Buzz
Although Renaissance thinkers weren’t particularly fond of the Middle Ages, the era gave rise to figures who carried out extraordinary actions. These individuals have remained influential for centuries, evolving as much as the technology of our time. Let’s take a closer look at some iconic medieval figures and the misunderstandings surrounding them.
10. Machiavelli Was Fond of Republics and Disliked Principalities
Niccolo Machiavelli, born in 1469, lived as the Middle Ages were drawing to a close. As feudalism started to wane, many Europeans began questioning the authority of monarchies. A native Florentine, Machiavelli became deeply engrossed in political theory, and it was at this pivotal moment in history that he crafted his enduring contributions to political thought.
Machiavelli’s most famous work is The Prince, which he completed in 1513. Often criticized as a manual for tyrants, the book offers advice on ruling a state with a monarchical system, suggesting tactics that appear immoral, deceitful, and unscrupulous, all supposedly in pursuit of the greater good. It is frequently linked to the phrase 'the ends justify the means.'
In the year leading up to the completion of The Prince, the Medici family reclaimed power in Florence after a short period of exile. They were not to be underestimated—driven by the desire to consolidate as much power as possible, they showed little patience for opposition. As a result, they subjected Machiavelli and his republican associates to torture.
Indeed, Machiavelli was a staunch advocate for republicanism, not monarchy. His republican ideals are most prominently expressed in The Discourses on Livy. When the Medici returned to power, Machiavelli was accused of conspiring against the rulers, dismissed from his position, and endured a year of imprisonment and torture.
After his release, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, dedicating it to Lorenzo de Medici, the man partly responsible for his suffering. Some believe Machiavelli wrote the work to placate the new rulers of Florence and avoid further punishment. Others suggest he changed his perspective, though given that The Discourses were written around 1517, it’s likely Machiavelli maintained his republican beliefs. Thus, while The Prince is often regarded as practical advice for rulers, it could also be interpreted as satire or a form of sabotage, designed to bring down the Medici and clear the way for a republic in Florence.
9. Gutenberg is not the inventor of the printing press.
However, the truth is that Gutenberg didn’t invent the printing press itself. His press, created in 1439, made the technology accessible and widely available in Europe, but he wasn’t the original inventor. It’s even possible that his press was influenced by existing designs of the time.
The origin of printing presses can be traced back to Asia, where Chinese and Korean inventors developed similar technology nearly a century before Gutenberg. Given the robust trade between Europe and Asia in the 15th century, it’s likely that Gutenberg was aware of these Asian innovations.
In fact, the Chinese had been refining the printing process for centuries. As early as 2300 B.C., the Sumerians began experimenting with printing blocks. By the 800s, the Chinese were already using woodblock printing, and in the 1000s, a man named Bi Sheng invented movable type. One of the most notable examples of a mass-produced Chinese book from the medieval period is The Book of Agriculture, written by Wang Zhen and printed in 1313.
Printing in China dates back centuries, with the Sumerians developing printing blocks as early as 2300 B.C. By the 800s, Chinese woodblock printing was in full swing, and in the 1000s, Bi Sheng’s invention of movable type paved the way for mass production of books. One prominent example of a medieval Chinese book is The Book of Agriculture by Wang Zhen, which was printed in 1313.
In 1377, a Korean monk named Baegun invented metal movable type, which proved to be more durable than wooden type. He used this innovation to print a book on Buddhist teachings. From there, it was up to Gutenberg to design a press capable of mass-producing these printed works.
8. William Wallace Was Not the Face-Painted Peasant from Gibson’s Film
William Wallace, the famous Scottish hero, became widely known through Mel Gibson’s 1995 film Braveheart. The movie dramatizes Wallace’s role in the First Scottish War of Independence in the late 13th century. In it, Wallace is portrayed as a short peasant who dons kilts and blue face paint, loses his wife due to the cruel prima nocta law, has an affair with a French princess, and leads the Scots in their fight for freedom.
The issue with Braveheart lies in its numerous historical inaccuracies. While it retains the core of Wallace’s story, the film provides a rather distorted portrayal of the Scottish hero. Contrary to his cinematic image, Wallace was not a common peasant, but a lesser noble whose father owned land. He was knighted and appointed Guardian of Scotland by King John Baliol, Robert the Bruce’s predecessor. Wallace was also significantly taller than Gibson’s portrayal, standing around 198 cm (6'6”) compared to Gibson’s 178 cm (5'10”).
What about Wallace’s romantic life? Wallace was married to a woman named Marion Braidfute, who resided in the English-held Lanark Castle. Their marriage was kept secret, but when the English discovered it, they killed Marion. However, their motive appeared to be more about territorial control than any moral outrage. The infamous tale of 'prima nocta' is likely a long-standing myth, created to provoke moral discussions. As for the French princess, Isabella, she was only around nine years old during the events depicted in the film and was still living in France.
Braveheart also unfairly portrays Wallace’s loyal companions, Sir Andrew de Moray and Richard of Lundie. In reality, they were co-leaders in the assault on Lanark. Although Richard of Lundie later switched allegiance to the English, de Moray was appointed Guardian of Scotland alongside Wallace, granting them both the authority of the King. De Moray was as vital to the cause as Wallace, though he was killed in 1297.
While Wallace and Andrew de Moray were key figures in the conflict, their efforts were overshadowed by Robert the Bruce. After the Scots surrendered in 1302 and Wallace was executed in 1305, it was Bruce who led the movement toward Scottish independence. In 1306, Bruce succeeded where Wallace left off, ultimately securing Scotland's freedom in 1314, far more than Wallace's actions had.
Finally, the movie’s depiction of costumes is a historical disaster. Kilts, which the characters wear, didn’t come into use until centuries after the film’s events. Additionally, the use of blue face paint had already fallen out of practice long before the time period shown in the film.
7. El Cid Fought For Muslims
Rodrigo Diaz is one of the most iconic figures in Spanish history. In the eighth century, the Moors, a group of Muslims from North Africa, invaded and conquered Spain. Diaz, known as 'El Cid' to the Moors and 'El Campeador' to the Christians, is seen as a key figure in the Christian push to expel the Moors during the late 11th century. Because of this, he has been celebrated as a hero of Christian Spain, notably in the 1961 film El Cid, starring Charlton Heston.
In reality, Diaz was a mercenary. He fought for both sides, as long as the pay was good, whether it came from the Moors or the Christians. After the assassination of his original employer, King Sancho II, Diaz continued his service to Christian Spain under Alfonso VI. However, when Diaz conducted an unsanctioned raid into Toledo, he was exiled from Alfonso’s kingdom. In exile, Diaz left Christianity behind and agreed to fight for the Moors, leading them in several significant battles alongside Muslim commanders.
Diaz first made contact with the Moors in 1065, the same year that Sancho II became king. Fighting for the Muslim dynasty of Saragossa, Diaz defeated anyone who posed a threat to King al-Mu’tamin, whether they were Christian or Moor. In 1087, Alfonso VI, swallowing his pride, sought Diaz's help against the Moors, but it wasn’t long before Diaz returned to Saragossa.
In 1094, Diaz captured Valencia on his own and established a fiefdom there, with both Muslims and Christians living under his rule. While Valencia was nominally part of Alfonso’s Christian Spain, in practice, it operated independently. Despite his role as a Christian general, the course of Diaz’s life suggests that his motivations were driven more by wealth than by religious fervor in battle.
6. Richard The Lionheart Probably Couldn’t Speak English
You’re probably familiar with Richard the Lionheart, the king of England from 1189 to 1199, thanks to films set around the time of the Third Crusade. He is often depicted as one of England’s most courageous and powerful kings, a fierce leader who earned the respect of his legendary adversary, Saladin.
While King Richard I may have been brave and fierce, he certainly wasn’t particularly proud of being English. In fact, he may not have even spoken the English language. For a period of time, the language of the English nobility was French, a legacy of the Norman conquest by William the Conqueror in 1066. Throughout his 10-year reign, Richard spent very little time in England and even considered selling the kingdom. Most of his time was spent campaigning in the Middle East or in France.
Richard had a challenging reign. Shortly after his coronation, he embarked on the Third Crusade after making a vow to join it. In 1190, Richard’s fleet was shipwrecked near Cyprus, where he and his men were treated poorly by the island’s ruler. In retaliation, Richard conquered Cyprus and deposed its king, but he ultimately failed to capture Jerusalem and decided to withdraw.
Once again, Richard found himself shipwrecked. However, this time, instead of seizing land from an opposing monarch, he was captured by the Duke of Austria. The ransom set for his release was an astounding sum—equivalent to a quarter of the annual income of every Englishman. He was freed in 1194. The rest of Richard's reign was consumed with campaigning in France. At the age of 41, he was struck by an arrow and fatally wounded while besieging a French castle in 1199. On his deathbed, he pardoned the man who shot him, but shortly after his passing, the archer was flayed and hanged.
5. Joan of Arc Didn’t Actually Fight in Battle
Joan of Arc was an unexpected but highly influential leader who lifted the spirits of the French during the Hundred Years’ War. Allegedly guided by the voices of saints, Joan was captured by the English and burned at the stake for heresy in 1431. However, the French would go on to win the war some 30 years after her death.
Joan of Arc never killed anyone. In fact, she didn’t actively engage in combat. While she did appear on the front lines and was wounded in the process, her role was more about inspiring the French forces rather than fighting. Clad in a specially made suit of armor, Joan would lift her iconic battle standard during combat, rallying her troops to victory.
Joan of Arc was born circa 1412 in Domremy, France, the daughter of a peasant farmer. Domremy was situated right on the border between France and Burgundy, an area marked by constant conflict. Joan traveled to the nearby town of Vaucouleurs, where she convinced a local captain to grant her passage to Chinon to meet with the dauphin (heir to the throne), Charles.
Regardless of whether he believed her claims, Charles of Chinon decided to trust Joan. Alongside her brothers and French general La Hire, Joan and the French army managed to free Orleans. Her leadership inspired the French to secure several additional victories, culminating in the coronation of Charles in Reims. Joan was also instrumental in reforming the army, expelling prostitutes, enforcing church attendance and confession, and banning swearing, looting, and harassment. She played a key role in shaping the army’s tactics as well.
Joan of Arc was canonized as a saint in 1920. Revered as a national hero in France, her life is commemorated every second Sunday of May. Additionally, she is honored with a feast on May 30.
4. Dracula Wasn’t Linked to Vampirism Until Bram Stoker’s Dracula
In Bram Stoker's classic tale, Dracula emerges as the dark, supernatural antagonist, threatening a group of unsuspecting Brits and their seasoned Dutch ally, Van Helsing. This novel, along with its many adaptations, played a significant role in popularizing the vampire myth in Western culture.
Stoker’s inspiration for the iconic figure of Dracula stemmed from the folklore of southeastern Europe, but he also drew extensively from the historical figure Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, also known as Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Dracula. While Vlad is the novel's central villain, his connection to vampirism was not established until the book’s release.
Born in 1431 in Transylvania (now part of Romania), Vlad was the son of Vlad II, the ruler of Wallachia. His father was a key figure in the Christian Order of the Dragon, fighting against the Ottoman Empire. Wallachia was a violent region, caught between Christianity and Islam. A diplomatic meeting with Sultan Murad II led to Vlad II’s capture. Although Vlad II was eventually freed, he was murdered by local warlords.
Upon his release, Vlad III ascended to rule Wallachia, where his thirst for vengeance became infamous. He executed disloyal warlords by inviting them to a banquet, only to kill them by stabbing them. He also repelled several major Ottoman invasions. His notorious method of execution—impaling his enemies on sharp poles—earned him the gruesome moniker. He allegedly killed 80,000 people, with 20,000 impaled in this horrific fashion.
Although Vlad was praised as a Christian hero for his defense against the Turks, his reign ended in tragedy. In 1476, he was ambushed and killed, much to the relief of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who had taken Constantinople in 1453.
3. Was King Arthur Possibly A Roman Soldier?
When it comes to the historical legitimacy of King Arthur, the search for the true identity of this legendary figure is as elusive as the Holy Grail itself. Many scholars believe there must be some historical figure behind the myth, though no one has been able to definitively identify who that figure might be.
Among the most popular theories are three possible candidates: Owain Ddantgwyn, Lucius Artorius Castus, and Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ddantgwyn, a sixth-century Welsh monarch, held the title of 'bear,' which translates to 'Arth' in Byrthonic. His father was named Enniaun Yrth, a name that closely resembles Uther-Pen-Dragon, the father of King Arthur. Ddantgwyn was eventually succeeded by his nephew, just as Arthur’s reign ended with his overthrow by a family member.
Castus, on the other hand, was a Roman cavalry commander in the second century who commanded horsemen across the empire. Perhaps his legacy inspired the tales of the Knights of the Round Table? His surname, Artorius, may sound familiar, linking him to the mythic figure of King Arthur.
Finally, there's Ambrosius Aurelianus, a fifth-century British king with Roman roots. Known for his defense of the Britons against the invading Anglo-Saxons, Aurelianus earned the admiration of many historians.
It’s also possible that Arthur was a creation of the Welsh historian Nennius, who might have retroactively inserted the legendary figure into the Saxon wars of the 500s. Nennius’s writings contain the earliest known printed reference to Arthur, around the year 800, and while he mentions Aurelianus, he treats Arthur and Aurelianus as distinct figures.
2. Was Robin Hood Just A Common Thief?
Over time, the identity of Robin Hood has become increasingly blurred. At different points, he’s been depicted as a nobleman, a skilled archer, and even as a fox in a Disney adaptation. Regardless of the version, Robin Hood is consistently portrayed as an outlaw who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, hiding in Sherwood Forest with his band of Merry Men.
The first documented literary mention of Robin Hood dates back to 1377. Scholars speculate that the iconic Robin Hood may have been inspired by a real individual. The intriguing part is that there were several Robin Hoods in 13th-century England. They often appear in legal records, used as labels for criminals who wore robes and hoods. The 'true' Robin Hood could have simply been a peasant bandit trying to earn quick money.
One plausible historical figure who could be Robin Hood is Roger Godberd, a yeoman peasant who, along with a group of outlaws, robbed travelers and poached deer. He was even apprehended by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Another potential match is William Wallace, the renowned Scottish hero who fought against the English during the First Scottish War of Independence in the late 13th century. Wallace and Robin Hood have many similarities: both were considered outlaws by English law, had a love interest named Marion, had conflicts with local sheriffs, and hid in forests with their groups. Wallace’s seal even depicts a longbow. However, it's unlikely that such a significant Scottish nationalist figure would have so easily found a place in English folklore.
The true identity of Robin Hood, if he ever existed, may remain an enigma. It is said that his grave lies in Kirklees Park, while the grave of his loyal companion, Little John, is reportedly located in Derbyshire.
1. Macbeth Was A Fair And Benevolent Monarch
Most people are familiar with Macbeth through William Shakespeare’s iconic play. The story centers around Macbeth, a skilled Scottish general and thane, who murders King Duncan. With the help of three malevolent witches and manipulation from his wife, Macbeth seizes the throne for himself, depriving Duncan’s son Malcolm of his rightful inheritance. As king, Macbeth proves to be ineffective, and a coalition of Scottish rebels and English forces eventually overthrows him, placing Malcolm on the Scottish throne.
Shakespeare’s play was highly relevant politically when it premiered in the early 1600s, especially in its exploration of the relationship between England and Scotland. However, Shakespeare prioritized storytelling over strict historical accuracy. In truth, King Duncan was an inept warmonger who led Scotland into catastrophic military campaigns. Did Macbeth kill him? It’s possible. Macbeth may have even sided with Duncan’s Norse enemies. In 1040, Macbeth was declared king of Scotland, with his Norse allies, led by Thorfinn, receiving land in Scotland.
During his reign, Macbeth attempted to repair the damage caused by Duncan. He worked to restore the Scottish countryside and mend relations with other nations. Meanwhile, Malcolm gained support in England. Under English law, he had a legitimate claim to the throne as Duncan’s descendant, while Macbeth did not. However, Scottish law didn’t follow the same rules. With England’s backing, Malcolm invaded Scotland and killed Macbeth in 1057, but Scotland resisted Malcolm’s rule. Macbeth’s stepson Lulac and his ally Thorfinn campaigned against Malcolm, but their efforts were futile. Malcolm ascended to the throne of Scotland in 1058.
