick to Kathy, his wife whom he had married the previous year, and ultimately in 1984 Irick moved in with the couple and five of the eight children between them (seven of the children, including Paula Dyer, were the offspring of previous relationships, while the Jeffers' first child together was born in 1983.) Irick frequently babysat the children while the Jeffers parents worked long hours. At the start of April 1985, the family home in Clinton burned down, an ordeal during which Irick saved two of the boys from the burning building. Nobody was severely injured or killed during the fire, however, the family had to live in separate abodes as a result of difficulty in finding a house big enough for all eight of them. Thus, Irick moved to the Western Heights neighborhood with Kenny Jeffers, where they lived with Kenny's parents, while Kathy and the children moved to a small rental home on Exeter Avenue in Knoxville.
Paula Dyer
Paula Dyer | |
Born | Paula Kay Dyer March 5, 1978 Tennessee, U.S. |
Died | April 16, 1985 (aged 7) Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S. |
Cause of death | |
Resting place | Glenwood Baptist Church Cemetery, Powell, Tennessee, U.S. |
Parent(s) | Kenny and Kathy Jeffers |
Paula Kay Dyerwas born on March 5, 1978. She was described as a positive young girl who saw the best in others and was extremely trusting of people. Her mother claimed that, when told she could not randomly try to hold hands with strangers, Paula replied with: "Why, mommy? Jesus loves everybody. Why can't I?"
Paula's kind personality quickly made a positive impression on the neighbors of their new home. Her mother recalled one instance of Paula befriending a next-door neighbor shortly after their arrival at the address, after presenting the neighbor with flowers she had picked from the flower beds at the very front of the house.
Dyer's murder
On the morning of Monday, April 15, 1985, following an argument, Kathy Jeffers kicked Irick out of the Exeter Avenue home. That night, because the family's regular babysitter was unavailable, Kenny Jeffers dropped Irick off at the same house to babysit the children. When Kathy left for work at 10 pm, the children were asleep, and she felt uncomfortable leaving the children in Irick's care, on account of the argument earlier that day, Irick's behavior, and her suspicions that he had been drinking.
At around midnight, Kenny Jeffers received a call from Irick, telling him to come because Irick was unable "to wake (Paula) up". Upon arriving at the Exeter Avenue address, Kenny found Irick standing in the doorway looking vacant, before finding Paula unconscious on the living room floor in a pool of her own blood. After finding a pulse, Kenny wrapped Paula in a blanket and took her to the nearest children's hospital, where a doctor attempted unsuccessfully for 45 minutes to revive her. The same doctor, Dr. Jim Kimball, pronounced Paula dead of asphyxiation in the early hours of April 16, 1985. She was 7 years old.
Following Paula's autopsy, her cause of death was confirmed to be asphyxiation. In addition, the severe tears in her vagina and rectum were confirmed to be consistent with a brutal rape, as well as a head injury sustained during her ordeal being attributed to blunt force trauma that may have knocked her unconscious. As a result of Paula's murder, the Knoxville police department told the public on the morning of April 16 to be on the lookout for a man matching Irick's physical description. By 5 pm, Irick had been found and arrested beneath a bridge on the I-275. Paula Dyer was buried on April 19 following a fundraising campaign by the community she had been part of for mere weeks.
Legal proceedings and incarceration
Police testified that Irick readily confessed to murdering Paula Dyer, both verbally and in writing, and described his behavior as cooperative and remorseful. On April 17, 1985, Irick was arraigned in Dyer's murder, and was appointed two attorneys by a judge after he claimed that he planned to confess and thus did not want a lawyer.
On October 26, 1986, Irick went on trial for killing Dyer. Six days later, on November 1, he was found guilty by a Knox Countyjury. The defense had launched a failed mental illness claim in an attempt to spare Irick from the death penalty. Irick's mother refused to testify for the defense in an attempt to save Irick's life. On December 3, 1986, that same jury sentenced Irick to death by electrocution, with a tentative execution date of May 4, 1987 (which was stayed). Upon delivery of this verdict, Irick merely smiled and shrugged his shoulders.
Execution
On March 28, 2017, the Tennessee Supreme Court (TNSC) upheld the lethal injection protocols adopted by the Tennessee Department of Correction(TDoC). Thus, on January 18, 2018, the TNSC scheduled Irick's execution for August 9, 2018 — his sixth execution date since arrival on death row. In July 2018, a bench trial was held in Nashville regarding a lawsuit against the TDoC and its execution protocol, filed by over half of the population of Tennessee's death row. On July 26, the chair of the bench, Davidson CountyChancellorEllen Hobbs Lyle, ruled in favor of the TDoC. On August 6, the TNSC refused to grant a stay of Irick's execution to allow an appeal of the ruling. That same day, Tennessee GovernorBill Haslam refused to intervene in Irick's case.
Finally, on August 9, 2018, the United States Supreme Court refused to grant a stay of execution to Irick on the grounds of his mental health. Subsequently, Irick was executed at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution on August 9, 2018, less than three weeks before what would have been his 60th birthday. He was pronounced dead at 7:48 pm. Irick's execution was the first in Tennessee since Cecil Johnson was executed on December 2, 2009.
![]() |
Crimes against children are the most heinous crime. That, for me, would be a reason for capital punishment because children are innocent and need the guidance of an adult society. – Clint Eastwood [PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/85467] |
'I'm really sorry': Rapist and child murderer apologizes before 'coughing, turning purple and dying' from lethal injection in Tennessee's first execution in a DECADE after a last supper of a burger and onion rings
· The Supreme Court denied Billy Ray Irick's final request for a stay of execution
·
He was pronounced dead at 7.48pm on Thursday at a Nashville state prison
He was pronounced dead at 7.48pm on Thursday at a Nashville state prison
·
Irick ate a burger and onion rings before he was executed on Thursday night
Irick ate a burger and onion rings before he was executed on Thursday night
·
Midazolam, vecuronium bromid and potassium chloride stopped his heart
Midazolam, vecuronium bromid and potassium chloride stopped his heart
·
Irick's lawyers argued that the combination of drugs may not be enough to numb him to the pain and their use could constitute torture
Irick's lawyers argued that the combination of drugs may not be enough to numb him to the pain and their use could constitute torture
By Associated Press and Dailymail.com Reporter
Published: 05:43 AEST, 10 August 2018 | Updated: 07:11 AEST, 11 August 2018
The last words spoken by Billy Ray Irick were, 'I just want to say I'm really sorry,' before he was put to death in a Tennessee state prison on Thursday.
Witnesses to Tennessee’s first execution in nearly a decade say Irick, 59, at first signaled he would have no last words, but then gave a brief statement to those in attendance.
Journalists present reported that the blinds between a witness room and the execution chamber were opened at 7.26pm on Thursday, and about one minute later, Irick was asked if he had any words before the lethal injection drugs began flowing.
Irick was convicted in the 1985 rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl he was babysitting.
At the question of whether he had any final words to say, Irick first appeared to sigh and say 'no.'
But then he said, 'I just want to say I’m really sorry and that... that’s it.'
Irick was convicted of raping and murdering seven-year-old Paula Dyer in 1985.
'What he did to her is the reason he's where he is,' Kathy Jeffers, the other of Paula, told WBIR.
'I am sick of hearing about his pain and his suffering. What about her pain and her suffering? She was 7 years old, raped, sodomized, and strangled to death. I'm sorry, I feel nothing for his pain. Nothing at all. God, forgive me, but I don't.'
Irick was babysitting Paula, along with four of her brothers, the night she was raped, sodomized and strangled to death.
Her brothers were just in the next room and tried to save their sister, but Irick has barricaded the door and they couldn't break through.
He had come to be a trusted member of the large Jeffers family, which included a total of eight children, and had lived with them for more than a year before sexually assaulting and killing Paula.
It was Paula's father, Kenny Jeffers, who found his daughter, lying unconscious with a pool of blood between her legs that night, after Irick had called him home from work right around midnight, saying he couldn't wake her up.
Her father took her to the hospital, and after 45 futile minutes of attempts at lifesaving measures, Paula was pronounced dead.
One minute after he said he was sorry for the horrific events of that night, his eyes closed, and the sounds of snoring and heavy breathing could be heard.
The subtle sounds gave way at 7.34pm to coughing, huffing and deep breaths.
An attendant began yelling 'Billy' and checked the inmate and grabbed his shoulder, but there didn’t seem to be any reaction.
Two minutes later, Irick was not making any noise and began to turn dark purple.
He was pronounced dead at 7.48pm.
Irick is the first death row inmate to be executed by the state of Tennessee since 2009.
The US Supreme Court cleared the way for his execution on Thursday afternoon, denying Irick's final request for a stay.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering dissent, citing a recent state court trial of a case brought by 33 death row inmates challenging Tennessee's execution drugs.
The state Supreme Court denied Irick a stay on Monday related to those challenges, saying a lawsuit filed by inmates contesting the execution drugs being used wasn't likely to succeed.
Sotomayor wrote that the court is overlooking the potential for 'torturous pain' by that method of execution.
Governor Bill Haslam also had the power to stop his death, but declined to intervene.
In addition to legal challenges, since its last execution in 2009, Tennessee has had difficulties securing execution drugs including its previous chemical of choice, pentobarbital.
But none of those hurdles stopped the process for Irick, who was put to death on Thursday using a combination of midazolam, vecuronium bromid and potassium chloride injections, which stopped his heart.
His final meal consisted of a burger, onion rings and a Pepsi soft drink.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering dissent, citing a recent state court trial of a case brought by 33 death row inmates challenging Tennessee's execution drugs.
The state Supreme Court denied Irick a stay on Monday related to those challenges, saying a lawsuit filed by inmates contesting the execution drugs being used wasn't likely to succeed.
Sotomayor wrote that the court is overlooking the potential for 'torturous pain' by that method of execution.
Governor Bill Haslam also had the power to stop his death, but declined to intervene.
In addition to legal challenges, since its last execution in 2009, Tennessee has had difficulties securing execution drugs including its previous chemical of choice, pentobarbital.
But none of those hurdles stopped the process for Irick, who was put to death on Thursday using a combination of midazolam, vecuronium bromid and potassium chloride injections, which stopped his heart.
His final meal consisted of a burger, onion rings and a Pepsi soft drink.
In July Irick's attorney asked for the Tennessee Supreme Court to delay his execution once again amid a challenge to the state's lethal injection protocol.
For the first time, Tennessee used midazolam as a sedative, the muscle relaxer vecuronium bromid, and then potassium chloride to stop the heart.
At question is whether midazolam is effective in rendering someone unconscious and unable to feel pain from the other two drugs.
But Tennessee Supreme Court judges ruled Irick's attorney had failed to demonstrate a substantially less painful means to carry out the execution or that the drugs the state plans to use would cause the inmate to be tortured to death.
Federal public defender Kelley Henry had requested the US Supreme Court to delay his execution.
The Supreme Court rarely stays executions.
Henry had asked Haslam to issue a temporary reprieve while the drugs are studied further.
But the governor quickly ruled it out, saying he would not intervene.
'My role is not to be the 13th juror or the judge or to impose my personal views, but to carefully review the judicial process to make sure it was full and fair,' Henry said.
'Because of the extremely thorough judicial review of all of the evidence and arguments at every stage in this case, clemency is not appropriate.'
During the last trial, Henry cited witnesses that described some inmates who still could move, shed a tear, gasp and gulp 'like a fish out of water' while being put to death.
'Today's decision means that Mr Irick faces a scheduled execution date before the courts have had a chance to thoughtfully consider the challenge to the new lethal injection protocol,' Henry said in a statement on Monday.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sharon Lee added that she 'will not join in the rush to execute Mr Irick and would instead grant him a stay to prevent ending his life before his appeal can be adjudicated.'
Attorneys for the state have said the US Supreme Court has upheld the use of midazolam in a three-drug series.
Paula's mother, Kathy Jeffers, said she has no sympathy for Irick.
'What he did to her is the reason he's where he is,' she told WBIR-TV.
'I am sick of hearing about his pain and his suffering. What about her pain and her suffering?'
'She was seven years old, raped, sodomized, and strangled to death. I'm sorry, I feel nothing for his pain. Nothing at all. God, forgive me, but I don't.'
OTHER LINKS:
Remembering Why: Rape and murder of 7-year-old Paula Dyer
Dad says Channon Christian's killer deserves same fate as Billy Ray Irick
First conservative TN Supreme Court in decades changed rule, paving way for Irick execution
↧
THE LION OF LECHISTAN: JOHN III SOBIESKI (17 AUGUST 1629 TO 17 JUNE 1696)
![]() |
Relief of Vienna by Bacciarelli |
John III | |
Portrait by Daniel Schultz | |
Reign | 19 May 1674 – 17 June 1696 |
2 February 1676 | |
Predecessor | |
Successor | |
Born | 17 August 1629 Olesko Castle, Olesko, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth |
Died | 17 June 1696 (aged 66) Wilanów Palace, Warsaw, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth |
Burial | |
Spouse | |
Issue among others... | |
Father | |
Mother | |
Religion |
John III Sobieski(Polish: Jan III Sobieski; Lithuanian: Jonas III Sobieskis; Latin: Ioannes III Sobiscius; 17 August 1629 – 17 June 1696), was King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania from 1674 until his death, and one of the most notable monarchs of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Sobieski's military skill, demonstrated in combating the invasions of the Ottoman Empire, contributed to his prowess as King of Poland. Sobieski's 22-year reign marked a period of the Commonwealth's stabilization, much needed after the turmoil of the Deluge and the Khmelnytsky Uprising. Popular among his subjects, he was an able military commander, most famous for his victory over the Turks at the 1683 Battle of Vienna. After his victories over them, the Ottomans called him the "Lion of Lechistan"; and the Pope hailed him as the savior of Christendom.
Royal titles
- Official title (in Latin): Joannes III, Dei Gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniae, Smolenscie, Kijoviae, Volhyniae, Podlachiae, Severiae, Czernichoviaeque, etc.
- Official title (in Polish): Jan III, z łaski bożej, król Polski, wielki książę litewski, ruski, pruski, mazowiecki, żmudzki, kijowski, wołyński, podlaski i czernichowski, etc.
- English translation: John III, by the grace of God King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia, Smolensk, Kiev, Volhynia, Podlasie, Severia, and Chernihiv, etc.
Biography
Youth
John Sobieski was born on 17 August 1629, in Olesko, now Ukraine, then part of the Ruthenian Voivodeship in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth to a renowned noblefamily de Sobieszyn Sobieski of Janina coat of arms. His father, Jakub Sobieski, was the Voivode of Ruthenia and Castellan of Kraków; his mother, Zofia Teofillia Daniłowicz was a granddaughter of HetmanStanisław Żółkiewski. John Sobieski spent his childhood in Żółkiew. After graduating from the Nowodworski College in Kraków in 1643, young John Sobieski then graduated from the philosophical faculty of the Jagiellonian University in 1646. After finishing his studies, John and his brother Marek Sobieski left for western Europe, where he spent more than two years travelling. They visited Leipzig, Antwerp, Paris, London, Leiden, and The Hague. During that time, he met influential contemporary figures such as Louis II de Bourbon, Charles II of England and William II, Prince of Orange, and learned French, German, and Italian, in addition to Latin.
Both brothers returned to the Commonwealth in 1648. Upon receiving the news of the death of king Władysław IV Vasa and the hostilities of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, they volunteered for the army. They both fought in the siege of Zamość. They founded and commanded their own banners (chorągiew) of cavalry(one light, "cossack", and one heavy, of Polish hussars). Soon, the fortunes of war separated the brothers. In 1649, Jakub fought in the Battle of Zboriv. In 1652, Marek died in Tatar captivity after his capture at the Battle of Batih. John was promoted to the rank of pułkownikand fought with distinction in the Battle of Berestechko. A promising commander, John was sent by King John II Casimir as one of the envoys in the diplomatic mission of Mikołaj Bieganowski to the Ottoman Empire. There, Sobieski learned the Tatar language and the Turkish language and studied Turkish military traditions and tactics. It is likely he participated as part of the briefly allied Polish-Tatar forces in the 1655 Battle of Okhmativ.
After the start of the Swedish invasion of Poland known as "The Deluge", John Sobieski was among the Greater Polish regiments led by Krzysztof Opaliński, Palatine of Poznań which capitulated at Ujście, and swore allegiance to King Charles X Gustav of Sweden. However, around late March 1656, he abandoned their side, returning to the side of Polish king John II Casimir Vasa, enlisting under the command of hetmans Stefan Czarniecki and Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski.
![]() |
Portrait of John III by Jan Tricius |
Commander
By 26 May 1656 he received the position of the chorąży koronny (Standard-bearer of the Crown). During the three-day-long battle of Warsaw of 1656, Sobieski commanded a 2,000-man strong regiment of Tatarcavalry. He took part in a number of engagements over the next two years, including the Siege of Toruń in 1658. In 1659 he was elected a deputy to the Sejm (Polish parliament), and was one of the Polish negotiators of the Treaty of Hadiach with the Cossacks. In 1660 he took part in the last offensive against the Swedes in Prussia, and was rewarded with the office of starost of Stryj. Soon afterward he took part in the war against the Russians, participating in the Battle of Slobodyshche and Battle of Lyubar, and later that year he again was one of the negotiators of a new treaty with the Cossacks (the Treaty of Cudnów).
Through personal connections, he became a strong supporter of the French faction in the Polish royal court, represented by Queen Marie Louise Gonzaga. His pro-French allegiance was reinforced in 1665, when he married Marie Casimire Louise de la Grange d'Arquien and was promoted to the rank of Grand Marshalof the Crown.
In 1662 he was again elected a deputy to the Sejm, and took part in the work on reforming the military. He was also a member of the Sejm in 1664 and 1665. In between he participated in the Russian campaign of 1663. Sobieski remained loyal to the King during the Lubomirski Rebellion of 1665–66, though it was a difficult decision for him. He participated in the Sejm of 1665, and after some delays, accepted the prestigious office of the Marshal of the Crown on 18 May that year. Around late April or early May 1666 he received another high office of the Commonwealth, that of the Field Crown Hetman. Soon afterward, he was defeated at the Battle of Mątwy, and signed the Agreement of Łęgonice on the 21 July, which ended the Lubomirski Rebellion.
In October 1667 he achieved another victory over the Cossacks of Petro Doroshenko and their Crimean Tatar allies in the Battle of Podhajce during the Polish–Cossack–Tatar War (1666–71). This allowed him to regain his image as a skilled military leader. Later that year, in November, his first child, James Louis Sobieski was born in Paris. On 5 February 1668 he achieved the rank of Grand Hetman of the Crown, the highest military rank in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and thereby the de factocommander-in-chief of the entire Polish Army. Later that year he supported the French candidacy of Louis, Grand Condé for the Polish throne, and after this candidacy fell apart, Philip William, Elector Palatine. Following the election of Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki he joined the opposition faction; he and his allies helped vetoseveral sejms (including the coronation ones), and his attitude once again resulted in him losing popularity among the regular szlachta. While his pro-French stance in politics alienated some, his military victories against invading Tatars in 1671 helped him gain other allies. The year 1672 saw internal politics destabilizing the Commonwealth, as the pro-French faction of Sobieski and pro-court faction of King Michał formed two confederations, which despite major Ottoman incursions in the southseemed more concerned with one another than with uniting to defend the country. The court faction called openly for confiscation of his estates and dismissal from office, and declared him an "enemy of the state". This division culminated in the humiliating Treaty of Buchach, where the Commonwealth was forced to cede territories to the Ottomans, but promise an annual tribute. Sobieski eventually succeeded in balancing politics and national defense, and a combination of his military victories over the invaders, and successful negotiations at the Sejm in April 1673, led to a compromise in which the court faction dropped its demands and challenges against him.
![]() |
John III Sobieski, the victor of the Battle of Khotyn |
On 11 November 1673 Sobieski added a major victory to his list, this time defeating the Ottomans in the Battle of Khotyn and capturing the fortress located there. The news of the battle coincided with the death of King Michal the day before the battle. This made Sobieski one of the leading figures of the state, so on 19 May the following year, he was elected monarch of the Commonwealth. His candidacy was almost universally supported, with only a dozen or so members of the diet opposing him (mainly centered around magnates of the Lithuanian Pac family). In light of the war, requiring Sobieski to be on the front lines, the coronation ceremony was significantly delayed – he was crowned John III almost two years later, on 2 February 1676.
![]() |
Relief of Vienna by Bacciarelli |
King of Poland
Though Poland-Lithuania was at that time the largest and one of the most populous states of Europe, Sobieski became a king of a country devastated by almost half a century of constant war. The treasury was almost empty and the court had little to offer the powerful magnates, who often allied themselves with foreign courts rather than the state.
Sobieski had a number of long term plans, including establishing his own dynasty in the Commonwealth, regaining lost territories, and strengthening the country through various reforms. One of his ambitions was to unify Christian Europe in a crusade to drive the Turks out of Europe. At the beginning of his reign, however, the Polish state was in dire fiscal straits and faced military threats to the north. King Louis XIV of France promised to mediate a truce between the Ottomans and Poland so that Sobieski could focus his attentions on Prussia. The negotiations ended in failure and Sobieski's Baltic goals had to be tempered by the immediate reality of the Ottoman threat to the south.
In the autumn of 1674, he recommenced the war against the Ottomans and managed to recapture a number of cities and fortresses including Bratslav, Mogilev, and Bar, which re-established a strongly fortified line defending Poland's southern border in Ukraine. In 1675, Sobieski defeated a Turkish and Tatar offensive aiming at Lviv. In 1676, the Tatars began a counter-offensive and crossed the Dneper, but could not retake the strategic town of Żórawno, and a peace treaty (the Treaty of Żurawno) was signed soon afterwards. Although Kamieniec Podolski and much of Podolia remained a part of the Ottoman Empire, Poland gained the return of the towns of Bila Tserkva and Pavoloch.
The treaty with the Ottomans began a period of peace that was much needed for the repair of the country and strengthening of the royal authority. Sobieski managed to reform the Polish army completely. The army was reorganised into regiments, the infantry finally dropped pikes, replacing them with battle-axes, and the Polish cavalry adopted hussar and dragoon formations. Sobieski also greatly increased the number of cannon and introduced new artillery tactics.
Sobieski wanted to conquer Prussia with Swedishtroops and French support. Regaining control of this autonomous province was in the Commonwealth's best interest, and Sobieski also hoped for it to become part of his family domain. To this end he made the secret Treaty of Jaworów (1675), but he achieved nothing. The wars with the Ottoman Empire were not decisively won by the Commonwealth, the ruler of Brandenburg-Prussia made treaties with France, Prussia defeated the Swedish invasion, and Sobieski's plans for the Commonwealth's own military campaign against Prussia was opposed by Commonwealth magnates, many of them taking the Prussian side. Backed by Brandenburg and Austria, internal enemies of Sobieski even planned to dethrone him and elect Charles of Lorraine.
The French-Prussian treaty of 1678 meant that Sobieski lost the major foreign ally for his planned campaign against Prussia; consequently he started to distance himself from the pro-French faction, which in turn resulted in the cooling down of the Polish-French relations. During the Sejm of 1683, the French ambassador was expelled for involvement with a plan to dethrone Sobieski, definitely marking the end of the Polish-French alliance. At the same time Sobieski made peace with the pro-Habsburg faction and started to gravitate towards an alliance with Austria. This did not end the existence of strong internal opposition to Sobieski; however, it changed a number of allegiances, and further opposition was temporarily weakened through the king's successful political maneuvering, including granting the Grand Hetman office to one of the opposition's chief leaders, Stanisław Jan Jabłonowski.
Conscious that Poland lacked allies and risked war against most of its neighbours (a situation similar to the Deluge), by 1683 Sobieski allied himself with Leopold I, of the Holy Roman Empire. Both sides promised to come to one's another aid if their capitals were threatened. The alliance was signed by royal representatives on 31 March 1683, and ratified by the Emperor and Polish parliament within weeks. Although aimed directly against the Ottomans and indirectly against France, it had the advantage of gaining internal support for the defense of Poland's southern borders. This was a beginning of what would become the Holy League, championed by Pope Innocent XI to preserve Christendom.
Meantime, in the spring of 1683, royal spies uncovered Turkish preparations for a military campaign. Sobieski feared that the target might be the Polish cities of Lwów and Kraków. To counteract the threat, Sobieski began the fortification of the cities and ordered universal military conscription. In July, the Austrian envoy asked for Polish assistance. Soon afterward, the Polish army started massing for an expedition against the Ottomans, and in August was joined by Bavarians and Saxon allies under Charles of Lorraine.
Sobieski sending message of victory to the Pope after the Battle of Vienna, by Jan Matejko, 1880, National Museum, Kraków |
Battle of Vienna
Main article: Battle of Vienna
Sobieski's greatest success came in 1683, with his victory at the Battle of Vienna, in joint command of Polish and German troops, against the invading Ottoman Turks under Kara Mustafa. Upon reaching Vienna on 12 September, with the Ottoman army close to breaching the walls, Sobieski ordered a full attack. In the early morning, the united army of about 65,000–76,000 men (including 22,000, -27,000 Poles) attacked a Turkish force of about 300,000–350,000 men. At about 5 pm, after observing the infantry battle from the Kahlenberghilltop, Sobieski led the Polish husaria cavalry along with Austrians and Germans in a massive charge down the hillside. Soon, the Ottoman battle line was broken and the Ottoman forces scattered in disarray. At 5:30 pm, Sobieski entered the deserted tent of Kara Mustafa and the Battle of Vienna ended.
The Pope and other foreign dignitaries hailed Sobieski as the "Savior of Vienna and Western European civilization." In a letter to his wife, he wrote, "All the common people kissed my hands, my feet, my clothes; others only touched me, saying: 'Ah, let us kiss so valiant a hand!'"
The war with the Ottomans was not yet over, and Sobieski continued the campaign with the Battle of Párkány on 7–9 October. After early victories, the Polish found themselves a junior partner in the Holy League, gaining no lasting territorial or political rewards. The prolonged and indecisive war also weakened Sobieski's position at home. For the next four years Poland would blockade the key fortress at Kamenets, and Ottoman Tatars would raid the borderlands. In 1691, Sobieski undertook another expedition to Moldavia, with slightly better results, but still with no decisive victories.
![]() |
Victorious John III Sobieski at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, equestrian portrait by Jerzy Siemiginowski-Eleute |
Later years and death
Although the King spent much time on the battlefields, which could suggest a good state of health, towards the end of his life he became seriously and increasingly ill.
King John III Sobieski died in Wilanów, Poland on 17 June 1696 from a sudden heart attack. His wife, Marie Casimire Louise, died in 1716 in Blois, France, and her body was returned to Poland. They are interred together in Wawel Cathedral, Kraków, Poland. He was succeeded by Augustus II.
King John III Sobieski blessing the Polish attack on the Ottomans in Battle of Vienna; painting by Juliusz Kossak. |
Legacy and significance
Sobieski is remembered in Poland as a "hero king", victor at Vienna who defeated the Ottoman threat, an image that became particularly well recognized after his story was told in many works of 19th century literature. In the Polski słownik biograficzny he is described as "an individual above his contemporaries, but still one of them"; an oligarch and a magnate, interested in personal wealth and power. His ambitions for the most part were instilled in him by his beloved wife, whom he undoubtedly loved more than any throne (when being forced to divorce her and marry the former Queen as a condition to gain the throne, he immediately refused the throne) and tended to obey, at times blindly.
He failed to reform the ailing Commonwealth, and to secure the throne for his heir. At the same time, he displayed high military prowess, he was well educated and literate, and a patron of science and arts. He supported the astronomer Johannes Hevelius, mathematician Adam Adamandy Kochański and the historian and poet Wespazjan Kochowski. His Wilanów Palace became the first of many palaces that would dot the lands of the Commonwealth over the next two centuries.
Family
On 5 July 1665, he married the widow of Jan "Sobiepan" Zamoyski, Marie Casimire Louise de la Grange d'Arquien (1641–1716), of Nevers, Burgundy, France. Their children were:
- James Louis Sobieski (2 November 1667 – 19 December 1737), Crown Prince of Poland, married Countess Palatine Hedwig Elisabeth of Neuburg and had issue.
- Twin Daughters (9 May 1669), stillborn or died shortly after birth.
- Teresa Teofila (October 1670), was a frail child and failed to survive for more than a month.
- Adelajda Ludwika (15 October 1672 – 10 February 1677), called "Barbelune", died at the age of four.
- Maria Teresa (18 October 1673 – 7 December 1675), called "La Mannone", died at the age of two.
- Daughter (October 1674), stillborn or died shortly after birth.
- Teresa Kunegunda (4 March 1676 – 10 March 1730), married Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and had issue.
- Aleksander Benedykt (6 September 1677 – 19 November 1714), died unmarried.
- Daughter (13 November 1678), stillborn or died shortly after birth.
- Konstanty Władysław (1 May 1680 – 28 February 1726), married Maria Józefa Wessel but had no issue.
- Jan (4 June 1682 – 1 January/12 April 1685), died at the age of two.
- Daughter (20 December 1684), stillborn or died shortly after birth.
![]()
How to kneel down the totalitarian ideology and the reason why you should support Ex-Muslims![PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/exmuslims.no/photos/a.1112180008840899.1073741829.1080371725355061/1805565819502311/?type=3&theater……….. https://www.facebook.com/VictimsFamiliesForTheDeathPenalty/posts/1569541856501108]

How to kneel down the totalitarian ideology and the reason why you should support Ex-Muslims!
[PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/exmuslims.no/photos/a.1112180008840899.1073741829.1080371725355061/1805565819502311/?type=3&theater……….. https://www.facebook.com/VictimsFamiliesForTheDeathPenalty/posts/1569541856501108]
Popular culture
- John III Sobieski sometimes appears in the loading screen in the computer strategy game, Europa Universalis IV.
- His involvement in the Battle of Vienna is also referenced in the Baroque Cycle novels:
When he turned to go back to the camp, he discovered that there was another man up on this hill, a stone’s throw away: some kind of monk or holy man, perhaps, as he was dressed in a rough sackcloth robe, with no finery. But then the bloke whipped out a sword. It was not one of your needle-thin rapiers, such as fops pushed at each other in the streets of London and Paris, but some kind of relic of the Crusades, a two-handed production with a single crossbar instead of a proper guard—the sort of thing Richard the Lionhearted might’ve used to slay camels in the streets of Jerusalem. This man went down on one knee in the dirt, and he did it with verve and enthusiasm. You see your rich man kneeling in church and it takes him two or three minutes, you can hear his knees popping and sinews creaking, he totters this way and that, creating small alarums amongst the servants who are gripping his elbows. But this brute knelt easily, even lustily if such a thing were possible, and facing toward the city of Vienna, he planted his sword in the ground so that it became a steel cross. The morning light was shining directly into his grizzled face and glinting from the steel of the blade and glowing in some indifferent colored jewels set into the weapon’s hilt and crossbar. The man bowed his head and took to mumbling in Latin. The hand that wasn’t holding the sword was thumbing through a rosary—Jack’s cue to exit stage right. But as he was leaving he recognized the man with the broadsword as King John Sobieski.— Neal Stephenson, King of the Vagabonds, chapter "The Continent"
- He appears in his pre-royalty status as a character in Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword.
- Sobieski appears as a character in the historical novel Poland by James A. Michener in a chapter recounting the Battle of Vienna.
OTHER LINKS:
↧
↧
KING RICHARD I OF ENGLAND A.K.A RICHARD THE LIONHEART (8 SEPTEMBER 1157 TO 6 APRIL 1199)
![]() |
“We, however, place the love of God and His honour above our own and above the acquisition of many regions.” - Richard I of England [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.azquotes.com/author/41713-Richard_I_of_England] |
On this date, 6 April 1199, King Richard I of England dies from an infection following the removal of an arrow from his shoulder. I will post information about Richard the Lionheart from Wikipediaand other links.
Richard I | |||
| |||
Reign | 3 September 1189 – 6 April 1199 | ||
3 September 1189 | |||
Predecessor | |||
Successor | |||
Regent | |||
Born | 8 September 1157 Beaumont Palace, Oxford, England | ||
Died | 6 April 1199 (aged 41) Châlus, Duchy of Aquitaine (now in Limousin, France) | ||
Burial | Fontevraud Abbey, Anjou, France | ||
Consort | |||
Issue | Philip of Cognac(illegitimate) | ||
Father | |||
Mother | |||
Religion |
Richard I(8 September 1157 – 6 April 1199) was King of England from 1189 until his death. He also ruled as Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascony, Lord of Cyprus, Count of Poitiers, Anjou, Maine, and Nantes, and was overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period. He was the third of five sons of King Henry II of England and Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was known as Richard Cœur de Lion or Richard the Lionheart because of his reputation as a great military leader and warrior. He was also known in Occitan as Oc e No (Yes and No), because of his reputation for terseness.
By the age of 16, Richard had taken command of his own army, putting down rebellions in Poitouagainst his father. Richard was a central Christian commander during the Third Crusade, leading the campaign after the departure of Philip II of France and scoring considerable victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin, although he did not retake Jerusalem from Saladin.
Richard spoke both Frenchand Occitan. He was born in England, where he spent his childhood; before becoming king, however, he lived most of his adult life in the Duchy of Aquitaine, in the southwest of France. Following his accession, he spent very little time, perhaps as little as six months, in England. Most of his life as king was spent on Crusade, in captivity, or actively defending his lands in France. Rather than regarding his kingdom as a responsibility requiring his presence as ruler, he has been perceived as preferring to use it merely as a source of revenue to support his armies. Nevertheless, he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects. He remains one of the few kings of England remembered by his epithet, rather than regnal number, and is an enduring iconic figure both in England and in France.
Early life and accession in Aquitaine
Childhood
Richard was born on 8 September 1157, probably at Beaumont Palace, in Oxford, England, son of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was a younger brother of Count William IX of Poitiers, Henry the Young King and Duchess Matilda of Saxony. As the third legitimate son of King Henry II, he was not expected to ascend to the throne. He was also an elder brother of Duke Geoffrey II of Brittany; Queen Eleanor of Castile; Queen Joan of Sicily; and Count John of Mortain, who succeeded him as king. Richard was the younger maternal half-brother of Countess Marie of Champagneand Countess Alix of Blois. The eldest son of Henry II and Eleanor, William, died in 1156, before Richard's birth. Richard is often depicted as having been the favourite son of his mother. His father was Angevin-Norman and great-grandson of William the Conqueror. Contemporary historian Ralph of Diceto traced his family's lineage through Matilda of Scotland to the Anglo-Saxonkings of England and Alfred the Great, and from there legend linked them to Noah and Woden. According to Angevin family tradition, there was even 'infernal blood' in their ancestry, with a claimed descent from the fairy, or female demon, Melusine.
While his father visited his lands from Scotland to France, Richard probably spent his childhood in England. His first recorded visit to the European continent was in May 1165, when his mother took him to Normandy. His wet nursewas Hodierna of St Albans, whom he gave a generous pension after he became king. Little is known about Richard's education. Although he was born in Oxford and brought up in England up to his eighth year, it is not known to what extent he used or understood English; he was an educated man who composed poetry and wrote in Limousin (lenga d'òc) and also in French. During his captivity, English prejudice against foreigners was used in a calculated way by his brother John to help destroy the authority of Richard's chancellor, William Longchamp, who was a Norman. One of the specific charges laid against Longchamp, by John's supporter Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, was that he could not speak English. This indicates that by the late 12th century a knowledge of English was expected of those in positions of authority in England.
Richard was said to be very attractive; his hair was between red and blond, and he was light-eyed with a pale complexion. According to Clifford Brewer, he was 6 feet 5 inches (1.96 m). As with his supposed lack of English, the question of his stature is one made from a lack of evidence as his remains have been lost since at least the French Revolution, and his exact height is unknown. John, his youngest brother (by the same father and mother), was known to be 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m). The Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi, a Latin prose narrative of the Third Crusade, states that: "He was tall, of elegant build; the colour of his hair was between red and gold; his limbs were supple and straight. He had long arms suited to wielding a sword. His long legs matched the rest of his body".
From an early age, Richard showed significant political and military ability, becoming noted for his chivalry and courage as he fought to control the rebellious nobles of his own territory. His elder brother Henry the Young King was crowned king of England during his father's lifetime.
Marriage alliances were common among medieval royalty: they led to political alliances and peace treaties and allowed families to stake claims of succession on each other's lands. In March 1159 it was arranged that Richard would marry one of the daughters of Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona; however, these arrangements failed, and the marriage never took place. Henry the Young King was married to Margaret, daughter of Louis VII of France, on 2 November 1160. Despite this alliance between the Plantagenets and the Capetians, the dynasty on the French throne, the two houses were sometimes in conflict. In 1168, the intercession of Pope Alexander III was necessary to secure a truce between them. Henry II had conquered Brittany and taken control of Gisors and the Vexin, which had been part of Margaret's dowry.
Early in the 1160s there had been suggestions Richard should marry Alys, Countess of the Vexin (Alice), fourth daughter of Louis VII; because of the rivalry between the kings of England and France, Louis obstructed the marriage. A peace treaty was secured in January 1169 and Richard's betrothal to Alys was confirmed. Henry II planned to divide his and Eleanor's territories among their three eldest surviving sons: Henry would become King of England and have control of Anjou, Maine, and Normandy; Richard would inherit Aquitaine and Poitiers from his mother; and Geoffrey would become Duke of Brittany through marriage with Constance, heir presumptive of Conan IV. At the ceremony where Richard's betrothal was confirmed, he paid homage to the King of France for Aquitaine, thus securing ties of vassalage between the two.
After Henry II fell seriously ill in 1170, he enacted his plan to divide his kingdom, although he would retain overall authority over his sons and their territories. In 1171 Richard left for Aquitaine with his mother, and Henry II gave him the duchy of Aquitaine at the request of Eleanor. Richard and his mother embarked on a tour of Aquitaine in 1171 in an attempt to pacify the locals. Together they laid the foundation stone of St Augustine's Monastery in Limoges. In June 1172 Richard was formally recognised as the Duke of Aquitaine when he was granted the lance and banner emblems of his office; the ceremony took place in Poitiers and was repeated in Limoges, where he wore the ring of St Valerie, who was the personification of Aquitaine.
Revolt against Henry II
Main article: Revolt of 1173–74
According to Ralph of Coggeshall, Henry the Young King instigated rebellion against Henry II; he wanted to reign independently over at least part of the territory his father had promised him, and to break away from his dependence on Henry II, who controlled the purse strings. There were rumors that Eleanor might have encouraged her sons to revolt against their father.
Henry the Young King abandoned his father and left for the French court, seeking the protection of Louis VII; his younger brothers, Richard and Geoffrey, soon followed him, while the five-year-old John remained in England. Louis gave his support to the three sons and even knighted Richard, tying them together through vassalage. Jordan Fantosme, a contemporary poet, described the rebellion as a "war without love".
The three brothers made an oath at the French court that they would not make terms with Henry II without the consent of Louis VII and the French barons. With the support of Louis, Henry the Young King attracted many barons to his cause through promises of land and money; one such baron was Philip I, Count of Flanders, who was promised £1,000 and several castles. The brothers also had supporters ready to rise up in England. Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester, joined forces with Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk, Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester, and William I of Scotland for a rebellion in Suffolk. The alliance with Louis was initially successful, and by July 1173 the rebels were besiegingAumale, Neuf-Marché, and Verneuil, and Hugh de Kevelioc had captured Dolin Brittany. Richard went to Poitouand raised the barons who were loyal to himself and his mother in rebellion against his father. Eleanor was captured, so Richard was left to lead his campaign against Henry II's supporters in Aquitaine on his own. He marched to take La Rochelle but was rejected by the inhabitants; he withdrew to the city of Saintes, which he established as a base of operations.
In the meantime, Henry II had raised a very expensive army of more than 20,000 mercenaries with which to face the rebellion. He marched on Verneuil, and Louis retreated from his forces. The army proceeded to recapture Dol and subdued Brittany. At this point Henry II made an offer of peace to his sons; on the advice of Louis the offer was refused. Henry II's forces took Saintesby surprise and captured much of its garrison, although Richard was able to escape with a small group of soldiers. He took refuge in Château de Taillebourg for the rest of the war. Henry the Young King and the Count of Flanders planned to land in England to assist the rebellion led by the Earl of Leicester. Anticipating this, Henry II returned to England with 500 soldiers and his prisoners (including Eleanor and his sons' wives and fiancées), but on his arrival found out that the rebellion had already collapsed. William I of Scotland and Hugh Bigod were captured on 13 and 25 July respectively. Henry II returned to France and raised the siege of Rouen, where Louis VII had been joined by Henry the Young King after abandoning his plan to invade England. Louis was defeated and a peace treaty was signed in September 1174, the Treaty of Montlouis.
When Henry II and Louis VII made a truce on 8 September 1174, its terms specifically excluded Richard. Abandoned by Louis and wary of facing his father's army in battle, Richard went to Henry II's court at Poitiers on 23 September and begged for forgiveness, weeping and falling at the feet of Henry, who gave Richard the kiss of peace. Several days later, Richard's brothers joined him in seeking reconciliation with their father. The terms the three brothers accepted were less generous than those they had been offered earlier in the conflict (when Richard was offered four castles in Aquitaine and half of the income from the duchy): Richard was given control of two castles in Poitou and half the income of Aquitaine; Henry the Young King was given two castles in Normandy; and Geoffrey was permitted half of Brittany. Eleanor remained Henry II's prisoner until his death, partly as insurance for Richard's good behaviour.
Final years of Henry II's reign
After the conclusion of the war, the process of pacifying the provinces that had rebelled against Henry II began. The King travelled to Anjou for this purpose, and Geoffrey dealt with Brittany. In January 1175 Richard was dispatched to Aquitaine to punish the barons who had fought for him. The historian John Gillingham notes that the chronicle of Roger of Howden is the main source for Richard's activities in this period. According to the chronicle, most of the castles belonging to rebels were to be returned to the state they were in 15 days before the outbreak of war, while others were to be razed. Given that by this time it was common for castles to be built in stone, and that many barons had expanded or refortified their castles, this was not an easy task. Roger of Howden records the two-month siege of Castillon-sur-Agen; while the castle was "notoriously strong", Richard's siege engines battered the defenders into submission. On this campaign, Richard acquired the name "the Lion" or "the Lionheart" due to his noble, brave and fierce leadership. he is referred to as "this our lion" (hic leo noster) as early as 1187 in the Topographia Hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis, while the byname "lionheart" (le quor de lion) is first recorded in Ambroise's L'Estoire de la Guerre Sainte in the context of the Accon campaign of 1191.
Henry seemed unwilling to entrust any of his sons with resources that could be used against him. It was suspected that Henry had appropriated Alys, Richard's betrothed, the daughter of Louis VII of France by his second wife, as his mistress. This made a marriage between Richard and Alys technically impossible in the eyes of the Church, but Henry prevaricated: he regarded Alys's dowry, Vexin in the Île-de-France, as valuable. Richard was discouraged from renouncing Alys because she was the sister of King Philip II of France, a close ally.
After his failure to overthrow his father, Richard concentrated on putting down internal revolts by the nobles of Aquitaine, especially in the territory of Gascony. The increasing cruelty of his rule led to a major revolt there in 1179. Hoping to dethrone Richard, the rebels sought the help of his brothers Henry and Geoffrey. The turning point came in the Charente Valleyin the spring of 1179. The well-defended fortress of Taillebourg seemed impregnable. The castle was surrounded by a cliff on three sides and a town on the fourth side with a three-layer wall. Richard first destroyed and looted the farms and lands surrounding the fortress, leaving its defenders no reinforcements or lines of retreat. The garrison sallied out of the castle and attacked Richard; he was able to subdue the army and then followed the defenders inside the open gates, where he easily took over the castle in two days. Richard the Lionheart's victory at Taillebourg deterred many barons from thinking of rebelling and forced them to declare their loyalty to him. It also won Richard a reputation as a skilled military commander.
In 1181–1182 Richard faced a revolt over the succession to the county of Angoulême. His opponents turned to Philip II of France for support, and the fighting spread through the Limousin and Périgord. The excessive cruelty of Richard's punitive campaigns aroused even more hostility. However, with support from his father and from the Young King, Richard the Lionheart eventually succeeded in bringing the Viscount Aimar V of Limoges and Count Elie of Périgord to terms.
After Richard had subdued his rebellious barons he again challenged his father. From 1180 to 1183 the tension between Henry and Richard grew, as King Henry commanded Richard to pay homage to Henry the Young King, but Richard refused. Finally, in 1183 Henry the Young King and Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, invaded Aquitaine in an attempt to subdue Richard. Richard's barons joined in the fray and turned against their duke. However, Richard and his army succeeded in holding back the invading armies, and they executed any prisoners. The conflict paused briefly in June 1183 when the Young King died. With the death of Henry the Young King, Richard became the eldest surviving son and therefore heir to the English crown. King Henry demanded that Richard give up Aquitaine (which he planned to give to his youngest son John as his inheritance). Richard refused, and conflict continued between them. Henry II soon gave John permission to invade Aquitaine.
To strengthen his position, in 1187, Richard allied himself with 22-year-old Philip II, the son of Eleanor's ex-husband Louis VII by Adele of Champagne. Roger of Howden wrote:
The King of England was struck with great astonishment, and wondered what [this alliance] could mean, and, taking precautions for the future, frequently sent messengers into France for the purpose of recalling his son Richard; who, pretending that he was peaceably inclined and ready to come to his father, made his way to Chinon, and, in spite of the person who had the custody thereof, carried off the greater part of his father's treasures, and fortified his castles in Poitou with the same, refusing to go to his father.
Overall, Howden is chiefly concerned with the politics of the relationship between Richard and King Philip. Gillingham has addressed theories suggesting that this political relationship was also sexually intimate, which he posits probably stemmed from an official record announcing that, as a symbol of unity between the two countries, the kings of England and France had slept overnight in the same bed. Gillingham has characterized this as "an accepted political act, nothing sexual about it;... a bit like a modern-day photo opportunity".
In exchange for Philip's help against his father, Richard promised to concede to him his rights to both Normandy and Anjou. Richard paid homage to Philip in November 1187. With news arriving of the Battle of Hattin, he took the cross at Tours in the company of other French nobles.
In 1188 Henry II planned to concede Aquitaine to his youngest son John. But Richard objected. He felt that Aquitaine was his and that John was unfit to take over the land once belonging to his mother. This refusal is what finally made Henry II bring Queen Eleanor out of prison. He sent her to Aquitaine and demanded that Richard give up his lands to his mother who would once again rule over those lands.
The following year, Richard attempted to take the throne of England for himself by joining Philip's expedition against his father. On 4 July 1189, the forces of Richard and Philip defeated Henry's army at Ballans. Henry, with John's consent, agreed to name Richard his heir apparent. Two days later Henry II died in Chinon, and Richard the Lionheart succeeded him as King of England, Duke of Normandy, and Count of Anjou. Roger of Howden claimed that Henry's corpse bled from the nose in Richard's presence, which was assumed to be a sign that Richard had caused his death.
King and crusader
Coronation and anti-Jewish violence
Richard I was officially invested as Duke of Normandy on 20 July 1189 and crowned king in Westminster Abbey on 3 September 1189. Richard barred all Jews and women from the investiture, but some Jewish leaders arrived to present gifts for the new king. According to Ralph of Diceto, Richard's courtiers stripped and flogged the Jews, then flung them out of court.
When a rumour spread that Richard had ordered all Jews to be killed, the people of London attacked the Jewish population. Many Jewish homes were destroyed by arsonists, and several Jews were forcibly baptised. Some sought sanctuary in the Tower of London, and others managed to escape. Among those killed was Jacob of Orléans, a respected Jewish scholar. Roger of Howden, in his Gesta Regis Ricardi, claimed that the jealous and bigoted citizens started the rioting, and that Richard punished the perpetrators, allowing a forcibly converted Jew to return to his native religion. Baldwin of Forde, Archbishop of Canterbury, reacted by remarking, "If the King is not God's man, he had better be the devil's".
Realising that the assaults could destabilise his realm on the eve of his departure on crusade, Richard ordered the execution of those responsible for the most egregious murders and persecutions, including rioters who had accidentally burned down Christian homes. He distributed a royal writ demanding that the Jews be left alone. The edict was only loosely enforced, however, and the following March further violence occurred, including a massacre at York.
Richard the Lionheart marches towards Jerusalem. James William Glass (1850). |
Crusade plans
Richard had already taken the cross as Count of Poitou in 1187. His father and Philip II had done so at Gisorson 21 January 1188 after receiving news of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. After Richard became king, he and Philip agreed to go on the Third Crusade, since each feared that during his absence the other might usurp his territories.
Richard swore an oath to renounce his past wickedness in order to show himself worthy to take the cross. He started to raise and equip a new crusader army. He spent most of his father's treasury (filled with money raised by the Saladin tithe), raised taxes, and even agreed to free King William I of Scotland from his oath of subservience to Richard in exchange for 10,000 marks. To raise still more revenue he sold the right to hold official positions, lands, and other privileges to those interested in them. Those already appointed were forced to pay huge sums to retain their posts. William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely and the King's Chancellor, made a show of bidding £3,000 to remain as Chancellor. He was apparently outbid by a certain Reginald the Italian, but that bid was refused.
Richard made some final arrangements on the continent. He reconfirmed his father's appointment of William Fitz Ralph to the important post of seneschal of Normandy. In Anjou, Stephen of Tours was replaced as seneschal and temporarily imprisoned for fiscal mismanagement. Payn de Rochefort, an Angevin knight, was elevated to the post of seneschal of Anjou. In Poitou the ex-provost of Benon, Peter Bertin, was made seneschal, and finally, in Gascony the household official Helie de La Celle was picked for the seneschalship there. After repositioning the part of his army he left behind to guard his French possessions, Richard finally set out on the crusade in summer 1190. (His delay was criticised by troubadours such as Bertran de Born.) He appointed as regents Hugh de Puiset, Bishop of Durham, and William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex—who soon died and was replaced by Richard's chancellor William Longchamp. Richard's brother John was not satisfied by this decision and started scheming against William. When Richard was raising funds for his crusade, he was said to declare, "I would have sold London if I could find a buyer".
Occupation of Sicily
In September 1190 Richard and Philip arrived in Sicily. After the death of King William II of Sicily his cousin Tancred had seized power and had been crowned early in 1190 as King Tancred of Sicily, although the legal heir was William's aunt Constance, wife of the new Emperor Henry VI. Tancred had imprisoned William's widow, Queen Joan, who was Richard's sister and did not give her the money she had inherited in William's will. When Richard arrived he demanded that his sister be released and given her inheritance; she was freed on 28 September, but without the inheritance. The presence of foreign troops also caused unrest: in October, the people of Messinarevolted, demanding that the foreigners leave. Richard attacked Messina, capturing it on 4 October 1190. After looting and burning the city Richard established his base there, but this created tension between Richard and Philip Augustus. He remained there until Tancred finally agreed to sign a treaty on 4 March 1191. The treaty was signed by Richard, Philip, and Tancred. Its main terms were:
- Joan was to receive 20,000 ounces (570 kg) of gold as compensation for her inheritance, which Tancred kept.
- Richard officially proclaimed his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, son of Geoffrey, as his heir, and Tancred promised to marry one of his daughters to Arthur when he came of age, giving a further 20,000 ounces (570 kg) of gold that would be returned by Richard if Arthur did not marry Tancred's daughter.
The two kings stayed on in Sicily for a while, but this resulted in increasing tensions between them and their men, with Philip Augustus plotting with Tancred against Richard. The two kings finally met to clear the air and reached an agreement, including the end of Richard's betrothal to Philip's sister Alys (who had supposedly been the mistress of Richard's father Henry II).
Conquest of Cyprus
In April 1191 Richard left Messina for Acre, but a storm dispersed his large fleet. After some searching, it was discovered that the ship carrying his sister Joan and his new fiancée Berengaria was anchored on the south coast of Cyprus, along with the wrecks of several other vessels, including the treasure ship. Survivors of the wrecks had been taken prisoner by the island's ruler, Isaac Komnenos.
On 1 May 1191 Richard's fleet arrived in the port of Lemesos(Limassol) on Cyprus. He ordered Isaac to release the prisoners and treasure. Isaac refused, so Richard landed his troops and took Limassol. Various princes of the Holy Land arrived in Limassol at the same time, in particular Guy of Lusignan. All declared their support for Richard provided that he support Guy against his rival, Conrad of Montferrat.
The local magnates abandoned Isaac, who considered making peace with Richard, joining him on the crusade, and offering his daughter in marriage to the person named by Richard. Isaac changed his mind, however, and tried to escape. Richard's troops, led by Guy de Lusignan, conquered the whole island by 1 June. Isaac surrendered and was confined with silver chains because Richard had promised that he would not place him in irons. Richard named Richard de Camville and Robert of Thornham as governors. He later sold the island to the master of Knights Templar, Robert de Sablé, and it was subsequently acquired, in 1192, by Guy of Lusignan and became a stable feudal kingdom.
The rapid conquest of the island by Richard is more important than it may seem. The island occupies a key strategic position on the maritime lanes to the Holy Land, whose occupation by the Christians could not continue without support from the sea. Cyprus remained a Christian stronghold until the battle of Lepanto (1571). Richard's exploit was well publicised and contributed to his reputation, and he also derived significant financial gains from the conquest of the island. Richard left Cyprus for Acre on 5 June with his allies.
Marriage
Before leaving Cyprus on crusade, Richard married Berengaria of Navarre, the first-born daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre. Richard first grew close to her at a tournament held in her native Navarre. The wedding was held in Limassol on 12 May 1191 at the Chapel of St George and was attended by Richard's sister Joan, whom he had brought from Sicily. The marriage was celebrated with great pomp and splendour, many feasts and entertainments, and public parades and celebrations followed commemorating the event. When Richard married Berengaria he was still officially betrothed to Alys, and he pushed for the match in order to obtain the Kingdom of Navarre as a fief, as Aquitaine had been for his father. Further, Eleanor championed the match, as Navarre bordered Aquitaine, thereby securing the southern border of her ancestral lands. Richard took his new wife on crusade with him briefly, though they returned separately. Berengaria had almost as much difficulty in making the journey home as her husband did, and she did not see England until after his death. After his release from German captivity, Richard showed some regret for his earlier conduct, but he was not reunited with his wife. The marriage remained childless.
In the Holy Land
King Richard landed at Acre on 8 June 1191. He gave his support to his PoitevinvassalGuy of Lusignan, who had brought troops to help him in Cyprus. Guy was the widower of his father's cousin Sibylla of Jerusalem and was trying to retain the kingship of Jerusalem, despite his wife's death during the Siege of Acre the previous year. Guy's claim was challenged by Conrad of Montferrat, second husband of Sibylla's half-sister, Isabella: Conrad, whose defence of Tyre had saved the kingdom in 1187, was supported by Philip of France, son of his first cousin Louis VII of France, and by another cousin, Duke Leopold V of Austria. Richard also allied with Humphrey IV of Toron, Isabella's first husband, from whom she had been forcibly divorced in 1190. Humphrey was loyal to Guy and spoke Arabic fluently, so Richard used him as a translator and negotiator.
Richard and his forces aided in the capture of Acre, despite the king's serious illness. At one point, while sick from scurvy, Richard is said to have picked off guards on the walls with a crossbow, while being carried on a stretcher. Eventually, Conrad of Montferrat concluded the surrender negotiations with Saladin's forces inside Acre and raised the banners of the kings in the city. Richard quarrelled with Leopold V of Austria over the deposition of Isaac Komnenos (related to Leopold's Byzantinemother) and his position within the crusade. Leopold's banner had been raised alongside the English and French standards. This was interpreted as arrogance by both Richard and Philip, as Leopold was a vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor (although he was the highest-ranking surviving leader of the imperial forces). Richard's men tore the flag down and threw it in the moat of Acre. Leopold left the crusadeimmediately. Philip also left soon afterwards, in poor health and after further disputes with Richard over the status of Cyprus (Philip demanded half the island) and the kingship of Jerusalem. Richard, suddenly, found himself without allies.
![]() |
Richard Çœur de Lion Having the Saracens Beheaded |
Richard had kept 2,700 Muslim prisoners as hostages against Saladin fulfilling all the terms of the surrender of the lands around Acre. Philip, before leaving, had entrusted his prisoners to Conrad, but Richard forced him to hand them over to him. Richard feared his forces being bottled up in Acre as he believed his campaign could not advance with the prisoners in train. He, therefore, ordered all the prisoners executed. He then moved south, defeating Saladin's forces at the Battle of Arsuf 30 miles (50 km) north of Jaffa on 7 September 1191. Saladin attempted to harass Richard's army into breaking its formation in order to defeat it in detail. Richard maintained his army's defensive formation, however, until the Hospitallersbroke ranks to charge the right wing of Saladin's forces. Richard then ordered a general counterattack, which won the battle. Arsuf was an important victory. The Muslim army was not destroyed, despite the considerable casualties it suffered, but it did rout; this was considered shameful by the Muslims and boosted the morale of the Crusaders. In November 1191, following the fall of Jaffa, the Crusader army advanced inland towards Jerusalem. The army then marched to Beit Nuba, only 12 miles from Jerusalem. Muslim morale in Jerusalem was so low that the arrival of the Crusaders would probably have caused the city to fall quickly. However, the weather was appallingly bad, cold with heavy rain and hailstorms; this, combined with the fear that the Crusader army, if it besieged Jerusalem, might be trapped by a relieving force, led to the decision to retreat back to the coast. Richard attempted to negotiate with Saladin, but this was unsuccessful. In the first half of 1192, he and his troops refortified Ascalon.
An election forced Richard to accept Conrad of Montferrat as King of Jerusalem, and he sold Cyprus to his defeated protégé, Guy. Only days later, on 28 April 1192, Conrad was stabbed to death by Hashshashin(Assassins) before he could be crowned. Eight days later Richard's own nephew Henry II of Champagne was married to the widowed Isabella, although she was carrying Conrad's child. The murder has never been conclusively solved, and Richard's contemporaries widely suspected his involvement.
The crusader army made another advance on Jerusalem, and in June 1192 it came within sight of the city before being forced to retreat once again, this time because of dissension amongst its leaders. In particular, Richard and the majority of the army council wanted to force Saladin to relinquish Jerusalem by attacking the basis of his power through an invasion of Egypt. The leader of the French contingent, the Duke of Burgundy, however, was adamant that a direct attack on Jerusalem should be made. This split the Crusader army into two factions, and neither was strong enough to achieve its objective. Richard stated that he would accompany any attack on Jerusalem but only as a simple soldier; he refused to lead the army. Without a united command the army had little choice but to retreat back to the coast.
There commenced a period of minor skirmishes with Saladin's forces, punctuated by another defeat in the field for the Ayyubid army at the Battle of Jaffa. Baha' al-Din, a contemporary Muslim soldier and biographer of Saladin, recorded a tribute to Richard's martial prowess at this battle: "I have been assured ... that on that day the king of England, lance in hand, rode along the whole length of our army from right to left, and not one of our soldiers left the ranks to attack him. The Sultan was wroth thereat and left the battlefield in anger...". Both sides realised that their respective positions were growing untenable. Richard knew that both Philip and his own brother John were starting to plot against him, and the morale of Saladin's army had been badly eroded by repeated defeats. However, Saladin insisted on the razing of Ascalon's fortifications, which Richard's men had rebuilt, and a few other points. Richard made one last attempt to strengthen his bargaining position by attempting to invade Egypt—Saladin's chief supply-base—but failed. In the end, time ran out for Richard. He realised that his return could be postponed no longer since both Philip and John were taking advantage of his absence. He and Saladin finally came to a settlement on 2 September 1192. The terms provided for the destruction of Ascalon's fortifications, allowed Christian pilgrims and merchants access to Jerusalem, and initiated a three-year truce. Richard, being ill with scurvy, left for England on October 9, 1192.
![]() |
Nineteenth century representation of the battle by Éloi Firmin Féron (1802–1876) |
Captivity, ransom and return
Bad weather forced Richard's ship to put in at Corfu, in the lands of the Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos, who objected to Richard's annexation of Cyprus, formerly Byzantine territory. Disguised as a Knight Templar, Richard sailed from Corfu with four attendants, but his ship was wrecked near Aquileia, forcing Richard and his party into a dangerous land route through central Europe. On his way to the territory of his brother-in-law Henry the Lion, Richard was captured shortly before Christmas 1192 near Vienna by Leopold V, Duke of Austria, who accused Richard of arranging the murder of his cousin Conrad of Montferrat. Moreover, Richard had personally offended Leopold by casting down his standard from the walls of Acre.
Duke Leopold kept him prisoner at Dürnstein Castle under the care of Leopold's ministerialis Hadmar of Kuenring. His mishap was soon known to England, but the regents were for some weeks uncertain of his whereabouts. While in prison, Richard wrote Ja nus hons prisor Ja nuls om pres("No man who is imprisoned"), which is addressed to his half-sister Marie de Champagne. He wrote the song, in French and Occitanversions, to express his feelings of abandonment by his people and his sister. The detention of a crusader was contrary to public law, and on these grounds Pope Celestine III excommunicated Duke Leopold.
On 28 March 1193 Richard was brought to Speyer and handed over to Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, who imprisoned him in Trifels Castle. Henry VI was aggrieved by the support the Plantagenets had given to the family of Henry the Lion and by Richard's recognition of Tancred in Sicily. Henry VI needed money to raise an army and assert his rights over southern Italy and continued to hold Richard for ransom. In response, Pope Celestine III excommunicated Henry VI, as he had Duke Leopold, for the continued wrongful imprisonment of Richard. Richard famously refused to show deference to the emperor and declared to him, "I am born of a rank which recognises no superior but God". Despite his complaints, the conditions of his captivity were not severe.
The emperor demanded that 150,000 marks(100,000 pounds of silver) be delivered to him before he would release the king, the same amount raised by the Saladin tithe only a few years earlier, and 2–3 times the annual income for the English Crown under Richard. Richard's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, worked to raise the ransom. Both clergy and laymen were taxed for a quarter of the value of their property, the gold and silver treasures of the churches were confiscated, and money was raised from the scutage and the carucagetaxes. At the same time, John, Richard's brother, and King Philip of France offered 80,000 marks for the Emperor to hold Richard prisoner until Michaelmas1194. The emperor turned down the offer. The money to rescue the King was transferred to Germany by the emperor's ambassadors, but "at the king's peril" (had it been lost along the way, Richard would have been held responsible), and finally, on 4 February 1194 Richard was released. Philip sent a message to John: "Look to yourself; the devil is loose".
![]() |
King Richard the Lionheart & Saladin |
Later years and death
In Richard's absence, his brother John revolted with the aid of Philip; amongst Philip's conquests in the period of Richard's imprisonment was Normandy. Richard forgave John when they met again and named him as his heir in place of their nephew, Arthur.
Richard began his reconquest of Normandy. The fall of the Château de Gisors to the French in 1193 opened a gap in the Norman defences. The search began for a fresh site for a new castle to defend the duchy of Normandy and act as a base from which Richard could launch his campaign to take back the Vexin from French control. A naturally defensible position was identified perched high above the River Seine, an important transport route, in the manor of Andeli. Under the terms of the Treaty of Louviers (December 1195) between Richard and Philip II, neither king was allowed to fortify the site; despite this, Richard intended to build the vast Château Gaillard. Richard tried to obtain the manor through negotiation. Walter de Coutances, Archbishop of Rouen, was reluctant to sell the manor as it was one of the diocese's most profitable, and other lands belonging to the diocese had recently been damaged by war. When Philip besiegedAumale in Normandy, Richard grew tired of waiting and seized the manor, although the act was opposed by the Church. The archbishop issued an interdictagainst performing church services in the duchy of Normandy; Roger of Howden detailed "unburied bodies of the dead lying in the streets and square of the cities of Normandy". The interdict was still in force when work began on the castle, but Pope Celestine III repealed it in April 1197 after Richard made gifts of land to the archibishop and the diocese of Rouen, including two manors and the prosperous port of Dieppe.
Royal expenditure on castles declined from the levels spent under Henry II, attributed to a concentration of resources on Richard's war with the king of France. However, the work at Château Gaillard was some of the most expensive of its time and cost an estimated £15,000 to £20,000 between 1196 and 1198. This was more than double Richard's spending on castles in England, an estimated £7,000. Unprecedented in its speed of construction, the castle was mostly complete in two years when most construction on such a scale would have taken the best part of a decade. According to William of Newburgh, in May 1198 Richard and the labourers working on the castle were drenched in a "rain of blood". While some of his advisers thought the rain was an evil omen, Richard was undeterred. As no master-mason is mentioned in the otherwise detailed records of the castle's construction, military historian Allen Brown has suggested that Richard himself was the overall architect; this is supported by the interest Richard showed in the work through his frequent presence. In his final years, the castle became Richard's favourite residence, and writs and charters were written at Château Gaillard bearing "apud Bellum Castrum de Rupe" (at the Fair Castle of the Rock).
Château Gaillardwas ahead of its time, featuring innovations that would be adopted in castle architecture nearly a century later. Allen Brown described Château Gaillard as "one of the finest castles in Europe", and military historian Sir Charles Oman wrote that it was considered "the masterpiece of its time. The reputation of its builder, Cœur de Lion, as a great military engineer might stand firm on this single structure. He was no mere copyist of the models he had seen in the East, but introduced many original details of his own invention into the stronghold".
Determined to resist Philip's designs on contested Angevin lands such as the Vexin and Berry, Richard poured all his military expertise and vast resources into the war on the French King. He organised an alliance against Philip, including Baldwin IX of Flanders, Renaud, Count of Boulogne, and his father-in-law King Sancho VI of Navarre, who raided Philip's lands from the south. Most importantly, he managed to secure the Welfinheritance in Saxony for his nephew, Henry the Lion's son Otto of Poitou, who was elected Otto IV of Germany in 1198.
Partly as a result of these and other intrigues, Richard won several victories over Philip. At Fréteval in 1194, just after Richard's return to France from captivity and money-raising in England, Philip fled, leaving his entire archive of financial audits and documents to be captured by Richard. At the Battle of Gisors (sometimes called Courcelles) in 1198, Richard took Dieu et mon Droit—"God and my Right"—as his motto (still used by the British monarchy today), echoing his earlier boast to Emperor Henry that his rank acknowledged no superior but God.
In March 1199, Richard was in Limousin suppressing a revolt by Viscount Aimar V of Limoges. Although it was Lent, he "devastated the Viscount's land with fire and sword". He besieged the puny, virtually unarmed castle of Châlus-Chabrol. Some chroniclers claimed that this was because a local peasant had uncovered a treasure trove of Roman gold, which Richard claimed from Aimar in his position as feudal overlord.
In the early evening of 25 March 1199, Richard was walking around the castle perimeter without his chainmail, investigating the progress of sappers on the castle walls. Missiles were occasionally shot from the castle walls, but these were given little attention. One defender, in particular, amused the king greatly—a man standing on the walls, crossbow in one hand, the other clutching a frying pan he had been using all day as a shield to beat off missiles. He deliberately aimed at the king, which the king applauded; however, another crossbowman then struck the king in the left shoulder near the neck. He tried to pull this out in the privacy of his tent but failed; a surgeon called a "butcher" by Howden, removed it, "carelessly mangling" the King's arm in the process.
The wound swiftly became gangrenous. Richard asked to have the crossbowman brought before him; called alternatively Pierre (or Peter) Basile, John Sabroz, Dudo, and Bertrand de Gourdon (from the town of Gourdon) by chroniclers, the man turned out (according to some sources, but not all) to be a boy. He said Richard had killed his father and two brothers, and that he had killed Richard in revenge. He expected to be executed, but as a final act of mercy Richard forgave him, saying "Live on, and by my bounty behold the light of day", before he ordered the boy to be freed and sent away with 100 shillings. It is unclear whether the King's pardon was upheld following his death. Richard then set his affairs in order, bequeathing all his territory to his brother John and his jewels to his nephew Otto.
Richard died on 6 April 1199 in the arms of his mother, and thus "ended his earthly day". Because of the nature of Richard's death, it was later referred to as "the Lion by the Ant was slain". According to one chronicler, Richard's last act of chivalry proved fruitless when the infamous mercenarycaptain Mercadierhad the crossbowman flayed alive and hanged as soon as Richard died.
Richard's heart was buried at Rouen in Normandy, his entrails in Châlus(where he died), and the rest of his body at the feet of his father at Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou. In 2012, scientists analysed the remains of Richard's heart and found that it had been embalmed with various substances, including frankincense, a symbolically important substance because it had been present both at the birth and embalming of the Christ.
Henry Sandford, Bishop of Rochester (1226–1235) announced that he had seen a vision of Richard ascending to Heaven in March 1232 (along with Stephen Langton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury), the king having presumably spent 33 years in purgatoryas expiationfor his sins.
Richard produced no legitimate heirs and acknowledged only one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. As a result, he was succeeded by his brother John as King of England.[124]However, his French territories initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur of Brittany, the son of their late brother Geoffrey, whose claim was by modern standards better than John's. The lack of any direct heirs from Richard was the first step in the dissolution of the Angevin Empire.
Character and sexuality
Contemporaries considered Richard as both a king and a knight famed for personal martial prowess; this was, apparently, the first such instance of this combination. He was known as a valiant, competent military leader and individual fighter who was courageous and generous. At the same time, he was considered prone to the sins of lust, pride, greed, and above all excessive cruelty. Ralph of Coggeshall, summarising Richard's career, deplores that the king was one of "the immense cohort of sinners". He was criticised by clergy chroniclers for having taxed the clergy both for the Crusade and for his ransom, whereas the church and the clergy were usually exempt from taxes.
In the historiography of the second half of the 20th century much interest was shown in Richard's sexuality, in particular whether there was cogent evidence of homosexuality. The topic had not been raised by Victorian or Edwardian historians, a fact which was itself denounced as a "conspiracy of silence" by John Harvey (1948). The argument primarily drew on accounts of Richard's behaviour, as well as of his confessions and penitences, and of his childless marriage. Richard did have at least one illegitimate child (Philip of Cognac), and there are reports on his sexual relations with local women during his campaigns. Historians remain divided on the question of Richard's sexuality. Harvey argued in favour of his homosexuality but has been disputed by other historians, most notably John Gillingham (1994), who argues that Richard was probably heterosexual. Flori (1999) again argued in favour of Richard's homosexuality, based on Richard's two public confessions and penitences(in 1191 and 1195) which, according to Flori, "must have" referred to the sin of sodomy. Flori, however, concedes that contemporary accounts of Richard taking women by force exist, concluding that he probably had sexual relations with both men and women. Flori and Gillingham nevertheless agree that accounts of bed-sharing do not support the suggestion that Richard had a sexual relationship with King Philip II, as had been suggested by other modern authors.
![]() |
19th-century portrait of Richard the Lionheart by Merry-Joseph Blondel |
Legacy
Heraldry
Further information: Royal arms of England
The second Great Seal of Richard I (1198) shows him bearing a shield depicting three lions passant-guardant. This is the first instance of the appearance of this blazon, which later became established as the Royal arms of England. It is likely, therefore, that Richard introduced this heraldic design. In his earlier Great Seal of 1189, he had used either one lion rampant or two lions rampants combatants, which arms he may have adopted from his father.
Richard is also credited with having originated the English crestof a lion statant (now statant-guardant). The coat of three lions continues to represent England on several coins of the pound sterling, forms the basis of several emblems of English national sports teams (such as the England national football team, and the team's "Three Lions" anthem), and endures as one of the most recognisable national symbols of England.
Medieval folklore
Main article: Matter of England
Around the middle of the 13th century, various legends developed that, after Richard's capture, his minstrel Blondel travelled Europe from castle to castle, loudly singing a song known only to the two of them (they had composed it together). Eventually, he came to the place where Richard was being held, and Richard heard the song and answered with the appropriate refrain, thus revealing where the king was incarcerated. The story was the basis of André Ernest Modeste Grétry's opera Richard Cœur-de-Lion and seems to be the inspiration for the opening to Richard Thorpe's film version of Ivanhoe. It seems unconnected to the real Jean 'Blondel' de Nesle, an aristocratic trouvère. It also does not correspond to the historical reality, since the king's jailers did not hide the fact; on the contrary, they publicised it.
At some time around the 16th century, tales of Robin Hoodstarted to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.
Modern reception
Richard's reputation over the years has "fluctuated wildly", according to historian John Gillingham. While contemporary sources emphasize his stern and unforgiving nature and his excessive cruelty, his image is already transformed into romance, depicting him as generous-hearted preux chevalier, a few decades after his death.
Richard left an indelible imprint on the imagination extending to the present, in large part because of his military exploits, and his popular image tended to be dominated by the positive qualities of chivalry and military competence. This is reflected in Steven Runciman's final verdict of Richard I: "he was a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier" ("History of the Crusades" Vol. III). Meanwhile, Muslim writers during the Crusades period and after wrote of him: "Never have we had to face a bolder or more subtle opponent".
Victorian England was divided on Richard: many admired him as a crusader and man of God, erecting an heroic statue to him outside the Houses of Parliament. The late-Victorian scholar William Stubbs, on the other hand, thought him "a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man". During his ten years' reign, he was in England for no more than six months, and was totally absent for the last five years. Stubbs argued that:
He was a bad king: his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman, but it does not follow that he gave to Normandy, Anjou, or Aquitaine the love or care that he denied to his kingdom. His ambition was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory that he sought was that of victory rather than conquest.
In World War I, when British troops commanded by General Edmund Allenby captured Jerusalem, the British press printed cartoons of Richard the Lionheart looking down from the heavens with the caption reading, "At last my dream has come true". General Allenby protested against his campaign being presented as a latter-day Crusade, however, stating "The importance of Jerusalem lay in its strategic importance, there was no religious impulse in this campaign".
Depictions in modern fiction
Richard is one of the most prominent monarchs in British popular culture, appearing as a major or minor character in many works of fiction, both written and audio-visual. As noted above, Richard appears in connection with Robin Hoodin Sir Walter Scott's novel Ivanhoe. He is one of the main characters in Scott's The Talisman, set during the Third Crusade. The opera Riccardo Primo by George Frideric Handel is based on Richard's invasion of Cyprus.
Richard is a major character in James Goldman's The Lion in Winter, which references the alleged homosexual affair between Richard and Philip II of France. Richard was played by Sir Anthony Hopkins in Anthony Harvey's The Lion in Winter and Andrew Howard in the 2003 remake directed by Andrei Konchalovsky, which starred Patrick Stewart as his father Henry II.
Richard appears in many other fictional accounts of the Third Crusade and its sequel, for example Graham Shelby's The Kings of Vain Intent and The Devil is Loose. Richard is a major character in Norah Lofts' novel The Lute Player, in Martha Rofheart's Lionheart!: A Novel of Richard I, King of England, in Cecelia Holland's The King's Witch, Gore Vidal's A Search For the King and in Sharon Kay Penman's The Devil's Brood and Lionheart. He also appears in three of Angus Donald's Outlaw Chronicles series of novels based on the legend of Robin Hood. Richard was played by Henry Wilcoxon in Cecil B. DeMille's 1935 epic, The Crusades, by Ian Hunter in The Adventures of Robin Hood(1938), by Norman Wooland in Ivanhoe (1952), by George Sanders in King Richard and the Crusaders(1954), by Dermot Walsh in the Richard the Lionheart(1962–1963), by Julian Glover in Doctor Who – The Crusade (1965) and Ivanhoe (1982), by Richard Harris in Robin and Marian (1976) and by Sean Connery in the climax of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves(1991). Connery's appearance as Richard was parodied by Patrick Stewart in Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993). Ridley Scott's 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven portrays Richard (played by Iain Glen) in a minor role. At the end of the film, he was seen riding along with his army for Jerusalem, after Saladin took it. In Ridley Scott's Robin Hood (2010), actor Danny Huston portrayed Richard, depicting the king's death as during the siege of Chalus Castle. In the 2013 film Richard The Lionheart, actor Chandler Maness portrayed Richard as a young and petulant prince. In the sequel, Richard the Lionheart: Rebellion, Maness reprises his role as Richard, to lead a rebellion against his father.
Ancestors
Ancestors of Richard I of England | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notes
1. Historians are divided in their use of the terms "Plantagenet" and "Angevin" in regards to Henry II and his sons. Some class Henry II to be the first Plantagenet King of England; others refer to Henry, Richard and John as the Angevin dynasty, and consider Henry III to be the first Plantagenet ruler.
See also
- Cultural depictions of Richard I of England
- List of English monarchs
- The Crusade and Death of Richard I
OTHER LINKS:
↧
CHARLES MARTEL THE FRANKISH WARRIOR
Charles Martel died on October 22, 741, at Quierzy-sur-Oise in what is today the Aisne département in the Picardy region of France. He was buried at Saint Denis Basilica in Paris. I will post information about this Frankish Warrior from Wikipedia and other links.
Charles Martel | |||
| |||
Reign | 718–741 | ||
718 | |||
Predecessor | |||
Successor | |||
Reign | 715–741 | ||
Coronation | 715 | ||
Predecessor | |||
Successor | |||
Reign | 718–741 | ||
Coronation | 718 | ||
Predecessor | |||
Successor | |||
King of the Franks (acting) | |||
Reign | 737–741 | ||
Coronation | 737 | ||
Predecessor | |||
Successor | |||
Born | c. 688 Herstal | ||
Died | 22 October 741 Quierzy | ||
Burial | |||
Spouse | |||
Issue | |||
Carolingian (Founder) | |||
Father | |||
Mother |
Charles Martel (c. 686 – 22 October 741) was a Frankish statesman and military leader who as Duke and Prince of the Franks and Mayor of the Palace, was de facto ruler of Francia from 718 until his death. The son of the Frankish statesman Pepin of Herstal and a noblewoman named Alpaida, Charles successfully asserted his claims to power as successor to his father as the power behind the throne in Frankish politics. Continuing and building on his father's work, he restored centralized government in Francia and began the series of military campaigns that re-established the Franks as the undisputed masters of all Gaul.
After work to establish a unity in Gaul, Charles' attention was called to foreign conflicts, and dealing with the Islamic advance into Western Europe was a foremost concern. Arab and Berber Islamic forces had conquered Spain (711), crossed the Pyrenees (720), seized a major dependency of the Visigoths (721–725), and after intermittent challenges, under Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, the Arab Governor of al-Andalus, advanced toward Gaul and on Tours, "the holy town of Gaul"; in October 732, the army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by Al Ghafiqi met Frankish and Burgundian forces under Charles in an area between the cities of Tours and Poitiers (modern north-central France), leading to a decisive, historically important Frankish victory known as the Battle of Tours (or ma'arakat Balâṭ ash-Shuhadâ, Battle of the Palace of Martyrs), ending the "last of the great Arab invasions of France," a military victory termed "brilliant" on the part of Charles.
Charles further took the offensive after Tours, destroying fortresses at Agde, Béziers and Maguelonne, and engaging Islamic forces at Nimes, though ultimately failing to recover Narbonne (737) or to fully reclaim the Visigoth's Narbonensis. He thereafter made significant further external gains against fellow Christian realms, establishing Frankish control over Bavaria, Alemannia, and Frisia, and compelling some of the Saxon tribes to offer tribute (738).
Apart from the military endeavours, Charles is considered to be a founding figure of the European Middle Ages. Skilled as an administrator as well as a warrior, he is credited with a seminal role in the emerging responsibilities of the knights of courts, and so in the development of the Frankish system of feudalism. Pope Gregory III, whose realm was being menaced by the Lombards, and who could no longer rely on help from Constantinople, asked Charles to defend the Holy See and offered him the Roman consulship, though Charles declined.
He divided Francia between his sons Carloman and Pepin. The latter became the first of the Carolingians. Charles' grandson, Charlemagne, extended the Frankish realms to include much of the West, and became the first Emperor in the West since the fall of Rome.
![]() |
If Charles Martel was alive today [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/charles-martel-alive-today] |
1Background
Charles, nicknamed "Martel", or "the Hammer", in later chronicles, was the son of Pepin of Herstal and his second wife Alpaida. He had a brother named Childebrand, who later became the Frankish dux(that is, duke) of Burgundy.
In older historiography, it was common to describe Charles as "illegitimate". This is still widely repeated in popular culture today. But, polygamy was a legitimate Frankish practice at the time and it is unlikely that Charles was considered "illegitimate". It is likely that the interpretation of "illegitimacy" derives from the desire of Pepin's first wife Plectrude to see her progeny as heirs to Pepin's power.
After the reign of Dagobert I (629–639) the Merovingians effectively ceded power to the Pippinid Mayors of the Palace, who ruled the Frankish realm of Austrasia in all but name. They controlled the royal treasury, dispensed patronage, and granted land and privileges in the name of the figurehead king. Charles' father, Pepin of Herstal, was able to unite the Frankish realm by conquering Neustria and Burgundy. He was the first to call himself Duke and Prince of the Franks, a title later taken up by Charles.
![]() |
Charles Martel depicted in the French book "Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum" by Guillaume Rouillé, published in 1553 |
2Contesting for power
In December 714, Pepin of Herstal died. Prior to his death, he had, at his wife Plectrude's urging, designated Theudoald, his grandson by their late son Grimoald, his heir in the entire realm. This was immediately opposed by the nobles because Theudoald was a child of only eight years of age. To prevent Charles using this unrest to his own advantage, Plectrude had him imprisoned in Cologne, the city which was destined to be her capital. This prevented an uprising on his behalf in Austrasia, but not in Neustria.
2.1Civil war of 715–718
Pepin's death occasioned open conflict between his heirs and the Neustrian nobles who sought political independence from Austrasian control. In 715, Dagobert III named Ragenfridmayor of their palace. On 26 September 715, Ragenfrid's Neustrians met the young Theudoald's forces at the Battle of Compiegne. Theudoald was defeated and fled back to Cologne. Before the end of the year, Charles Martel had escaped from prison and been acclaimed mayor by the nobles of Austrasia. That same year, Dagobert III died and the Neustrians proclaimed Chilperic II, the cloistered son of Childeric II, as king.
2.1.1Battle of Cologne
In 716, Chilperic and Ragenfrid together led an army into Austrasia intent on seizing the Pippinid wealth at Cologne. The Neustrians allied with another invading force under Radbod, King of the Frisians and met Charles in battle near Cologne, which was still held by Plectrude. Charles had little time to gather men, or prepare, and the result was the only defeat of his career. The Frisians held off Charles, while the king and his mayor besieged Plectrude at Cologne, where she bought them off with a substantial portion of Pepin's treasure. Then they withdrew.
2.1.2Battle of Amblève
Charles retreated to the hills of the Eifel to gather men, and train them. Having made the proper preparations, in April 716, he fell upon the triumphant army near Malmedy as it was returning to its own province. In the ensuing Battle of Amblève, Martel attacked as the enemy rested at midday. According to one source, he split his forces into several groups which fell at them from many sides. Another suggests that while this was his intention, he then decided, given the enemy's unpreparedness, this was not necessary. In any event, the suddenness of the assault lead them to believe they were facing a much larger host. Many of the enemy fled and Martel's troops gathered the spoils of the camp. Martel's reputation increased considerably as a result, and he attracted more followers.
In this battle, Charles set a pattern for the remainder of his military career. He appeared where his enemies least expected him, while they were marching triumphantly home and far outnumbered him. He also attacked when least expected, at midday, when armies of that era traditionally were resting. Finally, he attacked them how they least expected it, by feigning a retreat to draw his opponents into a trap. The feigned retreat, next to unknown in Western Europe at that time—it was a traditionally eastern tactic—required both extraordinary discipline on the part of the troops and exact timing on the part of their commander. The result was an unbroken victory streak that lasted until his death.
2.1.3Battle of Vincy
Richard Gerberding points out that up to this time, much of Martel's support was probably from his mother's kindred in the lands around Liege. After Amblève, he seems to have won the backing of the influential Willibrord, founder of the Abbey of Echternach. The abbey had been built on land donated by Plectrude's mother, Irmina of Oeren, but most of Willibrord's missionary work had been carried out in Frisia. In joining Chilperic and Ragenfrid, Radbod of Frisia sacked Utrecht, burning churches and killing many missionaries. Willibrord and his monks were forced to flee to Echternach. Gerberding suggests that Willibrord had decided that the chances of preserving his life's work were better with a successful field commander like Martel than with Plectrude in Cologne. Willibrord subsequently baptized Martel's son Pepin. Gerberding suggests a likely date of Easter 716. Martel also received support from Bishop Pepo of Verdun.
Charles took time to rally more men and prepare. By the following spring, Charles had attracted enough support to invade Neustria. Charles sent an envoy who proposed a secession of hostilities if Chilperic would recognize his rights as mayor of the palace in Austrasia. The refusal was not unexpected but served to impress upon Martel's forces the unreasonableness of the Neustrians. They met near Cambrai at the Battle of Vincy on 21 March 717. The victorious Martel pursued the fleeing king and mayor to Paris, but as he was not yet prepared to hold the city, he turned back to deal with Plectrude and Cologne. He took the city and dispersed her adherents. Plectrude was allowed to retire to a convent; Theudoald lived to 741 under his uncle's protection, a kindness—unusual for those times, when mercy to a former gaoler, or a potential rival, was rare.
3Consolidation of power
Upon this success, Martel proclaimed Chlothar IV king of Austrasia in opposition to Chilperic and deposed Rigobert, archbishop of Reims, replacing him with Milo, a lifelong supporter.
In 718, Chilperic responded to Charles' new ascendancy by making an alliance with Odo the Great (or Eudes, as he is sometimes known), the duke of Aquitaine, who had become independent during the civil war in 715, but was again defeated, at the Battle of Soissons, by Charles. Chilperic fled with his ducal ally to the land south of the Loire and Ragenfrid fled to Angers. Soon Clotaire IV died and Odo surrendered King Chilperic in exchange for Martel recognising his dukedom. Charles recognised Chilperic as king of the Franks in return for legitimate royal affirmation of his own mayoralty over all the kingdoms.
3.1Wars of 718–732
Between 718 and 723, Charles secured his power through a series of victories: he won the loyalty of several important bishops and abbots by donating lands and money for the foundation of abbeys, he subjugated Bavaria and Alemannia. Having unified the Franks under his banner, Charles was determined to punish the Saxons who had invaded Austrasia. Therefore, late in 718, he laid waste their country to the banks of the Weser, the Lippe, and the Ruhr. He defeated them in the Teutoburg Forest and thus secured the borders—in the name of King Clotaire.
Radbod died in 719. Charles seized West Frisia without any great resistance on the part of the Frisians, who had been subjects of the Franks but had rebelled upon the death of Pippin. When Chilperic II died the following year (720), Charles appointed as his successor the son of Dagobert III, Theuderic IV, who was still a minor, and who occupied the throne from 720 to 737. Charles was now appointing the kings whom he supposedly served, rois fainéants who were mere figureheads; by the end of his reign he didn't appoint one at all. At this time, Charles again marched against the Saxons. Then the Neustrians rebelled under Ragenfrid, who had left the county of Anjou. They were easily defeated (724), but Ragenfrid gave up his sons as hostages in turn for keeping his county. This ended the civil wars of Charles' reign.
The next six years were devoted in their entirety to assuring Frankish authority over the dependent Germanic tribes. Between 720 and 723, Charles was fighting in Bavaria, where the Agilolfing dukes had gradually evolved into independent rulers, recently in alliance with Liutprand the Lombard. He forced the Alemannito accompany him, and Duke Hugbert submitted to Frankish suzerainty. In 725 he brought back the Agilolfing princess Swanachild as a second wife.
In 725 and 728, he again entered Bavaria. In 730, he marched against Lantfrid, duke of Alemannia, who had also become independent, and killed him in battle. He forced the Alemanni capitulation to Frankish suzerainty and did not appoint a successor to Lantfrid. Thus, southern Germany once more became part of the Frankish kingdom, as had northern Germany during the first years of the reign.
4Prelude to Tours
4.1Lead-up
Main article: Battle of Toulouse (721)
By 721, the emir of Córdoba had built up a strong army from Morocco, Yemen, and Syria to conquer Aquitaine. The large duchy in southwest Gaul was nominally under Frankish sovereignty, but in fact was almost independent under Odo the Great, Duke of Aquitaine. The invading Umayyads besieged Toulouse, then Aquitaine's most important city. Odo, who was not in the city at that time, left to seek help. After Odo's escape the Umayyads had become overconfident and failed to maintain defenses or scout patrols.
Returning three months later, Odo was in time to prevent the city's surrender and defeated the invaders on June 9, 721, at the Battle of Toulouse. Odo's forces launched a surprise assault on the Umayyad forces, simultaneously from behind and from within the walls . The surprised besiegers scattered and fled.
By 730 Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, who had been at Toulouse, was the emir of Córdoba. The Arab Chronicles make clear he had strongly opposed his predecessor's decision not to secure outer defenses against a relief force, which allowed Odo's force to attack with impunity before the Islamic cavalry could assemble or mount.
4.2Raising an army
Historian Paul K. Davis wrote, "Having defeated Eudes, he turned to the Rhine to strengthen his northeastern borders—but in 725 was diverted south with the activity of the Muslims in Acquitane." Charles then concentrated his attention to the Umayyads, virtually for the remainder of his life. Due to the situation in Iberia, Charles believed he needed a full-time army—one he could train intensely—as a core of veteran Franks who would be augmented with the usual conscripts called up in time of war. (During the Early Middle Ages, troops were only available after the crops had been planted and before harvesting time.) To train the kind of infantry that could withstand the Arab heavy cavalry, Charles needed them year-round, and he needed to pay them so their families could buy the food they would have otherwise grown.
To obtain money he seized church lands and property, and used the funds to pay his soldiers. The same Charles who had secured the support of the ecclesiaby donating land, seized some of it back between 724 and 732. For a time, it looked as though Charles might even be excommunicated for his actions. But then came a significant invasion.
The Umayyads were not aware, at that time, of the true strength of the Franks, or the fact that they were building a disciplined army instead of the typical barbarian hordes that had dominated Europe after Rome's fall. The Arab Chronicles (the history of that age) show that Arab awareness of the Franks as a growing military power came only after the Battle of Tours when the Caliph expressed shock at his army's catastrophic defeat.
![]() |
Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours [PHOTO SOURCE: http://faithandheritage.com/2016/10/the-guardian-of-the-west/] |
5Battle of Tours in 732
Main article: Battle of Tours
In 731, after defeating the Saxons, Martel, turned his attention to the rival southern realm of Aquitaine, and crossed the Loire, breaking the treaty with Odo. The Franks ransacked Aquitaine twice, and captured Bourges, although Odo retook it. Thus occupied, Odo was unable to come to the assistance of his ally, the Berber rebel lord Uthman ibn Naissa, who hearing of the oppression of Berbers in North Africa, had negotiated a peace treaty with Odo. After a brief battle, Uthman ibn Naissa was defeated and executed by Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi.
Abdul Rahman next proceeded through Gascony all the way to Bordeaux, capturing the city. Odo engaged Abdul Rahman on the Garonne River at the Battle of Bordeaux, but was defeated. The Umayyads looted the rich monasteries of northern Aquitaine before resuming their march towards Tours, a town said to be holding abundant wealth and treasures. This plundering gave Odo enough time to re-organise his Aquitanian troops and warn Charles Martel of the impending danger.
It was under one of their ablest and most renowned commanders, with a veteran army, and with every apparent advantage of time, place, and circumstance, that the Arabs made their great effort at the conquest of Europe north of the Pyrenees.
Odo and his remaining Aquitanian nobles formed the right flank of Charles's forces at Tours. In the midst of the fighting a rumour went through the Umayyad army that Frankish scouts threatened the booty that they had taken from Bordeaux. Odo set fire to the Umayyad encampment. Some of the Umayyad cavalry troops at once broke off the battle and returned to camp to secure their loot. To the rest of the Umayyad army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it became one. While trying to stop the retreat, 'Abd-al-Raḥmân became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Umayyad troops then withdrew altogether to their camp. The Franks held their position, believing the battle would resume the following morning. Come morning, Frankish scouts discovered that the Umayyad force had withdrawn during the night.
"The victory at the battle near Poitiers and Tours would later earn Charles the cognomen"Martellus" (L., and so "Martel", Fr.: "the hammer") from 9th century chroniclers who, in the view of Pierre Riche, "seem to have been… recalling Judas Maccabaeus, 'the Hammerer,'" of 1 Maccabees, "whom God had similarly blessed with victory" ...."
Twelve years later, when Charles had thrice rescued Gaul from Umayyad invasions, Antonio Santosuosso noted when he destroyed an Umayyad army sent to reinforce the invasion forces of the 735 campaigns, "Charles Martel again came to the rescue."
![]() |
Charles de Steuben's Bataille de Poitiers en octobre 732 romantically depicts a triumphant Charles Martel (mounted) facing Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi (right) at the Battle of Tours. |
5.1Contemporary historians
It is important to note, however, that modern Western historians, military historians, and writers, essentially fall into three camps. The first, those who believe Gibbon was right in his assessment that Charles saved Christianity and Western civilization by this battle, as typified by Bennett, Paul Davis, Robert Martin, and educator Dexter B. Wakefield, who writes in An Islamic Europe?:
A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Charles’ fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg."
The second camp of contemporary historians believe that a failure by Charles at Tours could have been a disaster, destroying what would become Western civilization after the Renaissance. Certainly all historians agree that no power would have remained in Europe able to halt Islamic expansion had the Franks failed: William E. Watson strongly supports Tours as a macrohistorical event, but distances himself from the rhetoric of Gibbon and Drubeck, writing of the battle's importance in Frankish and world history in 1993:
There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle at the Battle of Guadaleteon the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian Peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732.
The final camp of Western historians believe that the importance of the battle is dramatically overstated. This view is typified by Alessandro Barbero, who writes, "Today, historians tend to play down the significance of the battle of Poitiers, pointing out that the purpose of the Arab force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom, but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours". Similarly, Tomaž Mastnak writes:
Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory as having saved Christian Europe from the Muslims. Edward Gibbon, for example, called Charles Martel the savior of Christendom and the battle near Poitiers an encounter that changed the history of the world... This myth has survived well into our own times... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle, who probably wrote in the mid-eighth century, pictured the battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens—moreover, as only one in a series of wars fought by Frankish princes for booty and territory... One of Fredegar's continuators presented the battle of Poitiers as what it really was: an episode in the struggle between Christian princes as the Carolingians strove to bring Aquitaine under their rule.
However, it is vital to note, when assessing Charles Martel's life, that even those historians who dispute the significance of this one battle as the event that saved Christianity, do not dispute that Charles himself had a huge effect on Western European history. Modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson acknowledges the debate on this battle, citing historians both for and against its macrohistorical placement:
Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western myth-making or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates.
In the modern era, Matthew Bennett argues that "few battles are remembered 1,000 years after they are fought ... but the Battle of Poitiers, (Tours) is an exception ... Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that, had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
6After Tours
6.1Introduction
In the subsequent decade, Charles led the Frankish army against the eastern duchies, Bavaria and Alemannia, and the southern duchies, Aquitaineand Provence. He dealt with the ongoing conflict with the Frisians and Saxons to his northeast with some success, but full conquest of the Saxons and their incorporation into the Frankish empire would wait for his grandson Charlemagne, primarily because Charles concentrated the bulk of his efforts against Muslim expansion.
So instead of concentrating on conquest to his east, he continued expanding Frankish authority in the west, and denying the Emirate of Córdoba a foothold in Europe beyond Al-Andalus. After his victory at Tours, Charles continued on in campaigns in 736 and 737 to drive other Islamic armies from bases in Gaul after they again attempted to expand beyond Al-Andalus.
6.2Wars of 732–737
Between his victory of 732 and 735, Charles reorganized the kingdom of Burgundy, replacing the counts and dukes with his loyal supporters, thus strengthening his hold on power. He was forced, by the ventures of Bubo, Duke of the Frisians, to invade independent-minded Frisia again in 734. In that year, he slew the duke at the Battle of the Boarn. Charles ordered the Frisian pagan shrines destroyed, and so wholly subjugated the populace that the region was peaceful for twenty years after.
The dynamic changed in 735 because of the death of Odo the Great, who had been forced to acknowledge, albeit reservedly, the suzerainty of Charles in 719. Though Charles wished to unite the duchy directly to himself and went there to elicit the proper homage of the Aquitainians, the nobility proclaimed Odo's son, Hunald I of Aquitaine, whose dukedom Charles recognized when the Umayyads invaded Provence the next year, and who equally was forced to acknowledge Charles as overlord as he had no hope of holding off the Muslims alone.
This naval Arab invasion was headed by Abdul Rahman's son. It landed in Narbonne in 736 and moved at once to reinforce Arles and move inland. Charles temporarily put the conflict with Hunald on hold, and descended on the Provençal strongholds of the Umayyads. In 736, he retook Montfrin and Avignon, and Arles and Aix-en-Provencewith the help of Liutprand, King of the Lombards. Nîmes, Agde, and Béziers, held by Islam since 725, fell to him and their fortresses were destroyed.
He crushed one Umayyad army at Arles, as that force sallied out of the city, and then took the city itself by a direct and brutal frontal attack, and burned it to the ground to prevent its use again as a stronghold for Umayyad expansion. He then moved swiftly and defeated a mighty host outside of Narbonne at the River Berre, but failed to take the city. Military historians believe he could have taken it, had he chosen to tie up all his resources to do so—but he believed his life was coming to a close, and he had much work to do to prepare for his sons to take control of the Frankish realm.
A direct frontal assault, such as took Arles, using rope ladders and rams, plus a few catapults, simply was not sufficient to take Narbonne without horrific loss of life for the Franks, troops Charles felt he could not lose. Nor could he spare years to starve the city into submission, years he needed to set up the administration of an empire his heirs would reign over. In addition, he faced strong opposition from regional lords such as the patrician Maurentius, from Marseille, who revolted against the Frankish leader. Moreover, the Aquitanian duke Hunald threatened his lines of communication with the north, so deciding him to withdraw from Septimania and destroy several strongholds (Béziers, Agde, etc.). He left Narbonne therefore, isolated and surrounded, and his son would return to conquer it for the Franks.
Notable about these campaigns was Charles' incorporation, for the first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx. His ability to coordinate infantry and cavalry veterans was unequaled in that era and enabled him to face superior numbers of invaders, and to decisively defeat them again and again. Some historians believe the Battle against the main Umayyad force at the River Berre, near Narbonne, in particular was as important a victory for Christian Europe as Tours.
Further, unlike his father at Tours, Rahman's son in 736–737 knew that the Franks were a real power, and that Charles personally was a force to be reckoned with. He had no intention of allowing Charles to catch him unaware and dictate the time and place of battle, as his father had. He concentrated instead on seizing a substantial portion of the coastal plains around Narbonne in 736 and heavily reinforced Arles as he advanced inland.
Abdul Rahman's son planned from there to move from city to city, fortifying as they went, and if Charles wished to stop them from making a permanent enclave for expansion of the Caliphate, he would have to come to them, in the open, where, he, unlike his father, would dictate the place of battle. All worked as he had planned, until Charles arrived, albeit more swiftly than the Moors believed he could call up his entire army. Unfortunately for Rahman's son, however, he had overestimated the time it would take Charles to develop heavy cavalry equal to that of the Muslims.
The Caliphate believed it would take a generation, but Charles managed it in five years. Prepared to face the Frankish phalanx, the Muslims were totally unprepared to face a mixed force of heavy cavalry and infantry in a phalanx. Thus, Charles again halted Muslim expansion into Europe. These defeats, plus those at the hands of Leo III of the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia, were the last great attempt at expansion by the Umayyad Caliphate before the destruction of the dynasty at the Battle of the Zab, and the rending of the Caliphate forever, especially the utter destruction of the Umayyad army at River Berre near Narbonne in 737.
6.3Interregnum
In 737, at the tail end of his campaigning in Provence and Septimania, the king, Theuderic IV, died. Charles, titling himself maior domus and princeps et dux Francorum, did not appoint a new king and nobody acclaimed one. The throne lay vacant until Charles' death. As the historian Charles Oman says "he cared not for name or style so long as the real power was in his hands."
Gibbon has said Charles was "content with the titles of Mayor or Duke of the Franks, but he deserved to become the father of a line of kings," which he did. Gibbon also says of him, "in the public danger, he was summoned by the voice of his country."
The interregnum, the final four years of Charles' life, was more peaceful than most of it had been and much of his time was now spent on administrative and organisational plans to create a more efficient state. Though, in 738, he compelled the Saxons of Westphalia to do him homage and pay tribute, and in 739 checked an uprising in Provence, the rebels being under the leadership of Maurontus. Charles set about integrating the outlying realms of his empire into the Frankish church.
He erected four dioceses in Bavaria (Salzburg, Regensburg, Freising, and Passau) and gave them Boniface as archbishopand metropolitan over all Germany east of the Rhine, with his seat at Mainz. Boniface had been under his protection from 723 on; indeed the saint himself explained to his old friend, Daniel of Winchester, that without it he could neither administer his church, defend his clergy, nor prevent idolatry. It was Boniface who had defended Charles most stoutly for his deeds in seizing ecclesiastical lands to pay his army in the days leading to Tours, as one doing what he must to defend Christianity.
In 739, Pope Gregory III begged Charles for his aid against Liutprand, but Charles was loath to fight his onetime ally and ignored the Papal plea. Nonetheless, the Papal applications for Frankish protection showed how far Charles had come from the days he was tottering on excommunication, and set the stage for his son and grandson to rearrange Italian political boundaries.
7Death and transition in rule
Charles Martel died on October 22, 741, at Quierzy-sur-Oisein what is today the Aisnedépartement in the Picardy region of France. He was buried at Saint Denis Basilica in Paris.
His territories had been divided among his adult sons a year earlier: to Carlomanhe gave Austrasia, Alemannia, and Thuringia, and to Pippin the Younger Neustria, Burgundy, Provence, and Metz and Trier in the "Mosel duchy"; Grifowas given several lands throughout the kingdom, but at a later date, just before Charles died.
Gibbon called him "the hero of the age" and declared "Christendom ... delivered ... by the genius and good fortune of one man, Charles Martel."
![]() |
Charles Martel (left) and ISIS (right) [PHOTO SOURCE: http://shoebat.com/2015/01/21/not-charlie-hebdo-charles-martel-time-bring-back-christendom-destroy-enemies-god/] |
8Legacy
At the beginning of Charles Martel's career, he had many internal opponents and felt the need to appoint his own kingly claimant, Clotaire IV. By his end, however, the dynamics of rulership in Francia had changed, no hallowed Meroving was needed, neither for defence nor legitimacy: Charles divided his realm between his sons without opposition (though he ignored his young son Bernard). In between, he strengthened the Frankish state by consistently defeating, through superior generalship, the host of hostile foreign nations which beset it on all sides, including the non-Christian Saxons, whom his grandson Charlemagne would fully subdue, and Moors, whom he halted on a path of continental domination.
Though he never cared about titles, his son Pippin(Fr.: Pepin) did, and finally asked the Pope"who should be King, he who has the title, or he who has the power?" The Pope, highly dependent on Frankish armies for his independence from Lombard and Byzantinepower (the Byzantine Emperor still considered himself to be the only legitimate "Roman Emperor", and thus, ruler of all of the provinces of the ancient empire, whether recognized or not), declared for "him who had the power".
Decades later, in 800, Pippin's son Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the Pope, further extending the principle by delegitimising the nominal authority of the Byzantine Emperor in the Italian peninsula (which had, by then, shrunk to encompass little more than Apulia and Calabria at best) and ancient Roman Gaul, including the Iberian outposts Charlemagne had established in the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees, what today forms Catalonia. In short, though the Byzantine Emperor claimed authority over all the old Roman Empire, as the legitimate "Roman" Emperor, it was simply not reality.
The bulk of the Western Roman Empire had come under Carolingian rule, the Byzantine Emperor having had almost no authority in the West since the sixth century, though Charlemagne, a consummate politician, preferred to avoid an open breach with Constantinople. Though the sardonic Voltaireridiculed its nomenclature, saying that the Holy Roman Empire was "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire," it constituted an enormous political power for a time, especially under the Saxon, the Salian dynasties, the House of Habsburg, and, to a lesser extent, the Hohenstaufen. It lasted until 1806. Though his grandson became its first emperor, the "empire" such as it was, was largely born during the reign of Charles Martel.
Charles was a brilliant strategic general, who also was a tactical commander par excellence, able in the heat of battle to adapt his plans to his foe's forces and movement—and amazingly, to defeat them repeatedly, especially when, as at Tours, they were far superior in men and weaponry, and at Berre and Narbonne, when they were superior in numbers of fighting men. Charles had the last quality which defines genuine greatness in a military commander: he foresaw the dangers of his foes, and prepared for them with care; he used ground, time, place, and fierce loyalty of his troops to offset his foe's superior weaponry and tactics; third, he adapted, again and again, to the enemy on the battlefield, shifting to compensate for the unforeseen and unforeseeable.
Gibbon, whose tribute to Charles has been noted, was not alone among the great mid era historians in fervently praising Charles; Thomas Arnold ranks the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminius in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in its impact on all of modern history:
Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind.— History of the later Roman Commonwealth, vol ii. p. 317.
German historians are especially ardent in their praise of Charles and in their belief that he saved Europe and Christianity from then all-conquering Islam, praising him also for driving back the ferocious Saxon barbarians on his borders. Schlegel speaks of this "mighty victory" in terms of fervent gratitude, and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam", and Ranke points out,
as one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions.
In 1922 and 1923, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne published a series of papers, known collectively as the "Pirenne Thesis", which remain influential to this day. Pirenne held that the Roman Empire continued, in the Frankish realms, up until the time of the Arab conquests in the 7th century. These conquests disrupted Mediterranean trade routes leading to a decline in the European economy. Such continued disruption would have meant complete disaster except for Charles Martel's halting of Islamic expansion into Europe from 732 on. What he managed to preserve led to the Carolingian Renaissance, named after him.
Professor Santosuosso perhaps sums up Charles best when he talks about his coming to the rescue of his Christian allies in Provence, and driving the Muslims back into the Iberian Peninsula forever in the mid and late 730s:
After assembling forces at Saragossa the Muslims entered French territory in 735, crossed the River Rhone and captured and looted Arles. From there they struck into the heart of Provence, ending with the capture of Avignon, despite strong resistance. Islamic forces remained in French territory for about four years, carrying raids to Lyon, Burgundy, and Piedmont. Again Charles Martel came to the rescue, reconquering most of the lost territories in two campaigns in 736 and 739, except for the city of Narbonne, which finally fell in 759. The second (Muslim) expedition was probably more dangerous than the first to Poitiers. Yet its failure (at Charles' hands) put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees (forever).
Skilled as an administrator and ruler, Charles organized what would become the medieval European government: a system of fiefdoms, loyal to barons, counts, dukes and ultimately the King, or in his case, simply maior domus and princeps et dux Francorum. ("Mayor of the Palace, Duke of the Franks") His close coordination of church with state began the medieval pattern for such government. He created what would become the first western standing army since the fall of Rome by his maintaining a core of loyal veterans around which he organized the normal feudal levies. In essence, he changed Europe from a horde of barbarians fighting with one another, to an organized state.
8.1Beginning of the Reconquista
Further information: Reconquista
Although it took another two decades for the Franks to drive all the Arab garrisons out of Septimaniaand across the Pyrenees, Charles Martel's halt of the invasion of French soil turned the tide of Islamic advances, and the unification of the Frankish kingdoms under Charles, his son Pippin the Younger, and his grandson Charlemagne created a western power which prevented the Emirate of Córdoba from expanding over the Pyrenees. Charles, who in 732 was on the verge of excommunication, instead was recognised by the Church as its paramount defender. Pope Gregory II wrote to him more than once, asking his protection and aid.
Charles' son Pippin the Younger (Pepin II, The Short) kept his father's promise and returned and took Narbonne by siege in 759. His grandson, Charlemagne, actually established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Gironain 785 and Barcelonain 801. Carolingians called this region of modern-day Spain "The Moorish Marches", and saw it as more than a simple check on the Muslims in Hispania. It formed a permanent buffer zone against Islam and became the basis, along with the efforts of Pelayo (Latin: Pelagius) and his descendants, for the Reconquista.
9Military legacy
Victor Davis Hanson argues that Charles Martel launched "the thousand year struggle" between Europeanheavy infantry and Arab cavalry. Of course, Charles is also the father of heavy cavalry in Europe, as he integrated heavy armoured cavalry into his forces. This creation of a real army would continue all through his reign, and that of his son, Pepin the Short, until his Grandson, Charlemagne, would possess the world's largest and finest army since the peak of Rome. Equally, the Muslims used infantry—indeed, at the Battle of Toulouse most of their forces were light infantry. It was not till Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi brought a huge force of Arab and Berber cavalry with him when he assumed the emirate of Al-Andulus that the Muslim forces became primarily cavalry.
Charles' army was the first standing permanent army since the fall of Rome in 476. At its core was a body of tough, seasoned heavy infantry who displayed exceptional resolution at Tours. The Frankish infantry wore as much as 70 pounds of armour, including their heavy wooden shields with an iron boss. Standing close together, and well disciplined, they were unbreakable at Tours.Charles had taken the money and property he had seized from the church and paid local nobles to supply trained ready infantry year round.
This was the core of veterans who served with him on a permanent basis, and as Hanson says, "provided a steady supply of dependable troops year around." While other Germanic cultures, such as the Visigoths or Vandals, had a proud martial tradition, and the Franks themselves had an annual muster of military aged men, such tribes were only able to field armies around planting and harvest. It was Charles' creation of a system whereby he could call on troops year round that gave the Carolingians the first standing and permanent army since Rome's fall in the west.
Charles Martel's most important military achievement was the victory at Tours. Creasy argues that the Charles victory "preserved the relics of ancient and the gems of modern civilizations." Gibbon called those eight days in 732, the week leading up to Tours, and the battle itself, "the events that rescued our ancestors of Britain, and our neighbours of Gaul [France], from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran."
Charles analysed what would be necessary for him to withstand a larger force and superior technology (the Arab horsemen had adopted the armour and accoutrements of heavy cavalry from the Sassanid warrior class, which made the armored mounted knight possible). Not daring to send his few horsemen against the Islamic cavalry, he had his army fight in a formation used by the ancient Greeks to withstand superior numbers and weapons by discipline, courage, and a willingness to die for their cause: a phalanx. He had trained a core of his men year round, using mostly Church funds, and some had been with him since his earliest days after his father's death. It was this hard core of disciplined veterans that won the day for him at Tours.
Hanson emphasizes that Charles' greatest accomplishment as a general may have been his ability to keep his troops under control. Iron discipline saved his infantry from the fate of so many infantrymen—such as the Saxons at Hastings—who broke formation and were slaughtered piecemeal. After using this infantry force by itself at Tours, he studied the foe's forces and further adapted to them, initially using stirrups and saddles recovered from the foe's dead horses, and armour from the dead horsemen.
The defeats Charles inflicted on the Muslims were vital in that the split in the Islamic world left the Caliphate unable to mount an all-out attack on Europe via its Iberian stronghold after 750. His ability to meet this challenge, until the fragmentation of authority within the Muslim faith, is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, and is why Dantewrites of him in Heaven as one of the "Defenders of the Faith."
H. G. Wells says of Charles Martel's decisive defeat of the Muslims in his "Short History of the World:
The Muslim when they crossed the Pyrenees in 720 found this Frankish kingdom under the practical rule of Charles Martel, the Mayor of the Palace of a degenerate descendant of Clovis, and experienced the decisive defeat of Poitiers (732) at his hands. This Charles Martel was practically overlord of Europe north of the Alps from the Pyrenees to Hungary."
However, when the Muslim first crossed the Pyrenees, Aquitaine was actually an independent realm under duke Odo's leadership and the Gothic Septimaniaremained out of Frankish rule. Odo, who was Charles's southern rival, had struck a peace treaty after the Frankish civil wars in Neustria and Austrasia, and garnered much popularity and the Pope's favour for his victory on the 721 Battle of Toulouse against the Moors. On the eve of the Muslim expedition north (731), Charles Martel crossed the Loire and captured the Aquitanian city of Bourges, while Odo re-captured it briefly afterwards.
John H. Haaren says in Famous Men of the Middle Ages:
The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe. Charles Martel is especially celebrated as the hero of this battle.
Just as his grandson, Charlemagne, would become famous for his swift and unexpected movements in his campaigns, Charles was renowned for never doing what his enemies forecast he would do, and for moving far faster than his opponents believed he could. It is notable that the Northmen did not begin their European raids until after the death of Charles' grandson, Charlemagne. They had the naval capacity to begin those raids at least three generations earlier, and constructed defenses against counterattacks by land, but chose not to challenge Charles, his son Pippin, or his grandson, Charlemagne.
10Conclusion
J. M. Roberts says of Charles Martel in his note on the Carolingians in his History of the World:
It (the Carolingian line) produced Charles Martel, the soldier who turned the Arabs back at Tours, and the supporter of Saint Boniface, the Evangelizer of Germany. This is a considerable double mark to have left on the history of Europe."
Gibbon perhaps summarized Charles Martel's legacy most eloquently: "in a laborious administration of 24 years he had restored and supported the dignity of the throne... by the activity of a warrior who in the same campaign could display his banner on the Elbe, the Rhone, and shores of the ocean."
11Family and children
Charles Martel married twice, his first wife being Rotrude of Treves, daughter either of Lambert II, Count of Hesbaye, or of Leudwinus, Count of Treves. They had the following children:
|
Most of the children married and had issue. Hiltrud married Odilo I (a Duke of Bavaria). Landrade was once believed to have married a Sigrand (Count of Hesbania) but Sigrand's wife was more likely the sister of Rotrude. Audamarried Thierry IV (a Count of Autunand Toulouse). Charles also married a second time, to Swanhild, and they had a child, Grifo.
Finally, Charles Martel also had a known mistress, Ruodhaid, with whom he had the children Bernard, Hieronymus, and Remigius, the latter who became an archbishop of Rouen.
Ancestry
Ancestors of Charles Martel | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
How to kneel down the totalitarian ideology and the reason why you should support Ex-Muslims! [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/exmuslims.no/photos/a.1112180008840899.1073741829.1080371725355061/1805565819502311/?type=3&theater……….. https://www.facebook.com/VictimsFamiliesForTheDeathPenalty/posts/1569541856501108] |
External links
- Ian Meadows, "The Arabs in Occitania": A sketch giving the context of the conflict from the Arab point of view.
- http://www.standin.se/fifteen07a.htmPoke's edition of Creasy's "15 Most Important Battles Ever Fought According to Edward Shepherd Creasy" Chapter VII. The Battle of Tours, A.D. 732.
- Richard Hooker, "Civil War and the Umayyads"
- "Leaders and Battles Database"
- Robert W. Martin, "The Battle of Tours is still felt today", from About.com
- Medieval Sourcebook: Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732
- Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732: Three Accounts from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook
- Medieval Sourcebook: Gregory II to Charles Martel, 739
- Medieval Lands Project
- "Charles Martel". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.
OTHER LINKS:
↧
ISLAM’S SELF-DESTRUCTIVE SEED
Islam's Self-Destructive Seed
A reflection on an eerie prophecy by Mohammed.
January 22, 2015
Within the DNA of Islam is a self-destructive element: a prophecy by Mohammed in which he said that Islam will eventually be rejected by the world and would return back to where it came from. Ask your local imam, and he’ll tell you: Mohammed doesn’t lie.
Incredibly, Mohammed himself was not optimistic about his own message and the future of Islam and Muslims:
[T]he Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole." [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0270.]
In this hadith, Mohammed foretold that the end of Islam would be strange just like its beginning and that it would shrink back to the limited area where it came from - - between the two mosques of Mecca and Medina.
![]() |
Artwork of the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) [PHOTO SOURCE: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/05/25/shia-vs-sunni-the-schism-western-politicians-dont-understand-and-wont-discuss/] The Battle of Chaldiran (Persian: جنگ چالدران; Turkish: Çaldıran Muharebesi) took place on 23 August 1514 and ended with a decisive victory for the Ottoman Empire over the Safavid Empire. As a result, the Ottomans annexed eastern Anatoliaand northern Iraqfrom Safavid Iran. It marked the first Ottoman expansion into eastern Anatolia, and the halt of the Safavid expansion to the west. Despite the Iranians briefly reconquering the area over the course of the centuries, the battle marked the first event that would eventually, through many wars and treaties later, lead to its permanent conquest, until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire centuries later. By the Chaldiran war the Ottomans also gained temporary control of northwestern Iran. The battle, however, was just the beginning of 41 years of destructive war, which only ended in 1555 with the Treaty of Amasya. Though Mesopotamiaand Eastern Anatolia (Western Armenia) were eventually taken back by the Safavids under the reign of king Abbas I (r. 1588–1629), they would be permanently lost to the Ottomans by the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab. At Chaldiran, the Ottomans had a larger, better equipped army numbering 60,000 to 100,000 as well as a large number of heavy artillery pieces, while the Safavid army numbered some 40,000 to 80,000 and did not have artillery at its disposal. Ismail I, was wounded and almost captured during the battle. His wives were captured by Selim I, with at least one married off to one of Selim's statesmen. Ismail retired to his palace and withdrew from government administration after this defeat and never again participated in a military campaign. The battle is one of major historical importance because it not only negated the idea that the Murshid of the Shia-Qizilbash was infallible, but it also fully defined the Ottoman-Safavid borders with the Ottomans gaining northwestern Iran, and led Kurdishchiefs to assert their authority and switch their allegiance from the Safavids to the Ottomans. |
Could that prediction by Mohammed himself be a signal of the inevitable demise of Islam?
Mohammed’s predictions of Islam crawling back like a snake to where it came from were repeated extensively in several other hadiths:
“Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake.” (Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100.)“Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love the world and dislike death...
(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284.)“Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy.” (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3.)“There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslim."
(Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183.)"Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger)."(Volume 3, Book 30, Number 100: Narrated Abu Huraira.)
Mohammed also predicted a large movement of apostasy out of Islam:
“Muslims will diminish in number and they will go back to where they started [before Islam]” (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.19.3029.)There will be no trace of Islam in some believers..."(Sahih Bukhari, 9.84.65.)
Could these believers, with no trace of Islam in them, be the reformers of Islam, like the well-intentioned Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who are believing in an Islam that does not and never existed? Mohammed's fears of large apostasy movements and envy of other religions continue:
There will appear in this nation….. a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them). [Volume 9, Book 84, Number 65:]
Since its inception, Islam has been at war with civilization. "Civilization" is considered a threat to Arabia’s identity and culture and with Islam it was the outside world that had to change and adapt to Arabia’s language, culture, religion.
Will jihadists, yearning for achieving their imaginary perfect caliphate, finally realize that such a utopia never existed and will never exist? Will they eventually grasp that their enemies are not the Mubaraks, Assads, Qaddafis, America, Israel, or past injustice, but in fact, their enemy is within, a terminal virus written in a 7thcentury incoherent political and legal system that still rules them today? Will Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia reject Sharia, and send it back to where it came from as their prophet predicted, to the two mosques in Mecca and Medina?
Will the world finally come to its senses, learn from the violent history of Islam, and reject it by declaring it the most evil totalitarian ideology created by man? Will the world learn that Islam is but a snake, a viper, behind the title of religion? Will the leaders of the free world find the courage to unite in a march to save the world and say loud and clear, “Islam go back to Mecca, like your prophet predicted”? And then will they declare, “There is no place for you in our part of the world, and the world we want our children to live in”?
What are Muslim leaders waiting for to declare the truth? Will they finally admit they cannot rule any longer under the barbarian laws of Sharia that are enshrined in all Islamic constitutions? Will we ever see the day when old great nations such as Egypt and Persia (Iran), who were conquered by Arabs and never saw their glory days again, stand side by side with Western nations to send Islam back to Mecca?
Will the world finally unite against Islamic terror for the sake of our children and the millions of men and women who lost their lives to bring freedom to our world to end Islam's desperate need for expansion?
Like a Ponzi scheme, Islam must expand to survive. In that sense, Islam works only when more and more people join its pyramid. As long as the supply of new Muslim believers can empower the pyramid and convince the other suckers, the naïve Muslim followers, that they are right, it can survive.
The Ponzi scheme is currently still effective as it expands in the West without restriction or conditions. This expansion has given Islam a one-sided golden opportunity to grow in Europe, America, and Australia. Tragically, and to its ultimate demise, the West has extended a life-line to a dying, evil ideology, one that has already predicted its own death. Now it will live a little longer, and because of that, it will continue to destroy others.
When will the West respect Mohammed’s prophecy, and send Islam back down the snake hole, the one in Mecca?
![]() |
Charles Martel (left) and ISIS (right) |
Nonie Darwish (Arabic: نوني درويش; born Nahid Darwish, 1949) is an Egyptian-American human rights activist and critic of Islam, and founder of Arabs for Israel, and is Director of Former Muslims United. She is the author of four books: Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, The Devil We Don't Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East, and Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values. Darwish's speech topics cover human rights, with emphasis on women's rights and minority rights in the Middle East. Born in Egypt, Darwish is the daughter of an Egyptian Army lieutenant general, who was called a "shahid" by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, after being killed in a targeted killing by the Israel Defense Forces in 1956. Darwish blames "the Middle Eastern Islamic culture and the propaganda of hatred taught to children from birth" for his death. In 1978, she moved with her husband to the United States, and converted to Christianitythere. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, she has written on Islam-related topics.
↧
10 factors that make Japan a safe country
10 factors that make Japan a safe country
By Amy Chavez, RocketNews24
TOKYO
![]() |
Police Story: Nagano cops become manga hunks! |
We’ve all heard about how safe Japan is. But unless you live here, you may not understand why Japan is considered so safe. The uninitiated may presume that safety is enforced through a rigid society that doesn’t allow freedom of expression, that Japanese people are too worried about losing face to commit a crime, or that the government comes down unnecessarily hard on people who step out of line. In reality, none of these rings true.
But we can’t deny that there’s one thing that Japan does better than anyone else. Join us after the jump for some insights and our own observations.
The one thing Japan does better than anyone else is that it puts a strong focus on crime prevention. In addition, safety of its citizens is paramount. Here is a list of some factors that we believe help Japan be free from danger.
1. ATMs
While this drive-up ATM in the U.S. may be convenient, it’s also a crime magnet, especially after dark.
ATMs in Japan are located inside buildings or banks, which provide secure environments to withdraw cash. They may be slightly less convenient than ‘hole-in-the-wall’ style ATMs you’ll find outside banks in other countries, but Japan’s cash machines are much more secure and offer a greater degree of privacy.
2. Convenience Stores
In Japan, you’ll never find one person working alone at any convenience store, gasoline station or anywhere that could be easily robbed—even if there’s only one person at the counter, you can pretty much guarantee that there’s another member of staff in the adjoining office or somewhere in the store. On one hand, it costs more to employ that extra person, but on the other, it puts the safety of employees first and makes the store safer for customers too.
3. Parking Lot Attendants
You’ll see parking lot attendants in Japan where you wouldn’t expect to see, or especially need, one. Drivers don’t give them much notice either. But the mere presence of an attendant deters criminals from breaking into cars or mugging people in the parking lot.
4. Security Guards
Banks employ part-time, often retired, people to help out in the lobby of banks. This person may greet customers and help vet their needs as they come in or they may also help customers use the myriad functions of bank ATMs. They’re also alert to potential suspicious activity and provide one more barrier to the stash of cash behind the teller window.
5. Firearms are not readily available
In Japan, they don’t feel it is an individual’s right to carry a firearm, and everyone is okay with that.
6. Low Tolerance for Drugs
Paris Hilton, the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney have all been famously been denied entry into Japan due to previous drug convictions (and no one here has a problem with this either). Japanese entertainers, expected to be role models, apologize to their fans on national television if they are caught using drugs. These ramifications reinforce that, while people are free to make their own lifestyle choices, the country does not support poor decision-making, and even drugs like marijuana—now decriminalized in a number of countries—are still considered taboo by most in Japan.
7. Zero tolerance for drinking and driving
In Japan, it’s not left to the individual to decide whether they can drive safely while under the influence of alcohol. Zero tolerance means no alcohol when driving, period. Want to go for a drink after work but came by car? Then call for a daikou, a specialized taxi service that brings an extra driver to drive your car home while you hop in their taxi.
8. Koban
Small police stations, often no more than a single room with a desk and a couple of chairs, called koban are strategically placed throughout cities and neighborhoods so you can always find a safe haven, report something suspicious or just ask for directions if you’re lost. Their ubiquitous presence also encourages people to turn in lost property, including cash.
9. Zoning
Because Japan’s zoning laws are more inclusive than exclusive, one zone can have multiple uses. Convenience stores may be allowed to exist next to single-family homes in a neighborhood, for example. While the presence of businesses in a neighborhood may produce a certain degree of noise, the presence of so many observers around discourages criminal activity around both the houses and businesses.
10. Limited Immigration Policy
While we can criticize Japan for not being more open to immigration, we can’t deny that it is one measure used to ensure the country maintains a common belief system and shared sense of values. Basically, by not being open to other cultures and value systems, they’re able to preserve their own.
Read more stories from RocketNews24. -- Let this be a reminder to everyone: There’s no such thing as easy money! -- Want to Grow a Bonsai Tree? There’s an App for That -- “Denki Anma”: The Japanese traditional torment that you’ll be glad stays in Japan
INTERNET SOURCE: https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/10-factors-that-make-japan-a-safe-country
OTHER LINKS:
1. In loving memory of Rie Isogai, We decided to post this article by Charles Lane and also some information from Wikipedia about Capital Punishment in Japan.
Why Japan Still Has the Death Penalty By Charles Lane
2a. 10 factors that make Japan a safe country By Amy Chavez, RocketNews24
COVER PHOTO: https://www.facebook.com/VictimsFamiliesForTheDeathPenalty/photos/a.254785131310127/1699863240135635/?type=3&theater
2b. Crime in Japan Falls to Lowest Level in More Than 70 Years By Toru Fujioka
3. Japanese wanted posters are nothing if not graphic.
4. Mortal Kombat’s Shang Tsung goes orthodox in Russia
5. Police Story: Nagano cops become manga hunks!
6.Was WWII a Holy War? = Buddhist Roots to the war in the Pacific
7. Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Japan. It is applied in practice only for murder, and executions are carried out by hanging.
Death sentences are almost uniquely imposed in cases of multiple murders, though some single murderers have also been hanged in rare cases.
8. OFF TOPIC - MIYAVI rushball 2017
↧
↧
THE LION FIGHTS THE TIGER: Michigan Serial Killer Is Going Around And Murdering Pedophiles
Michigan Serial Killer Is Going Around And Murdering Pedophiles
ByAndrew BieszadonOctober 1, 2018inFeatured, General
Pedophilia is evil. Serial murder is evil. But in an interesting twist in Michigan, the two have become interlinked with a case of what police are calling a serial killer murdering pedophiles:
Law enforcement officials in Michigan’s Macomb County have held a press conference to announce they believe a vigilante targeting pedophiles is on the loose, with reports that three local offenders have been found dead over the past week.Authorities are appealing for any information regarding the murders, which have claimed the lives of three men on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry for crimes involving offences against children.“We urge whoever is committing these murders to stop immediately and turn themselves in,” said one officer. “While we understand the community’s attitude to pedophiles, there is no way in a civilised society that we can accept this sort of vigilantism.”The first victim, a 52-year old man charged with sex offences against children as young as 5, was found dead earlier this week outside a local fast food outlet in Warren. The murder was initially considered drug related, until a second pedophile was also found dead in similar circumstances later in the week.The latest murder in Mt Clemens, which has prompted authorities to raise concerns of a serial killer operating, was discovered last night at the victim’s property. Concerned neighbors called 911 and officers found a grim sight inside the residence.“Similar to the wounds inflicted on the other two victims, this most recent murder involved significant mutilation. The victim’s genitals had been removed and were placed into a blender,” said one investigator. The most recent victim was also listed on the sex offender registry for crimes against children. (source)
↧
WASHINGTON DEATH ROW INMATES AS OF OCTOBER 11, 2018
On October 11, 2018, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled the current death penalty statute unconstitutional, on the ground that it resulted in racial bias, thus abolishing capital punishment in the state. It became the 20th state in the nation to outlaw executions. The eight inmates that were on death row at the time of ruling had their sentences converted to life in prison. The State Supreme Court did not rule out the possibility that the state legislature could enact a constitutional death penalty statute in the future.
A word of warning to those 8 Death Row Inmates who think they will live ‘forever’, you do not know when but your lives will end like Dante Taylor or CharlesManson, if the state does not execute you, you will die by any means.
![]() |
"There is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose this morning but that God's hand has held you up." - Jonathan Edwards |
List of inmates whose sentences are changed from death row to life in prison
Eight death-row inmates will now serve life in prison after Thursday's ruling by the Washington state Supreme Court.
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the death penalty violates the state constitution. The unanimous decision orders the sentences of eight people on death row to be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Here’s the list of those inmates, according to the state’s Department of Corrections:
Jonathan L. Gentry, 62, convicted in 1991 of fatally bludgeoning Cassie Holden, 12, in Kitsap County in 1988.
Cassie, who was living in Idaho, was visiting her mother in Bremerton for the summer when she was killed with blows from a two-pound rock. She appeared to have been sexually assaulted before she was killed. Three witnesses reported seeing a man matching Gentry’s description near the time and place of the murder, and three fellow inmates testified that he had admitted to them that he killed the girl.
The Supreme Court in 2014 rejected his petition for release, which argued that his trial was tainted by racial bias. Gentry is black; Cassie was white. He claimed that prosecutors made racist comments to his counsel, offered testimony of white witnesses who used racist language and focused on physical evidence that described the suspect as having “Negroid characteristics.” Gentry also emphasized that he was sentenced by an all-white jury and his trial was presided over by a white judge.
Clark R. Elmore, 66, convicted in 1995 of the rape and murder of Christy Onstad, 14, in Whatcom County in 1995.
Christy was the daughter of Elmore’s girlfriend, who lived with Elmore in Bellingham. In a graphic taped confession, Elmore said Christy had threatened to tell someone that he had molested her when she was younger. On the day she was murdered, Elmore picked her up at school, took her to a secluded area, and then raped and strangled her.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his death sentence in 2015. Elmore claimed his trial was prejudicial because the jury was allowed to see him shackled and that his attorney made mistakes in having him plead guilty and not pursue a brain-injury defense.
Cecil E. Davis, 59, convicted in 1998 of the murder of Yoshiko Couch, 65, in Pierce County in 1997.
Couch was found dead at her Tacoma home after being robbed, raped and suffocated with towels soaked in a solvent. A Pierce County jury sentenced Davis to death after deliberating for just 90 minutes. (Davis was also convicted in 1997 of the murder of Jane Hungerford-Trapp in Tacoma.)
The Supreme Court overturned his sentence in 2004, saying that a juror may have considered him dangerous because they saw him in ankle shackles during his trial. But a second jury in Pierce County re-sentenced him to death in 2007.
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty last year, rejecting his argument that the state’s system fails to protect defendants with intellectual disabilities from being executed. No one at Davis’ trial testified that he had an intellectual disability.
Dayva M. Cross, 59, convicted in 2001 for the stabbing deaths of his wife, Anouchka Baldwin, 37, and stepdaughters Amanda Baldwin, 15, and Salome Holle, 18, in King County in 1999.
Cross and Anouchka Baldwin had been arguing in their Snoqualmie home when Cross stabbed her, Baldwin’s third daughter testified. He then attacked Holle and forced his way into a bedroom where Amanda and the third daughter were hiding. He then stabbed Amanda.
The Supreme Court upheld Cross’ sentence in 2014, rejecting his claims that his admission of guilt when he was first in custody violated his constitutional rights and that he had had ineffective counsel.
Robert Lee Yates Jr., 66, convicted in 2002 of murdering Melinda Mercer, 24, in 1997 and Connie LaFontaine Ellis, 35, in Pierce County in 1998.
Yates, a serial killer, received a plea deal and was sentenced to 408 years in prison in 2000 after he confessed to 13 murders in Spokane, Walla Walla and Skagit counties. In Pierce County, prosecutors sought and obtained the death penalty for the murders of Mercer and Ellis.
The Supreme Court in 2015 rejected his petition to overturn his convictions and death sentence, saying that it had been filed too late after his sentence became final.
Conner M. Schierman, 37, convicted in 2010 of murdering Olga Milkin, 28, her sons Justin, 5, and Andrew, 3, and her sister, Lyubov Botvina, 24, in 2006 in King County.
Schierman stabbed Milkin, her sister and two children and then burned their Kirkland house down to cover the crime. Schierman was seen on surveillance video buying gas from a nearby station right before the fire broke up but told investigators that he had been in an alcoholic blackout. Milkin’s husband had been deployed in Iraq when the murders occurred.
In a split decision earlier this year, the state Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence after debate that centered on whether Schierman’s rights to a public trial were violated.
Allen E. Gregory, 46, convicted in 2001 of raping and murdering Geneine Harshfield, a 43-year-old cocktail waitress who lived near his grandmother, in 1996. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling came in his case.
His case was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2006 but he was reconvicted in 2012.
Byron E. Scherf, 60, convicted in 2013 of the murder of correctional Officer Jayme Biendl of Granite Falls at the Monroe Correctional Complex in 2011.
Scherf was serving a life sentence for the abduction and rape of a Spokane real-estate agent after making an appointment with her to see a home in 1995.
![]() |
BURN IN HELL: Mourners at Manson's funeral reportedly sang Guns N' Roses and Beach Boys songs |
Executions in the past 25 years
There have been five executions since 1993, when the death penalty was carried out for the first time in 30 years. Two inmates were from Snohomish County and one each was from King, Benton and Clark counties. All were men; a woman has never been executed in Washington.
Westley Allan Dodd, 31, was executed by hanging in 1993. Dodd was convicted of killing three boys in the Vancouver and Portland areas in 1989. He chose hanging over lethal injection because, he said, he had hanged one of his victims.
Charles R. Campbell, 39, was executed by hanging in 1994. He was convicted of the murders of Renae Wicklund, 31, her daughter, Shannah, 8, and a neighbor, Barbara Hendrickson, 51, in Clearview, Snohomish County, in 1982.
Jeremy Sagastegui, 27, was executed by lethal injection in 1998. He was convicted of the 1995 murders of Mellisa Sarbacher, 21, her son, 3-year-old Keivan, and her friend, Lisa Vera-Acevedo, 26, near Kennewick. He was the first inmate to die by lethal injection. He said he committed the murders because he knew he would receive the death penalty.
James H. Elledge, 58, was executed by lethal injection in 2001. He pleaded guilty to murdering Eloise Fitzner in a Lynnwood church in 1998 and urged the jury to sentence him to death.
Cal Coburn Brown, 52, was executed by lethal injection in 2010. Brown was executed 16 ½ years after he was convicted of the rape and murder of Holly Washa of Burien in 1991. Brown was the first inmate in Washington to be executed by a single-drug lethal injection.
↧
ISIS Cleric sentenced to death for the 2016 Jakarta Attacks
ISIS cleric is sentenced to death for masterminding the group's first attack in Indonesia - a suicide bombing at a Starbucks
- Indonesian cleric Aman Abdurrahman has been found guilty of ordering 2016 attack and sentenced to death
- Atrocity saw a gun battle involving a team of jihadists in Jakarta and a suicide bombing at a Starbucks café
- Abdurrahman kissed the floor after the decision while armed officers guarding him said 'praise be to God'
- Executions are carried out by firing squad in Indonesia, the world's biggest Muslim-majority nation
By Afp and Julian Robinson for MailOnline
By Afp and Julian Robinson for MailOnline
Published: 07:14 AEST, 22 June 2018 | Updated: 20:24 AEST, 22 June 2018
![]() |
Abdurrahman sat on a chair in the centre of the court as a court sentenced him to death over the Jakarta atrocity in 2016 |
An ISIS cleric has been sentenced to death for masterminding the group's first attack in Indonesia - a suicide bombing at a Starbucks cafe.
Aman Abdurrahman had earlier been found guilty of ordering the atrocity, which left four dead in the city of Jakarta in 2016.
Several hundred heavily armed counterterrorism police guarded the hearing for the sentencing as Abdurrahman was convicted over what was the first attack claimed by the international terror network in Southeast Asia.
During a trial, prosecutors said Abdurrahman's instructions from prison, where he was serving a terrorism-related sentence, resulted in several attacks in Indonesia.
Executions are carried out by firing squad in the world's biggest Muslim-majority country, which has long struggled with Islamist militancy.
The deadly assault in the capital two years ago saw security forces battle gun-toting militants near the cafe where a suicide bomber detonated his explosives.
'(The defendant) has been proven to have committed a criminal act of terrorism,' said judge Akhmad Jaini, who also cited Abdurrahman's involvement in other plots for the ruling. He will be sentenced to death.'
Abdurrahman, who sat on a defendant's chair in the middle of the courtroom, appeared bored and showed little reaction as machine gun-toting guards stood nearby.
He gestured to his legal team and briefly kissed the floor as the panel of five judges announced the sentence while counterterrorism officers guarding him uttered 'praise be to God.'
His lawyer, Asludin Hatjani, described the ruling as 'unfair', citing a lack of evidence connecting Abdurrahman to the deadly attack.
In 2002, bombings at the resort island of Bali killed over 200 - mostly foreign tourists - in Indonesia's worst-ever terror attack.
Two years ago, Jakarta came under attack by a team of gun-wielding jihadists. Prosecutors demanded last month that Abdurrahman be handed a death sentence for his role in that assault.
Considered the de facto head of ISIS supporters in Indonesia, Abdurrahman - believed to be 46 - is also the spiritual leader of local extremist network Jamaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD).
Considered the de facto head of ISIS supporters in Indonesia, Abdurrahman - believed to be 46 - is also the spiritual leader of local extremist network Jamaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD).
Authorities have said JAD was involved in the 2016 Jakarta attack and a recent wave of suicide bombings in Indonesia's second-biggest city Surabaya.
Two families - including girls aged nine and 12 - blew themselves up at churches and a police station last month, killing 13.
Authorities have not charged Abdurrahman - who was already in jail on a separate terror conviction - over the Surabaya attacks.
Despite being imprisoned since 2010, he has recruited militants to join IS, is thought to have been in communication with leaders of the jihadist group, and is the main translator for ISIS propaganda in Indonesia, according to analysts and authorities.
Although considered Indonesia's largest pro-ISIS coalition, JAD's structure and links to the network are murky.
The Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict has said JAD is 'a generic term' used for any ISIS supporter and functions more as an umbrella organisation than a coherent group.
Formed in 2015, JAD is thought to be composed of some two dozen Indonesian groups that have pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, according to the US State Department, which last year designated it as an extremist network.
Apart from the 2016 Jakarta attacks, JAD carried out suicide attacks the following year which killed three policemen and injured a dozen others at a busy bus station in Jakarta.
It has also been linked to a series of other plots including a firebomb attack on a church that killed a toddler and a plan to launch a Christmas-time suicide bombing. This was foiled when the militants planning the attack were killed.
INTERNET SOURCE: http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-5871855/ Radical-Indonesian-cleric-f aces-death-penalty-ruling- 2016-attack.html..... …..
OTHER LINKS:
↧
CHILD KILLER IMRAN ALI HANGED IN LAHORE, PAKISTAN [OCTOBER 17, 2018]
Imran Ali, who was sentenced to death in Kasur earlier this year for the rape and murder of Zainab Ansari and 12 other minors, was hanged to death in the early hours of Wednesday (October 17, 2018) in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat jail.
![]() |
Imran Ali, who raped and murdered four-year-old girl Zainab Ansari in Kasur, was hanged on October 17. |
Zainab Ansari(Urdu: زینب انصاری) was a 6-year-old Pakistani girl who was on her way to Quran recital when she was abducted and later found raped and murdered which incited protests and outrage in Kasur, Punjab, Pakistan.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Zainab_Ansari
Event
The incident happened, when Zainab's parents had gone to Saudi Arabia for performing Umrah and Zainab was living with her uncle. On 4 January 2018, while going to a Quran tuition class which was very close to her house, she went missing. Her uncle, Muhammad Adnan, lodged a complaint with the Kasur District Police Office. CCTV video footage which was discovered by Ansari's family members, with no help from the authorities involved, shows her accompanied by an unknown bearded man in white clothes and a jacket, holding her by the hand and walking on Peerowala Road in Kasur. Her body was later found in a garbage heap in Shahbaz Khan Road on 9 January 2018. After an autopsy, it was confirmed that she had been raped and strangled to death. The autopsy suggested that she endured captivity and torture before her murder.
Protest
There were large protests in Kasur and other major cities of Pakistan, during the clash with the police, two people were killed after they broke into a police station. Four policemen who allegedly opened fire at protesters "[had] been arrested and being interrogated."
Reaction
Punjab chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif said:
Deeply pained about brutal murder of an 8-year-old girl in a child molestation case. Those societies that cannot protect its children are eternally condemned. Not going to rest till the perpetrators of this dastardly act are apprehended & given severest possible punishment under the law.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai wrote on Twitter, "This has to stop. [Government] and the concerned authorities must take action."Imran Khan, the leader of PTI and a former cricketer, tweeted, "The condemnable & horrific rape & murder of little Zainab exposes once again how vulnerable our children are in our society."
Cleric Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a political rival of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League party, "demanded the local government be replaced, saying it has 'no right to remain in power after the killing of Zainab Ansari'".
Kiran Naz, a news anchor on Pakistan's Samaa TV, hosted a January 10 bulletin with her young daughter on her lap as an act of protest. At the Sindh Assembly, artist celebrities Ayesha Omer, Nadia Hussain, Faysal Qureshi and others met on January 12 with Deputy Speaker Shehla Raza, demanding laws and justice to prevent such tragedies in the future. Mahira Khan, Ali Zafar, Imran Abbas, Mawra Hocane, Saba Qamar as well as former cricket players Wasim Akram and Shoaib Akhtar tweeted about the incident, condemning the brutal rape and murder, while also trending the hashtag #JusticeforZainab.
Arrest
Shahbaz Sharif announced the arrest of a suspect, Imran Ali, in a press conference on 23 January 2018. He confirmed that the DNA and polygraphtest of the suspect that matched with the samples with least eight minor girls, including Zainab, raped and murdered in within the same neighbourhood and that the suspect is a serial killer. Imran Ali is a 24-year-old mechanic who lived in Zainab's neighbourhood. He had even taken part in protests against Zainab's murder. Imran Ali has confessed to his crimes. Police also found the jacket worn by the suspect seen on CCTV which was seen while he was taking Zainab with him.
Sentencing
On 17 February 2018, an anti-terrorism court in Lahore Central Jail, found Imran Ali guilty of raping and murdering Zainab Ansari. The court handed him four counts of the death penalty, one life term, a seven-year jail term and Rs. 3.2 million in fines. He was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of Zainab and twelve other underage girls, and was executed on the early morning of Wednesday 17 October 2018 at Lahore's Kot Lakhpat jail.
The black warrant for Imran's execution was carried out at 5:30am in accordance with the prevailing law on capital punishment.
![]() |
Imran Ali, who raped and murdered four-year-old girl Zainab Ansari in Kasur, will be hanged on October 17. |
Pakistan Zainab murder: Imran Ali hanged for six-year-old's death
Pakistan has hanged a man convicted for the rape and murder of six-year-old Zainab Ansari in January.
Imran Ali, who was arrested after her body was found in a garbage dump, was executed in Lahore's Kot Lakhpat prison early on Wednesday, police said.
Zainab's father and other relatives were present.
The case, the most heinous in a string of similar child murders in the city of Kasur, had sparked outrage and protests in the country.
After he was sentenced to death for raping and murdering Zainab, Imran Ali was convicted for similar crimes against six more girls.
Zainab's father, Amin Ansari, said after the execution that he was "satisfied".
"I have seen his awe-inspiring end with my own eyes," he told reporters.
However Mr Ansari, who said that Zainab would have been seven years and two months old if she was alive, expressed regret that authorities did not televise the hanging.
Mr Ansari's earlier appeal for Ali to face a public hanging was dismissed by the Lahore High court.
#JusticeforZainab
Zainab disappeared on 4 January and her body was found five days later in a rubbish dump.
Police said there had been several similar child murders in the past two years in Kasur but her killing proved to be a tipping point.
It triggered widespread outrage, including protests complaining of police incompetence. Two people were killed in clashes.
Zainab's family said the police did not take action during the five days from when she was reported missing until her body was found. Relatives, not police, recovered CCTV footage of her last movements.
The footage, which showed a girl being led away by a man, was circulated widely on social media. The hashtag #JusticeForZainab later went viral, with many Pakistanis calling for action.
On 23 January, 24-year-old Imran Ali was arrested through a DNA match. He was sentenced to death in February for Zainab's rape and murder.
His appeals against the verdict failed and earlier this month President Arif Alvi rejected a plea for clemency.
M Ilyas Khan, BBC News, Islamabad
The hanging of Zainab's killer has brought back memories of that horrible episode in January which sent shockwaves across the country and triggered widespread protests.
Without such a public reaction, and the fact that it was Zainab's family and not the police that recovered the crucial CCTV footage which would ultimately lead to the arrest of her killer, few expected the police to investigate the case seriously.
This is because child abuse attracts little attention in Pakistan even though it remains a recurrent phenomenon.
Statistics gathered by a child rights NGO, Sahil, show that as many as 2,300 cases of crimes against children were reported during the first six months of the current year alone. In 57 of these cases, children were killed after being raped.
Zainab's case is unique in the sense that it triggered a public debate on the issue. The government of the time, under public pressure, promised tough action in terms of police training and legislation.
But now that Zainab's tormentor has gone to the gallows, one is reminded of the sad reality that not much was ever done after those initial statements of intent.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45885686
![]() |
Killed: Zainab Ansari, six, was raped and murdered after being kidnapped on her way to Koran school in Kasur, Pakistan, in January |
Pakistan hangs man who raped and murdered a six-year-old girl before dumping her body on a pile of rubbish, in case that shocked the country and sparked riots
· Zainab, six, was raped and murdered in Kasur, Pakistan, in January this year
· Imran Ali, 24, confessed to killing her and four other girls in the city
· Ali has today been executed through hanging at a prison in Pakistan
By Afp
|
A Pakistani man convicted of raping and murdering a six-year-old girl, whose death shocked the country and sparked riots earlier this year, has been executed.
Zainab Fatima Ameen was snatched off the street in Kasur, eastern Pakistan, and her remains found five days later dumped on a rubbish heap.
The DNA of Imran Ali, 24, was found on her body, and after confessing to killing Zainab and four seven-year-old girls, he was handed four separate death sentences.
'He was hanged this morning in the presence of a prison official and the father of the victim,'an official at Lahore's central prison, where the convict was executed, told AFP.
'His dead body was handed over to his family who took it away for burial,' he said.
Zainab's father, Mohammed Amin Ansari, was allowed to witness the execution, and thanked the judiciary, government and investigators for delivering speedy justice.
Mr Ansari had demanded that Imran should be hanged at some public place in order to deter others, but the judges rejected his plea this week.
'My daughter will not come back, but I am satisfied that we got justice,' he said.
The six-year-old girl was snatched by Ali as she walked to a Koran class in January this year, with CCTV footage showing him leading her down a street by the hand.
Five days later, she was found raped and strangled on a rubbish pile about a mile from her home.
Zainab's death sparked outrage across Pakistan, with violence erupting in Kasur as thousands swarmed police stations and set fire to politicians' homes, while Pakistanis across the country took to social media demanding action.
Ali was caught after his DNA was found on Zainab's body - the same as had been recovered from six other murdered girls found in rubbish dumps or abandoned houses in the same area.
At least 12 cases of rape and murder have been recorded in the Kasur area in the past two years. Ali confessed to eight of these, but four remain unsolved.
Prior to the recent flood of cases, Kasur was already infamous for sexual abuse, after authorities uncovered a huge paedophile ring in the city in 2015.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6284973/Pakistan-hangs-child-killer-death-sparked-riots.html
![]() |
Imran Ali (left), who raped and murdered four-year-old girl Zainab Ansari (right) in Kasur, was hanged on October 17. |
OTHER LINKS:
Pakistan Court Hands Down Four Death Sentences to Child Killer February 17, 2018 8:59 AM Ayaz Gul
FILE - A slide showing a picture of Imran Ali, who was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of seven-year-old Zainab Ansari, is shown at a press conference in Lahore, Pakistan January 23, 2018.
Pakistan: Zainab Ansari's Confessed Killer Sentenced To Death
February 17, 201811:08 AM ET
PHOTO: Mohammed Amin shows a picture of his 7-year-old daughter, Zainab Ansari, in Kasur, Pakistan, on Jan. 18. On Saturday, a 24-year-old local man, found guilty in her murder, was sentenced to die.
B.K. Bangash/AP
Pakistan: Zainab Ansari's killer gets four death sentences 17 February 2018
A court in Pakistan has given a 24-year-old man, Imran Ali, four death sentences for raping and murdering a six-year old girl last month.
↧
↧
GAY COUPLE KILLER: PETER AVSENEW SENTENCED TO DEATH [AUGUST 28, 2018]
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Peter Avsenew was sentenced to the death penalty after murdering a gay couple in Wilton Manors, Florida in 2010. Peter Avsenew was convicted in 2017 of first-degree murder in the deaths of Kevin Adams and Steven Powell. The couple let Avsenew into their home after answering the sexually suggestive ad he posted on Craigslist.The victims, Adams and Powell, were shot and killed in the home they shared together for 30 years.
![]() |
Photo of Peter Avsenew smiling in court |
Self-proclaimed prostitute sentenced to death for killing gay couple in 2010
Peter Avsenew showed no remorse for killings during, after trial
Peter Avsenew showed no remorse for killings during, after trial
By Amanda Batchelor - Senior Digital Editor
Posted: 11:11 AM, August 28, 2018
Updated: 1:52 PM, August 28, 2018
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A self-proclaimed prostitute was sentenced to death Tuesday for the 2010 killing of a gay couple from Wilton Manors.
Peter Avsenew was convicted last year of first-degree murder in the deaths of Kevin Adams and Steven Powell.
Police said the couple was found shot to death and wrapped in blankets in their Wilton Manors home on the day after Christmas in 2010.
Avsenew, 32, placed an advertisement on Craigslist and moved in with the couple weeks before their deaths.
The prosecution claimed during the trial that Avsenew used the couple's credit cards and was found in possession of their car. Avsenew's defense attorney claimed that his client found them dead and then stole the items instead of calling police.
Avsenew's mother turned him in to authorities after he made suspicious statements to her.
In addition to murder, Avsenew was convicted on two counts each of armed robbery, grand theft auto, credit card fraud and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Avsenew has shown no remorse in court for the killings.
The murderer even sent a hand-scribbled letter to Broward County Judge Ilona Holmes after his conviction, seeming to boast about the killings.
"It is my duty as a white man to cull the weak and timid from existence," Avsenew wrote. "I will always stand up for what I believe in and eradicate anything in my way. Homosexuals are a disgrace to mankind and must be put down. These weren't the first and won't be the last."
Avsenew expressed similar sentiments at a Spencer hearing in June, saying "I wholeheartedly have nothing to lose and I'm going to take it out on everybody I can."
Man Who Killed Florida Gay Couple Threatens More Murders, Gets Death Penalty
“It is my duty as a white man to cull the weak and timid from existence.”
“It is my duty as a white man to cull the weak and timid from existence.”
by Brandon Voss 14h ago
An execution has been ordered for Peter Avsenew, who was convicted last fall of killing a Florida gay couple, the Sun-Sentinel reports.
Avsenew, 33, murdered Kevin Powell, 47, and Stephen Adams, 52, a few days before Christmas 2010. He then stole their car, cash, and credit cards.
Powell and Adams, who were together 30 years, had invited Avsenew into their Wilton Manors home after responding to a sexual classified ad he posted on Craigslist.
In January, after a jury unanimously voted for the death penalty, Avsenew showed his lack of remorse by flipping the victims’ grieving families the middle finger in open court.
Avsenew told the jury, “I have no regrets in my life and I am proud of the decisions I’ve made.” He later told a judge he had killed before and would kill again.
Avsenew’s court-appointed attorney argued that the defendant had suffered childhood trauma, including his sister’s murder and alleged sexual abuse by his stepfather.
“It is my duty as a white man to cull the weak and timid from existence,” Avsenew wrote in a letter to Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes. “Homosexuals are a disease to mankind and must be put down.”
Although Holmes had the power to override the jury’s death penalty recommendation, she ultimately ruled that Avsenew be punished by execution.
INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.newnownext.com/peter-avsenew-murder-gay-couple-wilton-manors-florida-death-penalty/09/2018/….. ….. https://www.facebook.com/VictimsFamiliesForTheDeathPenalty/posts/1709349015853724
Photo of the victims Steven Adams and Kevin Powell |
Read this cold blooded killer’s note to the judge after being sentenced to death
Convicted killer Peter Avsenew was sentenced to death in a Florida courtroom at the unanimous recommendation of the jury that convicted him. Yesterday, Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes upheld the jury’s sentence and ordered his execution.
Avsenew, 32, was convicted of murder in the 2010 deaths of Kevin Mark Powell, 47, and Stephen Adams, 52, in Wilton Manors, a city near Ft. Lauderdale with a large LGBT population. Prosecutors said Avsenew used Craigslist to get invited to the victims’ home and then killed and robbed them, leaving with their money, a car, and other belongings.
During the sentencing hearing, he opted to defend himself instead of letting his lawyer present arguments. He expressed no regret and did not ask the jury to spare his life.
Related: Man who murdered gay couple flipped off the victims’ families as he was sentenced to death
“I have no regrets in my life and I am proud of the decisions I’ve made,” he told the court.
Minutes after the sentencing, he flipped off the victims’ families.
“After what happened in that courtroom just now, I’m happy that he’s being put to the death penalty,” one of the victim’s sister, Missy Badget, said.
And in a chilling handwritten note sent to the judge after sentencing, Avsenew continued his lack of remorse.
“It is my duty as a white man to cull the weak and timid from existence. I will always stand up for what I believe in and eradicate anything in my way,” he wrote. “Homosexuals are a disgrace to mankind and must be put down. These weren’t the first and won’t be the last.”
Avsenew is the first person sentenced to die after a law was passed requiring a unanimous jury for a death sentence. The date of execution has not been set.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/08/read-cold-blooded-killers-note-judge-sentenced-death/….. …..
OTHER LINKS:
↧
THE BATTLE OF TOURS (10 OCTOBER 732)
On this date, 10 October 732, Charles Martel's forces defeat an Umayyad army between near Tours, France.
Battle of Tours | |||||||
Part of the Umayyad invasion of Gaul | |||||||
Charles de Steuben's Bataille de Poitiers en octobre 732 romantically depicts a triumphant Charles Martel (mounted) facing Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi (right) at the Battle of Tours. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Kingdom of the FranksWestern Franks | Umayyad Caliphate
| ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Strength | |||||||
15,000–20,000 | 20,000–25,000 | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
1,000 | 12,000 |
Campaigns of Charles Martel | |
The Battle of Tours (10 October 732) – also called the Battle of Poitiersand, by Arab sources, the Battle of the Palace of the Martyrs (Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء, translit. Ma'arakat Balāṭ ash-Shuhadā’) – was fought by Frankishand Burgundianforces under Charles Martel against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by 'Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus. It was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, in the Aquitaine of west-central France, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille, about 20 kilometres (12 mi) northeast of Poitiers. The location of the battle was close to the border between the Frankish realm and the then-independent Duchy of Aquitaine under Odo the Great.
The Franks were victorious. 'Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi was killed, and Charles subsequently extended his authority in the south. Details of the battle, including its exact location and the number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived. Notably, the Frankish troops won the battle without cavalry.
Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus ("The Hammer"). Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe; according to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, "most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like [Edward] Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe."Leopold von Ranke felt that "Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."
There is little dispute that the battle helped lay the foundations of the Carolingian Empire and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century. Most historians agree that "the establishment of Frankish power in western Europe shaped that continent's destiny and the Battle of Tours confirmed that power."
Background
The Battle of Tours followed two decades of Umayyad conquests in Europe which had begun with the invasion of the VisigothicChristian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula in 711. These were followed by military expeditions into the Frankishterritories of Gaul, former provinces of the Roman Empire. Umayyad military campaigns reached northward into Aquitaine and Burgundy, including a major engagement at Bordeaux and a raid on Autun. Charles's victory is widely believed to have stopped the northward advance of Umayyad forces from the Iberian Peninsula and to have preserved Christianityin Europe during a period when Muslim rule was overrunning the remains of the Byzantineand Persian Empires.
Most historians assume that the two armies met where the rivers Clain and Viennejoin between Tours and Poitiers. The number of troops in each army is not known. The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, a Latin contemporary source which describes the battle in greater detail than any other Latin or Arabic source, states that "the people of Austrasia[the Frankish forces], greater in number of soldiers and formidably armed, killed the king, Abd ar-Rahman", which agrees with many Arab and Muslim historians. However, virtually all Western sources disagree, estimating the Franks as numbering 30,000, less than half the Muslim force.
Some modern historians, using estimates of what the land was able to support and what Martel could have raised from his realm and supported during the campaign, believe the total Muslim force, counting the outlying raiding parties, which rejoined the main body before Tours, outnumbered the Franks. Drawing on non-contemporary Muslim sources, Creasy describes the Umayyad forces as 80,000 strong or more. Writing in 1999, Paul K. Davis estimates the Umayyad forces at 80,000 and the Franks at about 30,000, while noting that modern historians have estimated the strength of the Umayyad army at Tours at between 20–80,000. However, Edward J. Schoenfeld, rejecting the older figures of 60–400,000 Umayyads and 75,000 Franks, contends that "estimates that the Umayyads had over fifty thousand troops (and the Franks even more) are logistically impossible." Similarly, historian Victor Davis Hanson believes both armies were roughly the same size, about 30,000 men.
Contemporary historical analysis may be more accurate than the medieval sources, as the modern figures are based on estimates of the logistical ability of the countryside to support these numbers of men and animals. Both Davis and Hanson point out that both armies had to live off the countryside, neither having a commissary system sufficient to provide supplies for a campaign. Other sources give the following estimates: "Gore places the Frankish army at 15,000–20,000, although other estimates range from 30,000 to 80,000. In spite of wildly varying estimates of the Muslim force, he places that army as around 20,000–25,000. Other estimates also range up to 80,000, with 50,000 not an uncommon estimate."
Losses during the battle are unknown, but chroniclers later claimed that Charles Martel's force lost about 1,500 while the Umayyad force was said to have suffered massive casualties of up to 375,000 men. However, these same casualty figures were recorded in the Liber Pontificalis for Duke Odo the Great's victory at the Battle of Toulouse (721). Paul the Deacon reported correctly in his History of the Lombards (written around 785) that the Liber Pontificalis mentioned these casualty figures in relation to Odo's victory at Toulouse (though he claimed that Charles Martel fought in the battle alongside Odo), but later writers, probably "influenced by the Continuations of Fredegar, attributed the Muslims casualties solely to Charles Martel, and the battle in which they fell became unequivocally that of Poitiers." The Vita Pardulfi, written in the middle of the eighth century, reports that after the battle 'Abd-al-Raḥmân's forces burned and looted their way through the Limousin on their way back to Al-Andalus, which implies that they were not destroyed to the extent imagined in the Continuations of Fredegar.
Umayyads
Main articles: Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi and Umayyad
The invasion of Hispania, and then Gaul, was led by the Umayyad dynasty (Arabic: بنو أمية banū umayya / الأمويون al-umawiyyūn also "Umawi"), the first dynasty of Sunni caliphs of the Sunni Islamic empire after the reign of the RashidunCaliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali) ended. The Umayyad Caliphate, at the time of the Battle of Tours, was perhaps the world's foremost military power. Great expansion of the Caliphate occurred under the reign of the Umayyads. Muslim armies pushed east across Persia and west across North Africa through the late 7th century.
In 711–18, Tariq ibn Ziyad led forces across the Strait of Gibraltar to conquer the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania. The Muslim empire under the Umayyads was now a vast domain that ruled a diverse array of peoples. It had destroyed what had been the two foremost military powers, the Sasanian Empire, which it absorbed completely, and the greater part of the Byzantine Empire, including Syria, Armenia and North Africa, although Leo the Isaurian stemmed the tide when he defeated the Umayyads at the Battle of Akroinon (739), their final campaign in Anatolia.
Franks
The Frankish realmunder Charles Martel was the foremost military power of western Europe. During most of his tenure in office as commander-in-chief of the Franks, it consisted of north and eastern France (Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy), most of western Germany, and the Low Countries (Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands). The Frankish realm had begun to progress towards becoming the first real imperial power in western Europe since the fall of Rome. However, it continued to struggle against external forces such as the Saxons, Frisians, and other opponents such as the Basque-Aquitanians led by Odo the Great (Old French: Eudes), Duke over Aquitaine and Vasconia.
Umayyad conquests from Hispania
Main article: Umayyad conquest of Hispania
The Umayyad troops, under Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani, the governor-general of al-Andalus, overran Septimaniaby 719, following their sweep up the Iberian Peninsula. Al-Samh set up his capital from 720 at Narbonne, which the Moors called Arbūna. With the port of Narbonne secure, the Umayyads swiftly subdued the largely unresisting cities of Alet, Béziers, Agde, Lodève, Maguelonne, and Nîmes, still controlled by their Visigothic counts.
The Umayyad campaign into Aquitaine suffered a temporary setback at the Battle of Toulouse. Duke Odo the Great broke the siege of Toulouse, taking Al-Samh ibn Malik's forces by surprise. Al-Samh ibn Malik was mortally wounded. This defeat did not stop incursions into old Roman Gaul, as Moorish forces, soundly based in Narbonne and easily resupplied by sea, struck eastwards in the 720s, penetrating as far as Autun in Burgundy in 725.
Threatened by both the Umayyads in the south and by the Franks in the north, in 730 Odo allied himself with the Berber commander Uthman ibn Naissa, called "Munuza" by the Franks, the deputy governor of what would later become Catalonia. To seal the alliance, Uthman was given Odo's daughter Lampagie in marriage, and Moorish raids across the Pyrenees, Odo's southern border, ceased. However, the next year, the Berber leader killed the bishop of Urgell Nambaudus and detached himself from his Arabs masters in Cordova. Abdul Raḥman in turn sent an expedition to crush his revolt, and next directed his attention against Uthman's ally Odo.
Odo collected his army at Bordeaux, but was defeated, and Bordeaux plundered. During the following Battle of the River Garonne, the Chronicle of 754 commented that "God alone knows the number of the slain". The Chronicle of 754 continues, saying they "pierced through the mountains, trampled over rough and level ground, plundered far into the country of the Franks, and smote all with the sword, insomuch that when Eudo came to battle with them at the River Garonne, he fled."
Odo's appeal to the Franks
Odo, who despite the heavy losses was reorganizing his troops, gave the Frankish leader notice of the impending danger knocking on the heartland of his realm, and appealed to the Franks for assistance, which Charles Martel only granted after Odo agreed to submit to Frankish authority.
It appears that the Umayyads were not aware of the true strength of the Franks. The Umayyad forces were not particularly concerned about any of the Germanictribes, including the Franks, and the Arab chronicles of that age show that awareness of the Franks as a growing military power only came after the Battle of Tours.
Further, the Umayyads appear not to have scouted northward for potential foes, for if they had, they surely would have noted Charles Martel as a force to be reckoned with in his own account, because of his growing domination of much of Europe since 717.
Umayyad advance towards the Loire
In 732, the Umayyad advance force was proceeding north towards the Loire River, having outpaced their supply train and a large part of their army. Having easily destroyed all resistance in that part of Gaul, the invading army had split off into several raiding parties, while the main body advanced more slowly.
The Umayyads delayed their campaign late in the year probably because the army needed to live off the land as they advanced. They had to wait until the area's wheat harvest was ready and then until a reasonable amount of the harvested and stored.
The reason why Odo was defeated so easily at Bordeaux and Garonne, but had won 11 years earlier at the Battle of Toulouse is simple. At Toulouse, Odo managed a surprise attack against an overconfident and unprepared foe. The Umayyad forces were mostly infantry, and what cavalry they did have were never mobilized. As Herman of Carinthia wrote in one of his translations of a history of al-Andalus, Odo managed a highly successful encircling envelopment which took the attackers totally by surprise – the result was a chaotic slaughter of the Muslim forces.
At Bordeaux and again at Garonne, the Umayyad forces were mostly cavalry and had the chance to mobilize, which led to the devastation of Odo's army. Odo's forces, like other European troops of that era, lacked stirrups, possibly explaining which resulted in no heavy cavalry at that time. Most of their troops were infantry. The Umayyad heavy cavalry broke Odo's infantry in their first charge, and then slaughtered them as they broke and ran.
The invading force went on to devastate southern Gaul. A possible motive, according to the second continuator of the Chronicle of Fredegar, was the riches of the Abbey of Saint Martin of Tours, the most prestigious and holiest shrine in western Europe at the time. Upon hearing this, Austrasia's Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel prepared his army and marched south, avoiding the old Roman roads, hoping to take the Muslims by surprise.
![]() |
Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours [PHOTO SOURCE: http://faithandheritage.com/2016/10/the-guardian-of-the-west/] |
Battle (October 732)
Preparations and maneuver
By all accounts, the invading forces were caught off guard to discover a large force sitting directly in their path to Tours. Charles achieved the total surprise he had hoped for. He then chose not to attack and rather began fighting in a defensive, phalanx-like formation. According to Arab sources, the Franks drew up in a large square, with hills and trees in their front to diminish or break up Muslim cavalry charges.
For seven days, the two armies engaged in minor skirmishes. The Umayyads waited for their full strength to arrive. 'Abd-al-Raḥmân, despite being a proven commander, had been outmaneuvered; he had allowed Charles to concentrate his forces and pick the field of battle. Furthermore, it was impossible for the Umayyads to judge the size of Charles' army, since he had used the trees and forest to screen his true numbers.
Charles' infantry were his best hope for victory. Seasoned and battle-hardened, most of them had fought with him for years, some as far back as 717. In addition to his army, he also had levies of militia which had not seen significant military use except for gathering food and harassing the Muslim army.
While many historians through the centuries have believed that the Franks were outnumbered at the onset of battle by at least two to one, the most authentic source called the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, points to the contrary.
Charles correctly assumed that 'Abd-al-Raḥmân would feel compelled to give battle, and move on and try to loot Tours. Neither side wanted to attack. Abd-al-Raḥmân felt he had to sack Tours, which meant he had to go through the Frankish army on the hill in front of him. Charles' decision to stay in the hills proved crucial, as it forced the Umayyad cavalry to charge uphill and through trees, diminishing their effectiveness.
Charles had been preparing for this confrontation since the Battle of Toulouse a decade earlier. Gibbon believes, as do most historians, that Charles had made the best of a bad situation. Though allegedly outnumbered and without any heavy cavalry, he had tough, battle-hardened infantrymen who believed in him implicitly. Moreover, as Davis points out, these infantrymen were heavily armed, each man carrying up to perhaps 75 pounds (34 kg) of armour into battle.
Formed into a phalanx formation, they were able to withstand a cavalry charge better than might be expected, especially as Charles had secured the high ground – with trees before him to further impede any cavalry charges. The failure of Arab intelligence extended to the fact that they were totally unaware of how good his forces were; he had trained them for a decade. And while he was well aware of the Caliphate's strengths and weaknesses, they knew almost nothing about the Franks.
Furthermore, the Franks were dressed for the cold. The Arabs had very light clothing more suitable for North African winters than European winters.
The battle eventually became a waiting game in which the Muslims did not want to attack an army that could possibly be numerically superior and wanted the Franks to come out into the open. The Franks formed up in a thick defensive formation and waited for them to charge uphill. The battle finally began on the seventh day, as 'Abd-al-Raḥmân did not want to wait any longer, with winter approaching.
Engagement
'Abd-al-Raḥmân trusted in the tactical superiority of his cavalry and had them charge repeatedly. In one of the few instances where medievalinfantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry broke into the Frankish square several times. Despite this, the Franks did not break. The well-trained Frankish soldiers accomplished what was not thought possible at that time: infantry withstanding a heavy cavalry charge. Paul Davis says the core of Charles' army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe". The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754 says:
And in the shock of battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts [of the foe].
Turning point
Umayyad troops who had broken into the square had tried to kill Charles, but his liege men surrounded him and would not be broken. The battle was still in flux when – Frankish histories claim – a rumour went through the Umayyad army that Frankish scouts threatened the booty that they had taken from Bordeaux. Some of the Umayyad troops at once broke off the battle and returned to camp to secure their loot. According to Muslim accounts, in the midst of the fighting on the second day (Frankish accounts have the battle lasting one day only), scouts from the Franks sent by Charles began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder).
Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Umayyad base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe. This succeeded, as many of the Umayyad cavalry returned to their camp. To the rest of the Muslim army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it became one.
Both Western and Muslim histories agree that while trying to stop the retreat, 'Abd-al-Raḥmân became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Umayyad troops then withdrew altogether to their camp. "All the host fled before the enemy", candidly wrote one Arabic source, "and many died in the flight". The Franks resumed their phalanx, and rested in place through the night, believing the battle would resume at dawn the following morning.
Following day
The next day, when the Umayyad forces did not renew the battle, the Franks feared an ambush. Charles at first believed that the Umayyad forces were trying to lure him down the hill and into the open. This tactic he knew he had to resist at all costs; he had in fact disciplined his troops for years to under no circumstances break formation and come out in the open.
Only after extensive reconnaissance of the Umayyad camp by Frankish soldiers – which by both historical accounts had been so hastily abandoned that even the tents remained, as the Umayyad forces headed back to Iberiawith whatever loot they could carry – was it discovered that the Muslims had retreated during the night.
Contemporary accounts
The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754"describes the battle in greater detail than any other Latin or Arabic source". It says of the encounter that,
While Abd ar-Rahman was pursuing Odo, he decided to despoil Tours by destroying its palaces and burning its churches. There he confronted the consul of Austrasia by the name of Charles, a man who, having proved himself to be a warrior from his youth and an expert in things military, had been summoned by Odo. After each side had tormented the other with raids for almost seven days, they finally prepared their battle lines and fought fiercely. The northern peoples remained as immobile as a wall, holding together like a glacier in the cold regions. In the blink of an eye, they annihilated the Arabs with the sword. The people of Austrasia, greater in number of soldiers and formidably armed, killed the king, Abd ar-Rahman, when they found him, striking him on the chest. But suddenly, within sight of the countless tents of the Arabs, the Franks despicably sheathed their swords postponing the fight until the next day since night had fallen during the battle. Rising from their own camp at dawn, the Europeans saw the tents and canopies of the Arabs all arranged just as they had appeared the day before. Not knowing that they were empty and thinking that inside them there were Saracen forces ready for battle, they sent officers to reconnoitre and discovered that all the Ishmaelite troops had left. They had indeed fled silently by night in tight formation, returning to their own country.— Wolf (trans), Chronicle of 754, p. 145
Charles Martel's family composed, for the fourth book of the Continuations of Fredegar's Chronicle, a stylised summary of the battle:
Prince Charles boldly drew up his battle lines against them [the Arabs] and the warrior rushed in against them. With Christ's help he overturned their tents, and hastened to battle to grind them small in slaughter. The king Abdirama having been killed, he destroyed [them], driving forth the army, he fought and won. Thus did the victor triumph over his enemies.— Fouracre, Continuations of Fredegar, p. 149
This source details further that "he (Charles Martel) came down upon them like a great man of battle". It goes on to say Charles "scattered them like the stubble".
The Latin word used for "warrior", belligerator, "is from the Book of Maccabees, chapters 15 and 16", which describe huge battles.
It is thought that Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Book V, Chapter XXIV) includes a reference to the Battle of Poitiers: "...a dreadful plague of Saracens ravaged France with miserable slaughter, but they not long after in that country received the punishment due to their wickedness".
Strategic analysis
Gibbon makes the point that 'Abd-al-Raḥmân did not move at once against Charles Martel, and was surprised by him at Tours as Charles had marched over the mountains avoiding the roads to surprise the Muslim invaders. Thus, Charles selected the time and place they would collide.
'Abd-al-Raḥmân was a good general, but failed to do two things he should have done before the battle:
- He either assumed that the Franks would not come to the aid of their Aquitanian rivals, or did not care, and he thus failed to assess their strength before invasion.
- He failed to scout the movements of the Frankish army.
These failures disadvantaged the Muslim army in the following ways:
· The invaders were burdened with booty that played a role in the battle.
· They had casualties before they fought the battle.
· Weaker opponents such as Odo were not bypassed, whom they could have picked off at will later, while moving at once to force battle with the real power in Europe and at least partially pick the battlefield.
While some military historians point out that leaving enemies in your rear is not generally wise, the Mongols proved that indirect attack, and bypassing weaker foes to eliminate the strongest first, can be a devastatingly effective mode of invasion. In this case, those enemies were virtually no danger, given the ease with which the Muslims destroyed them. The real danger was Charles, and the failure to scout Gaul adequately was disastrous.
According to CreasyCarlisle, Henny. "Charles "the Hammer" Martel King of the Franks". genealogieonline., both western and Muslim histories agree the battle was hard fought, and that the Umayyad heavy cavalry had broken into the square, but agreed that the Franks were in formation still strongly resisting.
Charles could not afford to stand idly by while Frankish territories were threatened. He would have to face the Umayyad armies sooner or later, and his men were enraged by the utter devastation of the Aquitanians and wanted to fight. But Sir Edward Creasy noted that,
when we remember that Charles had no standing army, and the independent spirit of the Frank warriors who followed his standard, it seems most probable that it was not in his power to adopt the cautious policy of watching the invaders, and wearing out their strength by delay. So dreadful and so widespread were the ravages of the Saracenic light cavalry throughout Gaul, that it must have been impossible to restrain for any length of time the indignant ardor of the Franks. And, even if Charles could have persuaded his men to look tamely on while the Arabs stormed more towns and desolated more districts, he could not have kept an army together when the usual period of a military expedition had expired.
Both Hallamand Watson argue that had Charles failed, there was no remaining force to protect Western Europe. Hallam perhaps said it best: "It may justly be reckoned among those few battles of which a contrary event would have essentially varied the drama of the world in all its subsequent scenes: with Marathon, Arbela, the Metaurus, Châlonsand Leipzig."
Strategically, and tactically, Charles probably made the best decision he could in waiting until his enemies least expected him to intervene, and then marching by stealth to catch them by surprise at a battlefield of his choosing. Probably he and his own men did not realize the seriousness of the battle they had fought, as one historian put it: "few battles are remembered over 1,000 years after they are fought, but the Battle of Poitiers is an exception [...] Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that had it been allowed to continue, might have conquered Gaul."
Aftermath
Umayyad retreat and second invasion
The Umayyad army retreated south over the Pyrenees. Charles continued to drive the Umayyad forces from France in subsequent years. After the death (c. 735) of Odo, who had reluctantly acknowledged Charles'suzeraintyin 719, Charles wished to unite Odo's Duchy to himself, and went there to elicit the proper homage of the Aquitainians. But the nobility proclaimed Hunold, Odo's son, as the Duke, and Charles recognized his legitimacy when the Umayyads entered Provence as part of an alliance with Duke Maurontus the next year.
Hunold, who originally resisted acknowledging Charles as overlord, soon had little choice. He acknowledged Charles as his overlord, albeit not for long, and Charles confirmed his Duchy.
Umayyad invasion (735–39)
In 735, the new governor of al-Andalus again invaded Gaul. Antonio Santosuosso and other historians detail how the new governor of Al-Andalus, 'Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj, again moved into France to avenge the defeat at Poitiers and to spread Islam. Santosuosso notes that 'Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj converted about 2,000 Christians he captured over his career. In the last major attempt at forcible invasion of Gaul through Iberia, a sizable invasion force was assembled at Saragossa and entered what is now French territory in 735, crossed the River Rhone and captured and looted Arles. From there, he struck into the heart of Provence, ending with the capture of Avignon, despite strong resistance.
Uqba b. Al-Hajjaj's forces remained in French territory for about four years, carrying raids to Lyons, Burgundy, and Piedmont. Charles Martel invaded Septimania in two campaigns in 736 and 739, but was forced back again to Frankish territory under his control. Alessandro Santosuosso strongly argues that the second (Umayyad) expedition was probably more dangerous than the first. The second expedition's failure put an end to any serious Muslim expedition across the Pyrenees, although raids continued. Plans for further large-scale attempts were hindered by internal turmoil in the Umayyad lands which often made enemies out of their own kind.
Advance to Narbonne
Despite the defeat at Tours, the Umayyads remained in control of Narbonne and Septimaniafor another 27 years, though they could not expand further. The treaties reached earlier with the local population stood firm and were further consolidated in 734 when the governor of Narbonne, Yusuf ibn 'Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri, concluded agreements with several towns on common defense arrangements against the encroachments of Charles Martel, who had systematically brought the south to heel as he extended his domains. He conquered Umayyad fortresses and destroyed their garrisons at the Siege of Avignon and the Siege of Nîmes.
The army attempting to relieve Narbonne met Charles in open battle at the Battle of the River Berre and was destroyed. However, Charles failed in his attempt to take Narbonne at the Siege of Narbonne in 737, when the city was jointly defended by its Muslim Arab and Berber, and its Christian Visigothiccitizens.
Carolingian dynasty
Main articles: Francia, Carolingian Empire, Pepin the Short, and Charlemagne
Reluctant to tie down his army for a siege that could last years, and believing he could not afford the losses of an all-out frontal assault such as he had used at Arles, Charles was content to isolate the few remaining invaders in Narbonne and Septimania. The threat of invasion was diminished after the Umayyad defeat at Narbonne, and the unified Caliphatewould collapse into civil war in 750 at the Battle of the Zab.
It was left to Charles' son, Pepin the Short, to force Narbonne's surrender in 759, thus bringing Narbonne into the Frankish domains. The Umayyad dynasty was expelled, driven back to Al-Andalus where Abd al-Rahman I established an emirate in Córdoba in opposition to the AbbasidCaliph in Baghdad.
Charles's grandson, Charlemagne, became the first Christian ruler to begin what would be called the Reconquista from Europe. In the northeast of Spain the Frankish emperors established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Gironain 785 and Barcelonain 801. This formed a buffer zone against Muslim lands across the Pyrenees. Historian J.M. Roberts said in 1993 of the Carolingian Dynasty:
It produced Charles Martel, the soldier who turned the Arabs back at Tours, and the supporter of Saint Boniface the Evangelizer of Germany. This is a considerable double mark to have left on the history of Europe."
Before the Battle of Tours, stirrups may have been unknown in the west. Lynn Townsend White Jr. argues that the adoption of the stirrup for cavalry was the direct cause for the development of feudalism in the Frankish realm by Charles Martel and his heirs.
Historical and macrohistorical views
The historical views of this battle fall into three great phases, both in the East and especially in the West. Western historians, beginning with the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, stressed the macrohistorical impact of the battle, as did the Continuations of Fredegar. This became a claim that Charles had saved Christianity, as Gibbon and his generation of historians agreed that the Battle of Tours was unquestionably decisive in world history.
Modern historians have essentially fallen into two camps on the issue. The first camp essentially agrees with Gibbon, and the other argues that the Battle has been massively overstated – turned from a raid in force to an invasion, and from a mere annoyance to the Caliph to a shattering defeat that helped end the Islamic Expansion Era. It is essential however, to note that within the first group, those who agree the Battle was of macrohistorical importance, there are a number of historians who take a more moderate and nuanced view of the significance of the battle, in contrast to the more dramatic and rhetorical approach of Gibbon. The best example of this school is William E. Watson, who does believe the battle has such importance, as will be discussed below, but analyzes it militarily, culturally and politically, rather than seeing it as a classic "Muslim versus Christian" confrontation.
In the East, Arab histories followed a similar path. First, the battle was regarded as a disastrous defeat; then, it largely faded from Arab histories, leading to a modern dispute which regards it as either a secondary loss to the great defeat of the Second Siege of Constantinople, where the Bulgarian Emperor Tervel played a crucial role, or a part of a series of great macrohistorical defeats which together brought about the fall of the first Caliphate. With the Byzantines and Bulgarians together with the Franks both successfully blocking further expansion, internal social troubles came to a head, starting with the Great Berber Revolt of 740, and ending with the Battle of the Zab, and the destruction of the Umayyad Caliphate.
In Western history
The first wave of real "modern" historians, especially scholars on Rome and the medieval period, such as Edward Gibbon, contended that had Charles fallen, the Umayyad Caliphate would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon famously observed:
A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.
Nor was Gibbon alone in lavishing praise on Charles as the savior of Christendomand western civilization. H. G. Wells in his A Short History of the World said in Chapter XLV "The Development of Latin Christendom": "The Moslim when they crossed the Pyreneesin 720 found this Frankish kingdom under the practical rule of Charles Martel, the Mayor of the Palace of a degenerate descendant of Clovis, and experienced the decisive defeat of Poitiers (732) at his hands. This Charles Martel was practically overlord of Europe north of the Alps from the Pyrenees to Hungary. He ruled over a multitude of subordinate lords speaking French-Latin, and High and Low German languages."
Gibbon was echoed a century later by the Belgian historian Godefroid Kurth, who wrote that the Battle of Poitiers "must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe."
German historians were especially ardent in their praise of Charles Martel; Schlegel speaks of this "mighty victory", and tells how "the arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam." Creasy quotes Leopold von Ranke's opinion that this period was
one of the most important epochs in the history of the world, the commencement of the eighth century, when on the one side Mohammedanism threatened to overspread Italy and Gaul, and on the other the ancient idolatry of Saxony and Friesland once more forced its way across the Rhine. In this peril of Christian institutions, a youthful prince of Germanic race, Karl Martell, arose as their champion, maintained them with all the energy which the necessity for self-defence calls forth, and finally extended them into new regions.
The German military historian Hans Delbrück said of this battle "there was no more important battle in the history of the world." (The Barbarian Invasions, p. 441.) Had Charles Martel failed, Henry Hallam argued, there would have been no Charlemagne, no Holy Roman Empire or Papal States; all these depended upon Charles's containment of Islam from expanding into Europe while the Caliphate was unified and able to mount such a conquest. Another great mid era historian, Thomas Arnold, ranked the victory of Charles Martel even higher than the victory of Arminiusin its impact on all of modern history: "Charles Martel's victory at Tours was among those signal deliverances which have affected for centuries the happiness of mankind." Louis Gustave and Charles Strauss in Moslem and Frank; or, Charles Martel and the rescue of Europe said "The victory gained was decisive and final, The torrent of Arab conquest was rolled back and Europe was rescued from the threatened yoke of the Saracens." (p. 122)
Charles Oman, in his History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, concludes that
At Poitiers the Franks fought as they had done two hundred years before at Casilinum, in one solid mass, without breaking rank or attempting to maneuver. Their victory was won by the purely defensive tactics of the infantry square; the fanatical Arabs, dashing against them time after time, were shattered to pieces, and at last fled under shelter of night. But there was no pursuit, for Charles had determined not to allow his men to stir a step from the line to chase the broken foe.[I, 58]
John Bagnell Bury, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, said "The Battle of Tours... has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world's history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill."
Modern Western historians are clearly divided on the importance of the battle, and where it should rank in military history; see below.
Adolf Hitler on the Battle of Tours
Albert Speer, Hitler's Armaments Minister, described how Hitler expressed approval of Islam, saying that Hitler had been particularly impressed by what he had heard from a delegation of Arabs. When the Muslims had tried to penetrate Central Europe in the 8th century, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours; if they had won that battle, the world would have become Muslim. Theirs was a religion, Hitler said, that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Hitler considered that Islam was perfectly suited to the "Germanic" temperament and would have been more compatible to the Germans than Christianity.
In Muslim history
Eastern historians, like their Western counterparts, have not always agreed on the importance of the battle. According to Bernard Lewis, "The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement [the Battle of Tours] at all, present it as a minor skirmish," and Gustave von Grunebaum writes: "This setback may have been important from the European point of view, but for Muslims at the time, who saw no master plan imperilled thereby, it had no further significance." Contemporary Arab and Muslim historians and chroniclers were much more interested in the second Umayyad siege of Constantinoplein 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat.
However, Creasy has claimed: "The enduring importance of the battle of Tours in the eyes of the Muslims is attested not only by the expressions of 'the deadly battle' and 'the disgraceful overthrow' which their writers constantly employ when referring to it, but also by the fact that no more serious attempts at conquest beyond the Pyrenees were made by the Saracens."
Thirteenth-century Moroccan author Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi, mentioned the battle in his history of the Maghrib, "al-Bayan al-Mughrib fi Akhbar al-Maghrib." According to Ibn Idhari, "Abd ar-Rahman and many of his men found martyrdom on the balat ash-Shuhada'i ("the path of the martyrs)." Antonio Santosuosso points that "they (the Muslims) called the battle's location, the road between Poitiers and Tours, "the pavement of Martyrs"." However, as Henry Coppée pointed out, "The same name was given to the battle of Toulouse and is applied to many other fields on which the Moslemah were defeated: they were always martyrs for the faith."
Khalid Yahya Blankinship argued that the military defeat at Tours was one of the failures that contributed to the decline of the Umayyad caliphate:
Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad – armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 AD. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa.
![]() |
Charles Martel (left) and ISIS (right) |
Current historical debate on macrohistorical impact of Battle of Tours
Some modern historians argue that the Battle of Tours was of no great historical significance while others continue to contend that Charles Martel's victory was important in European or even world history.
Supporting the significance of Tours as a world-altering event
William E. Watson strongly supports Tours as a macrohistorical event, but distances himself from the rhetoric of Gibbon and Drubeck, writing, for example, of the battle's importance in Frankish, and world, history in 1993:
There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian Peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderic at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had 'Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732.
Watson adds, "After examining the motives for the Muslim drive north of the Pyrenees, one can attach a macrohistorical significance to the encounter between the Franks and Andalusi Muslims at Tours-Poitiers, especially when one considers the attention paid to the Franks in Arabic literature and the successful expansion of Muslims elsewhere in the medieval period."
Victorian writer John Henry Haaren says in Famous Men of the Middle Ages, "The battle of Tours, or Poitiers, as it should be called, is regarded as one of the decisive battles of the world. It decided that Christians, and not Moslems, should be the ruling power in Europe."
Bernard Grun delivers this assessment in his "Timetables of History", reissued in 2004: "In 732 Charles Martel's victory over the Arabs at the Battle of Tours stems the tide of their westward advance."
Historian and humanist Michael Grant lists the battle of Tours in the macrohistorical dates of the Roman era. Historian Norman Cantor who specialized in the medieval period, teaching and writing at Columbia and New York University, says in 1993: "It may be true that the Arabs had now fully extended their resources and they would not have conquered France, but their defeat (at Tours) in 732 put a stop to their advance to the north."
Military historian Robert W. Martin considers Tours "one of the most decisive battles in all of history." Additionally, historian Hugh Kennedy says "it was clearly significant in establishing the power of Charles Martel and the Carolingians in France, but it also had profound consequences in Muslim Spain. It signaled the end of the ghanima (booty) economy."
Military Historian Paul Davis argued in 1999, "had the Muslims been victorious at Tours, it is difficult to suppose what population in Europe could have organized to resist them." Likewise, George Bruce in his update of Harbottle's classic military history Dictionary of Battles maintains that "Charles Martel defeated the Moslem army effectively ending Moslem attempts to conquer western Europe."
History professor Antonio Santosuosso puts forth an opinion on Charles, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman's son in 736–737, presenting that these later defeats of invading Muslim armies were at least as important as Tours in their defense of Western Christendom and the preservation of Western monasticism, the monasteries of which were the centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of her Middle Ages. He also makes an argument, after studying the Arab histories of the period, that these were clearly armies of invasion, sent by the Caliph not just to avenge Tours, but to begin the end of Christian Europe and bring it into the Caliphate.
Professor of religion Huston Smith says in The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions"But for their defeat by Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours in 733, the entire Western world might today be Muslim." Historian Robert Payne on page 142 in "The History of Islam" said "The more powerful Muslims and the spread of Islam were knocking on Europe's door. And the spread of Islam was stopped along the road between the towns of Tours and Poitiers, France, with just its head in Europe."
Victor Davis Hanson has commented that "Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates."
Paul Davis, another modern historian, says "whether Charles Martel saved Europe for Christianity is a matter of some debate. What is sure, however, is that his victory ensured that the Franks would dominate Gaul for more than a century." Davis writes, "Moslem defeat ended the Moslems' threat to western Europe, and Frankish victory established the Franks as the dominant population in western Europe, establishing the dynasty that led to Charlemagne."
Objecting to the significance of Tours as a world-altering event
Other historians disagree with this assessment. Alessandro Barbero writes, "Today, historians tend to play down the significance of the battle of Poitiers, pointing out that the purpose of the Muslim force defeated by Charles Martel was not to conquer the Frankish kingdom, but simply to pillage the wealthy monastery of St-Martin of Tours". Similarly, Tomaž Mastnak writes:
Modern historians have constructed a myth presenting this victory as having saved Christian Europe from the Muslims. Edward Gibbon, for example, called Charles Martel the savior of Christendom and the battle near Poitiers an encounter that changed the history of the world. ... This myth has survived well into our own times. ... Contemporaries of the battle, however, did not overstate its significance. The continuators of Fredegar's chronicle, who probably wrote in the mid-eighth century, pictured the battle as just one of many military encounters between Christians and Saracens – moreover, as only one in a series of wars fought by Frankish princes for booty and territory. ... One of Fredegar's continuators presented the battle of Poitiers as what it really was: an episode in the struggle between Christian princes as the Carolingians strove to bring Aquitaine under their rule.
The historian Philip Khuri Hitti believes that "In reality nothing was decided on the battlefield of Tours. The Moslem wave, already a thousand miles from its starting point in Gibraltar – to say nothing about its base in al-Qayrawan – had already spent itself and reached a natural limit."
The view that the battle has no great significance is perhaps best summarized by Franco Cardini[it]in Europe and Islam: "Although prudence needs to be exercised in minimizing or 'demythologizing' the significance of the event, it is no longer thought by anyone to have been crucial. The 'myth' of that particular military engagement survives today as a media cliché, than which nothing is harder to eradicate. It is well known how the propaganda put about by the Franks and the papacy glorified the victory that took place on the road between Tours and Poitiers ..."
In their introduction to The Reader's Companion to Military HistoryRobert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker summarise this side of the modern view of the Battle of Tours by saying
The study of military history has undergone drastic changes in recent years. The old drums-and-bugles approach will no longer do. Factors such as economics, logistics, intelligence, and technology receive the attention once accorded solely to battles and campaigns and casualty counts. Words like "strategy" and "operations" have acquired meanings that might not have been recognizable a generation ago. Changing attitudes and new research have altered our views of what once seemed to matter most. For example, several of the battles that Edward Shepherd Creasy listed in his famous 1851 book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World rate hardly a mention here, and the confrontation between Muslims and Christians at Poitiers-Tours in 732, once considered a watershed event, has been downgraded to a raid in force.
See also
External links
![]() | Wikimedia Commons has media related to Battle of Tours. |
- Poke's edition of Creasy's 15 Most Important Battles Ever FoughtAccording to Edward Shepherd Creasy Chapter VII. The Battle Of Tours, A.D. 732.
- Medieval Sourcebook: Arabs, Franks, and the Battle of Tours, 732: Three Accounts
- Medieval Sourcebook: Anon Arab Chronicler: The Battle of Poitiers, 732
- History of Europe: The Battle of Tours
- BBC In Our Time: The Battle of Tours. (Radio programme discussing the battle)
OTHER LINKS:
↧
MILITANT ATHEIST: DEVIN PATRICK KELLEY (FEBRUARY 21, 1991 TO NOVEMBER 5, 2017)
Texas church shooter: a militant atheist who beat wife and child
The former Air Force airman who shot dead 26 people in a Texas church had been jailed by the military for beating his wife and child, and had ranted against God and the church on his social media pages.
Updated 7 November 2017
Devin Patrick Kelley, a white 26-year-old who was dressed head-to-toe in black combat gear when he carried out the deadliest shooting in Texas history, appears to have killed himself after the attack. His church-going victims were aged between 18 months and 77 years.
As photos of America's latest mass killer -- round-faced and unsmiling, with thinning dark hair and, in one shot, holding a small child -- started circulating in the US media Monday, more questions than answers remained as to why he attacked the First Baptist Church, killing an estimated four percent of the tiny community of Sutherland Springs, near San Antonio, in a matter of minutes.
Kelley lived in New Braunfels, a small town around 35 miles (55 kilometers) from Sutherland Springs.
The only connection he had to the church appears to have been that his mother-in-law, who had received threatening text messages from Kelley, was a member of the congregation, although police said she was not in the building when he stormed it.
Kelley had been court-martialed and jailed by the military for 12 months in 2012, two years after signing up for the Air Force, on charges of assaulting his wife and their child. He left the service in 2014 with a bad conduct discharge.
Like many other mass shooters, he had vented his rage at the world on social media, writing Facebook diatribes against organized religion, the church and believers.
Before being deleted, his Facebook account featured a quote from Mark Twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
In his LinkedIn account, however, he listed his interests as animal welfare, arts and culture, children and civil rights.
Several of his former classmates said they had kept their distance from the militant atheist, who often acted in a hostile and aggressive manner.
Once in the Air Force, Kelley served in logistics readiness at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, which neighbors Texas.
After his conviction of assault on his wife and a child -- named by those close to the case either as the couple's child, or just the wife's -- his spouse Tessa filed for divorce. Kelley was also demoted, and left the military after a failed appeal against his conviction.
After leaving the Air Force, he moved for a while to Colorado, where he appeared in court on charges of animal cruelty, though the case was later dismissed.
![]() |
Texas Church Shooter Devin Kelley Charged With Animal Cruelty Before Killing 26 People (Video) |
Shooting at night
Kelley reportedly lied about his assault conviction when he filled out the required background check paperwork to buy a Ruger assault rifle in April 2016 at a gun and sporting goods shop in San Antonio, police said. They said he owned several firearms, bought in both Colorado and Texas.
His other known residence was in the rural area around New Braunfels, where he had lived with his wife in a converted barn, surrounded by woods.
One of his former neighbors told KSAT local news that he was "a regular guy" in a region where gun ownership is common, and said there was "nothing abnormal" that could have pointed to the impending slaughter.
"I mean, the only thing unusual across the street is we hear a lot of gunfire, a lot of times at night. We hear gunfire a lot, but we're out in the country," said the neighbor, Mark Moravitz.
Kelley walked into the First Baptist Church at around 11:20 am on Sunday, unleashing a hail of bullets that left at least 26 dead and 20 wounded, some seriously.
A neighbor of the church heard the gunfire and ran out with his own weapon, engaging the gunman and pursuing him as he fled in a pearl-colored Ford Explorer.
Kelley was found around eight miles away with a lethal gunshot wound, which police said appeared to have been self-inflicted.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/texas-church-shooter-a-militant-atheist-who-beat-wife-and-child
![]() |
Devin Kelley was a Militant Atheist. |
OTHER LINKS:
↧
DALLAS HITMAN SENTENCED TO DEATH IN MURDER-FOR-HIRE PLOT [OCTOBER 31, 2018]
Dallas hitman sentenced to death in murder-for-hire plot
By: FOX4News.comStaff
Posted: Oct 31 2018 10:12AM MST
Video Posted: Oct 31 2018 03:56PM MST
Updated: Oct 31 2018 04:39PM MST
DALLAS - The gunman who fatally shot a Dallas dentist in a murder-for-hire plot has been sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Prosecutors worked to convince the jury that Kristopher Love will be a danger to the community even in prison. He faces the death penalty for killing Dr. Kendra Hatcher in a 2015 murder-for-hire plot.
Jurors deliberated for three hours before handing down the death sentence. Love showed no emotion when the verdict was read.
In court Tuesday, defense attorneys called detention officers and Love’s relatives to testify as character witnesses. They said he has been respectful and well-behaved in prison since his arrest. His mother said while in prison, he has followed the rules and even got his GED.
Prosecutors described Hatcher as a beacon of light that illuminated others and then told jurors how troubling it was to think that Love’s face was the last thing she saw before he murdered her.
![]() |
(February 3, 1980 to September 2, 2015) |
Hatcher’s family thanked the jury then spoke directly to Love.
"You didn't shoot her. You executed my daughter for absolutely no reason in the world,"said Bonnie Jameson, Hatcher's mom. "Your life, I pray someday soon, will end one way or another. And if you received the ultimate, your life - Mr. Executioner - will end peacefully, unlike my daughter's."
“So many nights I’ve laid awake in my bed and thought of my little sister and her last moments on this Earth,” said Ashley Turner, Hatcher’s sister. “$500 and drugs?! Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?!”
Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson said she was elated by the jury’s verdict and contradicted the prosecution team got their hard work. Prosecutors say they’ll now turn their attention to Brenda Delgado, the alleged mastermind of Hatcher’s murder.
The former girlfriend, Brenda Delgado, awaits trial on a capital murder charge. A third person, the suspected getaway driver, also is being held on a capital murder charge.
INTERNET SOURCE:
Bonnie Jameson, mother of Kendra Hatcher, returned to the stand Wednesday to discuss life without her daughter. (Ashley Landis/Staff Photographer) |
'You executed my daughter': Hit man condemned to die for killing Dallas dentist
Written by Tasha Tsiaperas, Staff Writer
Written by Tasha Tsiaperas, Staff Writer
Updated at 5 p.m. with more details from after the sentencing.
A Dallas County jury on Wednesday condemned to death the hit man in a murder-for-hire plot against an Uptown dentist — a scheme allegedly set in motion by the jealous ex of the victim's boyfriend.
Kristopher Love was convicted last week of capital murder in the September 2015 slaying of Kendra Hatcher, who was ambushed and shot in the parking garage of her Dallas apartment complex.
"For three years, you've only been known as the shooter. I will never call you by your name because you are just the shooter," Hatcher's mother, Bonnie Jameson, told Love after he was sentenced. "You executed my daughter."
Love, 34, was paid in cash and drugs for his part in the meticulously plotted crime that was meant to look like a botched robbery.
"It was planned. It was thought out,"Hatcher's sister Ashley Turner said Wednesday. "It could've been stopped."
Love is the first Dallas County killer sent to death row since 2013, when three people were condemned to die. It took jurors about three hours to decide Love's punishment: lethal injection.
The death sentence will be automatically appealed.
Arguing for the death penalty, prosecutor Kevin Brooks said Love would always be a threat to society and to his fellow prisoners if he were housed with the general population.
"If you put this man in gen pop, he becomes the go-to guy if you want something done," Brooks said.
After the sentence was read in the courtroom, Love's sobbing mother rushed out to the hallway. Several of his other relatives remained in the courtroom, their bodies shaking from crying.
Love didn't show any emotion when the sentence was read and looked back at his family before he was led from the courtroom.
Before deciding on punishment, jurors had to determine whether Love was a future threat to society, which can include prison, and whether there were reasons to save his life.
Defense attorney Paul Johnson questioned the fairness of Love's sentence when the others involved in the murder-for-hire plot won't receive capital punishment.
He said prosecutors didn't prove that Love would be dangerous even behind bars and said the punishment should not be solely about the heinousness of the crime.
Hatcher, 35, was found fatally shot in the head on Sept. 2, 2015, in the parking garage of her Uptown apartment building.
Prosecutors demonstrated how Hatcher must have looked in her final moments: hands raised behind her head to protect herself with her chin tucked. She was shot in the back of the head. The bullet pierced her spinal cord and exited through her chin.
The medical examiner said Hatcher would've labored to breathe during the final minutes of her life.
"She knew as she struggled for breath that she was going to die," prosecutor Glen Fitzmartin said in closing arguments Wednesday. "He needs to feel that as well."
But Johnson argued that Love was the "instrument" for 36-year-old Brenda Delgado, who was said to be jealous of Hatcher's relationship with Delgado's ex-boyfriend, Ricardo Paniagua.
Delgado's capital murder trial has not been scheduled. She can't face the death penalty because of an extradition agreement with Mexico, where she fled after Hatcher's killing.
"Kendra Hatcher was dead the moment Brenda Delgado decided to take her life," Johnson said during closing arguments.
Several witnesses testified during Love's trial that Delgado had asked them to harm or kill Hatcher.
One woman, 26-year-old Crystal Cortes, agreed to act as the getaway driver in exchange for $500. Though originally charged with capital murder like Delgado and Love, she pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of murder in exchange for a 35-year sentence.
Cortes testified against Love and is expected to testify against Delgado.
Prosecutors argued that Hatcher's death was possible only because Love agreed to kill her.
"This wasn't even happening until he said yes," Fitzmartin argued.
Prosecutors painted a picture of a career criminal who first got in trouble at age 17 for stealing a car. Defense attorneys portrayed Love as a model inmate and a beloved member of his family.
Relatives who testified on Love's behalf Tuesday described him as a loving father of three.
They also said his childhood had been disrupted by his parents' frequent breakups. His mother estimated that she and Love's father separated at least 20 times before ultimately divorcing.
Jailers described Love as "peaceful" in the Dallas County Jail and said he caused no problems.
Love hadn't shown much emotion or reacted visibly during the trial until Tuesday when his sister, Meisha Beasley, testified. While she spoke of their bond and childhood, Love stood to leave.
Several bailiffs hurried over to him to put him back in a cell while jurors were escorted from the courtroom. It was about 20 minutes before he was brought back in and testimony resumed.
Prosecutor Justin Lord pointed to that moment during closing arguments Wednesday. He called Love a "cold-blooded, evil assassin" who is "motivated by greed."
"He did somebody else's bidding, put a bullet in Kendra Hatcher's head for someone else," Lord said. "He has no regard for anybody else."
Lord told jurors that Hatcher screamed for her life in the moments before she was shot.
"The last thing she ever saw in life was that," Lord said, pointing to Love. "She saw the face of evil with a gun pointed at her."
By contrast to the man Hatcher's family and prosecutors called "evil," Hatcher was described as a "beacon of light."
Hatcher loved children and traveled to Third World countries to treat underprivileged kids. Her nieces and nephews called her "Aunt KK."
Her friends and family said that her laugh was infectious and she always helped people.
Hatcher's 12-year-old niece wrote about how she felt after her aunt's death. Neil Hatcher read his daughter's words to Love.
"Aunt KK's death made me very shocked and confused," Neil Hatcher said for his daughter.
The girl said the loss of her aunt made her "hide in my room and cry."
Neil Hatcher told Love that he had "introduced me to new feelings of absolute hate and disgust."
"May God have mercy on your soul," Hatcher told his sister's killer.
During victim impact statements, Hatcher's mother transitioned from calling Love "shooter" to "executioner," alluding to his coming demise.
"Your life, executioner, will end peacefully," Jameson said, "unlike my daughter's."
INTERNET SOURCE:
↧
↧
Thai Appeals Court Reaffirms Death Sentence for Railway Worker who Raped and Murdered 13-year-old Kachakorn Pitakchamnong
Thai Appeals Court Reaffirms Death Sentence for Railway Worker who Raped and Murdered 13-year-old Kachakorn Pitakchamnong
Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 | Posted by Editor
![]() |
The rape and murder of the 13-year-old Kachakorn Pitakchamnong took place on a night train operated by the State Railway of Thailand
PRACHUAP KIRI KHAN – A Thai appeals court yesterday reaffirmed the death sentence for a railway worker Wanchai Saengkhao, 23, for the rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl.
Wanchai Saengkhao, was sentenced to death by the court in September 2014 for killing 13-year-old Kachakorn Pitakchamnong.
Mr.Wanchai’s defense team appealed the verdict on the grounds his life should be spared because he had repented his action.
“His argument that he has repented his wrongdoing is inadmissible,” the judge said, rejecting Wanchai’s call for leniency and affirming the death penalty the Khaosod News Reported.
Under Thai law, those sentenced to death have 60 days to appeal the verdict. The execution cannot be carried out unless the case is considered final.
Somjet Amnuaysawasdi, head of Seventh District Appeals Court, said prosecutors will not appeal the verdict, but Wanchai has the right to do so if he believes the sentence should be overturned.
Wanchai Bunnag, the lawyer representing the victim’s family, said his clients are satisfied with the court’s affirmation of death penalty for the convict.
The rape and murder of the 13-year-old Kachakorn Pitakchamnong took place on a night train operated by the State Railway of Thailand, or SRT, as it was passing through Prachuap Kiri Khan in the early morning of 6 July.
Wanchai, an SRT custodian, was later arrested by police and confessed that he committed the crime after getting high on methamphetamine while on duty.
Pro-death penalty activists also seized on the incident to campaign for making rapes punishable by death; under current law, rape carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and a rape committed with use of a weapon is punishable by life in prison.
Capital punishment in Thailand had fallen out of favor by the time the country changed its means of execution to lethal injection in 2003. That year, four people were executed and since then, two were executed in 2009, according to Amnesty International. All were executed for drug-related offenses.
The campaign for capital punishment of rapists was spearheaded by former beauty pageant winner Panadda Wongphudee and endorsed by the family of the 13-year-old girl raped and murdered by Wanchai.
Supporters of the death penalty insist that executing rapists would decrease the number of rape incidents, though human rights activists say there is little proof the death penalty is an effective deterrent against crimes.
OTHER LINKS:
↧
DRUG TRAFFICKER: JUAN RAUL GARZA (EXECUTED ON JUNE 19, 2001)
On this date, June 19, 2001, Juan Raul Garza was the first person to be executed under the 1988 federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which imposes a death sentence for murders stemming from a drug enterprise.
![]() |
Juan Raul Garza |
Juan Raul Garza(November 18, 1957 – June 19, 2001) was an Americanmurderer and drug trafficker who was executed for a federal crime.
History
In 1993, Garza was convicted of murdering three people while running a marijuanasmuggling and distribution ring based in Brownsville, Texas. He was sentenced to death and appealed on the basis that the jury were allegedly not told that they had the power to recommend life imprisonment instead of the death sentence. Garza's lawyers also claimed that it was unfair that the jury were told that Garza was suspected of four murders in Mexicogiven that, although a prime suspect in these crimes, he had never been charged with, or convicted of them.
On July 13, 1999, federal authorities moved Garza, who had committed the crime in Texas but was under a federal death sentence, out of the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and into Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody. Garza was one of three condemned inmates moved from the Texas state male death row on that day due to the opening of the new federal death row wing in USP Terre Haute, Terre Haute, Indiana. Garza had TDCJ ID 999074 and BOP ID# 62728-079. All appeals failed, and on June 19, 2001, Garza was executed at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute by lethal injection. His execution took place just eight days after the US Federal Government executed domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh at the same location.
Summary:
Garza, 44, was convicted of various marijuana drug trafficking laws, money laundering, and three counts of murder in furtherance of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise. From the early 1980's until 1992, Garza built and controlled an intricate drug trafficking enterprise. Working with friends and associates from the tough neighborhood of his youth, Garza sold thousands of pounds of marijuana in Texas, Louisiana and Michigan, reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars in return. Garza occasionally suffered setbacks when loads of marijuana or cash were seized by law enforcement agencies. In addition to putting a dent in Garza's profit margin, these incidents made him suspicious that certain of his workers and associates were cooperating with the police. Being the object of Garza's mistrust was not a healthy condition - as the victims of Garza's three murder convictions would attest.
Garza, 44, was convicted of various marijuana drug trafficking laws, money laundering, and three counts of murder in furtherance of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise. From the early 1980's until 1992, Garza built and controlled an intricate drug trafficking enterprise. Working with friends and associates from the tough neighborhood of his youth, Garza sold thousands of pounds of marijuana in Texas, Louisiana and Michigan, reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars in return. Garza occasionally suffered setbacks when loads of marijuana or cash were seized by law enforcement agencies. In addition to putting a dent in Garza's profit margin, these incidents made him suspicious that certain of his workers and associates were cooperating with the police. Being the object of Garza's mistrust was not a healthy condition - as the victims of Garza's three murder convictions would attest.
Gilberto Matos was an associate of a drug smuggler named De La Fuente suspected by Garza of giving information to the police. Garza ordered his men to go to his shop and kill Matos as a warning to De La Fuente. They did. Five months later, Garza supplied Israel Flores and Jesus Flores with guns and took them to De La Fuente's nightclub to kill him.When De La Fuente left a nightclub and got into his car, a third accomplice shot him twice through the driver's window. After hiding in a ditch, he called Garza, who picked him up.
The third victim was Thomas Rumbo, also suspected by Garza as an informant. Garza went directly to Rumbo's house, taking two of his workers with him. Rumbo reluctantly got into Garza's pickup truck and they drove out to a rural farm road. Garza shot Rumbo in the back of the head, then shot him four more times.
Garza was the first person to be executed under the 1988 federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which imposes a death sentence for murders stemming from a drug enterprise. While the indictment accused him specifically of three murders, prosecutors presented testimony that he ordered or carried out five more killings, four of them in Mexico. Among the victims, prosecutors said, was Garza's son-in-law.
Case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
This case was also filed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an independent human rights body of the Organization of American States(OAS). On December 4, 2000, the Commission adopted the merits report 109/00, which was transmitted to the State Department on December 5, 2000. The merits report stated that:
"the Commission considers that the State’s conduct in introducing evidence of unadjudicated foreign crimes during Mr. Garza’s capital sentencing hearing was antithetical to the most basic and fundamental judicial guarantees applicable in attributing responsibility and punishment to individuals for crimes. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the State is responsible for imposing the death penalty upon Mr. Garza in a manner contrary to his right to a fair trial under Article XVIII of the American Declaration, as well as his right to due process of law under Article XXVI of the Declaration. (...) The Commission also concludes that, by sentencing Mr. Garza to death in this manner, and by scheduling his execution for December 12, 2000 and thereby exhibiting its clear intention to implement Mr. Garza's sentence, the State had placed Mr. Garza's life in jeopardy in an arbitrary and capricious manner, contrary to Article I of the Declaration. In addition, to execute Mr. Garza pursuant to this sentence would constitute a further deliberate and egregious violation of Article I of the American Declaration.".
Based on these conclusions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) recommended to: "Provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy, which includes commutation of sentence" and "Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials".
By communication dated March 6, 2001 and received by the Commission on the same date, the United States answered that: "Finally, with respect to the Commission's conclusions in Part IV(C)(4) that Mr. Garza's rights to due process and a fair trial under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration were violated, we note that these conclusions are in conflict with jurisprudence based on the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This jurisprudence requires the provision of all relevant information to a capital jury before it makes a sentencing determination. Indeed, the rationale on which the Commission recommends invalidating Garza's death sentence was presented to the appropriate federal courts in collateral review and rejected by them as not affording a basis for relief".
The IACHR analyzed this answer in its Report 52/01, published April 4, 2001, where it said:
"The Commission, based upon the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and in light of the response of the State to Report 109/00, hereby ratifies its conclusion that the State is responsible for violations of Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration in condemning Juan Raul Garza to the death penalty. The Commission also hereby ratifies its conclusion that the United States will perpetrate a grave and irreparable violation of the fundamental right to life under Article I of the American Declaration, should it proceed with Mr. Garza's execution based upon the criminal proceedings under consideration". On these basis, the IACHR reiterated the recommendations to the US Government.
![]() |
Death penalty supporters protest at the port of Nusakambangan ahead of the execution of Bali Nine Kingpins Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran |
Cultural references
An episode of American TV series The West Wing's first season, Take This Sabbath Day, deals with the imminent execution of drug lord and murderer Simon Cruz, likewise sentenced under the "Drug Kingpin" Act and to be executed by injection at Terre Haute (for killing two individuals in Michigan), who is described as the first individual to be executed by federal authorities since 1963 (probably alluding to the case of Victor Feguer, who would have been the last before Garza, had not Timothy McVeigh been executed eight days earlier). The episode aired on February 9, 2000, when Garza was on death row and the federal death penalty yet to be re-established in practice.
See also
References
"Offenders No Longer on Death RowArchived2010-07-25 at the Wayback Machine.."Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Retrieved on August 22, 2010.
Ward, Mike (July 19, 1999). "Texas death row empties 3 cells in a single day". Austin American-Statesman.
Killers as Louis Jones 49 Juan Raul Garza 42 and Orlando Cordia Hall 28.
"Juan Raul Garza."Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved on August 22, 2010.
4. "Executions of Federal Prisoners (since 1927)Archived2013-02-15 at the Wayback Machine.."Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved on August 22, 2010.
External links
- Juan Raul Garza. The Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
- IACHR Report 52/01 Case 12.234, Juan Raul Garza, USA. Official report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States
- "Date set for First Federal Execution since 1963."Federal Bureau of Prisons. May 26, 2000.
- http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/garza720.htm
↧
ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988 (NOVEMBER 18, 1988)
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988restored the death penalty under federal law for drug offenses and some types of murder.
![]() |
Death penalty supporters protest at the port of Nusakambangan ahead of the execution of Bali Nine Kingpins Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran |
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210) is a major law of the so-called "War on Drugs" passed by the U.S. Congress which did two significant things:
1. Created the policy goal of a drug-free America; and
2. Established the Office of National Drug Control Policy
The change from the Act of 1986 to the Act of 1988 concerns the mandatory minimum penalties to drug trafficking conspiracies and attempts that previously were applicable only to substantive completed drug trafficking offenses. The Act amended 21 U.S.C. 844 to make crack cocaine the only drug with a mandatory minimum penalty for a first offense of simple possession. The Act made possession of more than five grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base punishable by at least five years in prison. The five year minimum penalty also applies to possession of more than three grams of cocaine base if the defendant has a prior conviction for crack cocaine possession, and to possession of more than one gram of crack if the defendant has two or more prior crack possession convictions.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 also offers several other amendments to the Act of 1986. First, the organization and coordination of Federal drug control efforts. Next, the reduction of drug demand through increased treatment and prevention efforts. Also, the reduction of illicit drug trafficking and production abroad. Lastly, sanctions designed to place added pressure on the drug user. The ADAA projected budget for these amendments was $6.5 billion for the 1989 fiscal year”. The result of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was not foreseen. “After spending billions of dollars on law enforcement, doubling the number of arrests and incarcerations, and building prisons at a record pace, the system has failed to decrease the level of drug-related crime. Placing people in jail at increasing rates has had little long-term effect on the levels of crime”.
The H.R. 5210 legislation was passed by the 100th U.S. Congressional session and enacted into law by the 40th President of the United StatesRonald Reagan on November 18, 1988.
The media campaign mentioned in the act later became the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
INTERNET SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Drug_Abuse_Act_of_1988
↧