Ancient & Medieval Traitors

by Kerr, Gordon

  The opposition to Socrates arose not just from fears about his messages, but more importantly from a wide and somewhat unfounded belief that he was imposing controversial and damaging beliefs upon his largest and most impressionable audience, the young men of Athens. No fees were charged, but the ‘student’ or person who was conversing would be encouraged to challenge an established viewpoint and arrive at a completely different conclusion than had first been expressed. Throughout his life Socrates was deemed a real opponent to democracy, and he maintained his belief that a city governed by a single leader was the only acceptable form of government, even up to his eventual execution.

  SOCRATES’S DOWNFALL

  Eventually the philosopher’s radical views and ideas had become too much for the city to bear any longer. The three men who decided to press charges against him were Meletus, Antyus and Lyco. They thought that it was in the best interests of the city for Socrates to be removed so that he could no longer be of influence to the people of Athens. Ironically, these men did not understand one of Socrates’s strongest convictions, that every man must follow the law or the very structure of society would be undermined. Despite these convictions, Socrates was summoned to be tried in 399 BC on charges of corrupting the young, denying the gods of the city and introducing new gods. Whether any of these allegations were true, is really a matter of opinion, but it is hard to imagine that a man who clearly revered and understood the laws of the state would intentionally go out to corrupt impressionable minds. It seems to be more likely that Socrates acted as a scapegoat for those who had lost power during the Peloponnesian war and were afraid that the young men who were taught by Socrates might be encouraged to take over. Socrates’s opponents also wanted to implicate him as a traitor by virtue of his earlier associations with the Thirty Tyrants, who ultimate destroyed the last reminders of a democratic government in Athens.

  Unfortunately, it was Socrates’s philosophical fervour which ultimately led to his death in 399 BC. Following a slightly misguided attempt to defend himself where he essentially insulted his audience by informing them of their own ignorance, the jury — consisting of 501 members — came back with a verdict. It was only by a margin of thirty votes that Socrates was found guilty, but it was enough. To make matters worse for the great philosopher, when given the opportunity to suggest another punishment for himself other than death, he proposed that he be heavily rewarded instead of punished, as he believed that he had only been doing good for the Athenians.

  As Socrates spent his last days in prison he was given one last opportunity for escape. His closest friends concocted several potential breaks for escape, but Socrates was stubborn to the very end. Despite their persistent entreaties for him to leave, he stressed the importance of accepting his fate and abiding by the laws that had been set down. He accepted a graceful death surrounded by friends, as he committed suicide by drinking the poison hemlock.

  There is no question about the fact that Socrates was a great and pioneering philosophical thinker. Whether he was a traitor to his city is hard for us to judge. We might ask how a man who held learning and abiding by his laws in such esteem, could be found guilty of treason, though it is clear that his allegiances with anti-democratic ways of governing were not welcome in fourth-century Athens. What really matters is the legacy of philosophical thought that Socrates has left as both a great thinker and, more importantly, as a real human being.

  PART TWO: MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE TRAITORS

  Sir Roger Mortimer

  Roger Mortimer led a somewhat solitary early life under the supervision of his formidable and aggressive uncle, Roger Mortimer of Chirk. As was the custom in the 14th century, he was married relatively young to Joan de Geneville, daughter of a neighbouring lord, in 1301. This union benefitted him greatly and as a result he acquired various estates including Ludlow Castle and an increased influence in Ireland. His privileges did not end here though, and he was also able to succeed to the Lordship of Trim.

  Mortimer’s happiness was short-lived, however, when his father, Lord Wigmore, was killed near Builth in 1304. Mortimer was only sixteen at the time and therefore was not entitled to inherit his father’s legacy for another two years. As a consequence, he was placed by King Edward I under the guardianship of his father’s close friend, Piers Gaveston. In 1306 Mortimer was knighted by Edward, and when he came of age this same year he also received his entire inheritance. From an early age the young Mortimer set himself out as being rather an ambitious man. He had aspirations to leadership and would stop at nothing to achieve these. He was not concerned about morality but instead was preoccupied with his own personal gain.

  UNREST ABROAD

  In 1308 Mortimer was sent to Ireland by Edward II, in order to assert his authority over the country. In Ireland he was met with stern opposition in the form of the de Lacys who were in support of Robert Bruce, the King of Scotland. During this time Mortimer was promoted to the role of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by Edward II. This seems to have been what triggered the king’s ultimate downfall as he fed the desire for power that Mortimer was constantly pursuing. A successful campaign in 1316 meant that Mortimer was able to drive Bruce to Carrickfergus and the de Lacys into Connaught. Following this he led an aggressive campaign of vengeance upon all who were found to be adherents to Bruce or the de Lacys.

  The next couple of years were less exciting for Mortimer as he was involved primarily in baronial disputes on the Welsh border until 1318. Throughout this time Mortimer was not afraid to take power by force, a theme commonly associated with the man of many ambitions. However, Mortimer’s power was limited over the next few years as he joined the growing opposition against the king and refused to obey his summons to appear before him in 1321. Refusing to obey the king was a treasonable act in itself, and when Mortimer was forced to surrender to the king in January 1322, he was lucky to be punished only by consignment to the Tower of London. As was to be expected from Mortimer, he did not stay in the tower for long. A mere two years later he managed to escape and fled to France.

  QUEEN ISABELLA

  In 1325 Edward II’s fragile hold over the throne was pushed to its limits. In an effort to escape from her husband Isabella double-crossed him by pleading to Edward to allow her to go to France in order to use her influence with her brother, Charles IV, in favour of peace. Queen Isabella had other plans in store though, and at the French court she met with Roger Mortimer and became his mistress soon afterwards. Mortimer continued to resist returning to England for as long as the Despensers remained favoured in the country. The Despensers were a particularly prominent family throughout this period and had managed to continually win the favour of Edward II. By the 1320s they had the king’s protection but were loathed by many for their greed and land grabbing tendencies. It is not hard to imagine then that Mortimer and the Queen of England could easily raise the support that they needed for a full blown invasion of England.

  Upon their return to England in 1526, they were joined by Henry, Earl of Lancaster. The support for Queen Isabella was overwhelming, and people paraded in the street to offer help towards the imminent invasion. Edward II quickly sought an escape from the invading surge of people and fled to the west of England. He was captured and imprisoned and, to add insult to injury, he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son who was crowned Edward III in January 1327. This meant little to Mortimer who sought the throne for himself. He proved that he would go to every length to gain himself the title of the King of England, even though he was not actually married to Queen Isabella.

  MORTIMER’S GREED

  Shortly after Roger Mortimer had seized the throne with Isabella’s assistance, he began to become part of something rather more sinister. Later that year he was implicated in the suspicious murder of Edward II and his greed was increasing. He began to make enemies through his bullyish behaviour, claiming estates and profits upon himself. Although Edward III was the rightful heir to the throne, he did not seem able enough to assert himself
against the formidable Mortimer and instead let him act as king in his place. By 1330 things were simply getting too much. Henry Lancaster implored Edward III to assert his independence and fight back against Mortimer’s tyranny. Later that year a parliament was called and both Mortimer and Isabella were seized and charges were put against him of attempting to seize royal power. He was condemned without a trial and hanged in 1330.

  Mortimer’s life was relatively short but he was able to accomplish many of his evil ends. His ambitions of becoming equal to a king’s status were gradually realised as he used force and cunning to achieve this. He clearly felt no sense of loyalty towards his wife and jumped at the opportunity of taking Queen Isabella as his mistress. Mortimer revealed himself as a ruthless calculator, and altogether, a man who should never have been trusted.

  Wat Tyler and Jack Cade

  The methods used by the two men in this chapter to obtain reform, were strikingly similar. Wat Tyler was born in England in the early 14th century, but very little is known about the man with the exception of his fame as leader of the English Peasants’ Revolt in 1381. Jack Cade was also something of a mystery man, and even his name is uncertain. Some of his followers referred to him as John Mortimer and even claimed that he was related to Richard, Duke of York. He suddenly popped up in history in the spring of 1450 as the leader of the Kentish protests.

  What is clear, though, is that both men sought radical reform from the government and an end to the woes that had been plaguing England for some time. Tyler, whose name probably comes from having a family connection with the job of tiling, was a strong character who was not afraid to stand up for what he believed in. Along with much of the English population, he had felt greatly angered by the way in which the peasantry had been treated throughout recent years. England had tragically suffered a massive blow in the form of the plague of 1348–9. So great was this loss that nearly a third of the population of England had perished as a result of disease.

  Naturally this had a knock-on effect upon the English economy, namely the loss of people who were able to fulfil skilled professions. Worst of all, those that could continue their professions had their wages held down. This ruling was made official when parliament passed the Statute of Labourers in 1351 and understandably was not greeted well by the peasantry. In addition to this, labourers were forced to face the wrath of many angry landlords who were attempting to slow down the mobility of labour by using their privileges as landowners. The final blow came in 1380 when parliament ordered an increase in poll tax in order to raise funds in the economically floundering country.

  THE PEASANTS’ REVOLT

  In 1381 Wat Tyler decided to take action against parliament. He appointed himself as leader and set out to stir up a rebellion which would compel parliament to make an agreement with the rebels. This uprising was centred in the south east and frequently used Kent as a base. Fighting first broke out in Essex and swiftly moved on to the borders of Kent. Following the seizure of Canterbury the growing number of rebels and peasantry began an attack on London. After a failed attempt to interview Richard II, Tyler led the heaving mob into the city. As they entered the country’s capital they seemed intent on destruction. First came the brutal murders of a number of Flemish merchants, then followed the obliteration of the palace of the king’s uncle, John of Gaunt.

  The violence seemed to act solely as a warning to the king that the mob would stop at nothing to get the reform that they desired. After another serious rampage in which the rebels took control of the Tower of London, killing both the Archbishop and the treasurer, King Richard II decided it was time to speak to Tyler. On 14 June 1381 the king met the surging mob at Mile End. Tyler issued a series of demands including an end to serfdom and feudal service and also laid down restrictions upon buying and selling. The king reluctantly agreed to these terms and sent the crowd on their way. Sensing that he was on to a winning formula, Tyler returned the next day to ask for a confiscation of all church property. As it happened, the king was not willing to acquiesce to this demand and instead he had the Mayor of London take on Tyler in a fight which eventually killed the rebel.

  After Tyler’s death the king, who was a mere fourteen years of age, was able to take control of the mob and suppress them until the Mayor returned with assistance. The rebellion was finally crushed by the militant bishop of Norwich, Henry le Despenser on 25 June 1381. Tyler had lost his life for nothing as the king swiftly went back on his promises to the people. No reform was realised and the peasantry were forced to live the same life of poverty that they had become accustomed to.

  JACK CADE’S REBELLION

  Jack Cade’s Rebellion was an uprising against the policies of Henry VI. Cade was joined by an army of peasants and small landowners from Kent, who objected to forced labour, corrupt courts, the seizure of their land by nobles and ever increasing taxes. Led by Cade, who was an ex-soldier, the mob gathered in London, but their violent behaviour soon turned the Londoners against them.

  Most of Cade’s mob were forced to accept a pardon issued from the king and returned home without any further bloodshed. Cade, reluctantly, accepted the pardon as well, but was later killed by the Sheriff of Kent.

  Although Cade’s Rebellion has been compared to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, this is an inaccurate comparison. Although Cade’s uprising did attract a large number of peasants, the leaders of the rebellion were land and property owners who objected to the greed of the royal officials who were lining their own pockets at the expense of the crippling tax system. The rebels were also joined by men of the Church who joined them in their fight to try and end the poor government. They were not asking for a sweeping change, but rather the removal of just a handful of councillors, the return of their estates and improved methods of taxation.

  Perkin Warbeck

  Tudor England was a rather unstable place to live following the victory of Henry VII at the Wars of the Roses. The warring families of Lancaster and York had been fighting for years and this came to a head at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 when Henry VII, a Lancastrian, killed the Yorkist king Richard III. But the first few years of the new king’s reign were not smooth sailing. Between the years 1486–99 Henry’s authority was challenged by the ‘pretenders’; various young men who claimed to be heirs to the throne of England. The first of these was Lambert Simnel but the most threatening to Henry was young Perkin Warbeck.

  Warbeck was born in Flanders around 1474. He was never expected to amount to much as he was the son of a lowly burgess, Jehan de Werbecque, and his opportunities to network were severely restricted by his background. His father died in Perkin’s early childhood and he was moved on to Antwerp by his cousin, where he established himself as a boy servant to no one of significance. Having been employed in the service of a Portuguese knight for a year, Warbeck left for Ireland and became the servant of a Breton silk merchant, Pierre John Meno.

  It was in Cork that the young man’s fortunes were to change when some nobles, who had seen him wearing the silk garments of his master, believed him to be royalty. Ireland welcomed the boy with open arms as they had historically been allied with the House of York and were constantly plotting against the new king.

  TREACHERY FROM OVERSEAS

  Athough Warbeck was clearly struggling to master the English language, he was never short of supporters. It seems that Warbeck was manipulated and forced into assuming the identity of Richard, Duke of York, one of the princes who had disappeared in the tower. The Earls of Kildare and Desmond were the instigators of this plot and were careful to create rumours of Richard’s apparent reappearance throughout Ireland. Word spread overseas and Warbeck was soon summoned by Margaret, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy, sister to Edward IV, who had been a great enemy of Henry VII for family reasons. Margaret welcomed the boy as her own nephew and at this point Henry knew that things were starting to get serious. The king broke off all trade links with Flanders in 1493, severing the lucrative cloth trade which was worth a great deal at that
time.

  Henry was faced with a frightening prospect; rulers from all around Europe were flocking to support the young man and there was nothing that Henry could really do. The King was surrounded. By 1493 the king of France, Charles VIII, James VI of Scotland and the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian, all numbered themselves amongst Perkin’s supporters. The boy had become a mere pawn in the plans of individuals with much more power than he had ever possessed. It is unlikely that any of his supporters actually believed that Warbeck was the prince, but more realistically, that they were unhappy that Henry had become king.

  Warbeck’s first public appearance as Richard was at the funeral of Emperor Frederick III in 1493 and he was treated as the rightful king of England at this time. Naturally, Henry was worried. He did not know how long the support would last for Warbeck, and made many efforts to have him seized. As this was going on, the boy’s flagging supporters had been meeting in secret to discuss whether there was more to gain by supporting him or from giving him up.

  ADVANCES ON ENGLAND

  In 1495 the pretender Warbeck mounted his first attack on England. He had gained strength from the backing of the Holy Roman Emperor and was provided with men and ships with which to mount his attack. After his initial defeat in Kent earlier that year he fled to Ireland to rally the support of the Earl of Desmond. Following more defeats on the Irish side, he sought sanctuary in Scotland and was so well received that a marriage was arranged for himself and Catherine Gordon, the daughter of the Earl of Huntley. He was also allocated a generous pension of £1,200 a year in order to fund each of his attacks on England.