No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis will examine the juxtaposition of the duchy of Gascony's importance to the Plantagenet Crown with the difficulties administering the region and protecting it from French interference during the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth centuries, resulting in the necessity of securing the loyalty of Gascon nobles for assistance. The lords of Albret were powerful allies under Edward I (1272-1307), and their defection to the French under his son, Edward II (1307-1327), put Plantagenet Gascony in a vulnerable position when the Hundred Years War began in 1337. Resecuring the loyalty of Albret – and other powerful Gascon lords – was crucial for the English to return Gascony to its pre-war boundaries. It also proved difficult as Gascon nobles had to navigate the complicated feudal relationship wherein they owed fealty to the duke of Aquitaine – a title held by the king of England – who in turn owed fealty to the king of France. These nobles frequently decided their loyalty based on self-interest; the lords of Albret were no exception. Gascony was important to the Plantagenet kings for its wine trade, strategic location, and as the last of their continental hereditary lands. Having a loyal base of noblemen was imperative for military success in Gascony, especially given the scope of the war and the dearth of available troops to send to the duchy. The lord of Albret provided strength and men to the English cause and was well compensated in return. Through the lens of the Gascon rolls, this work will examine the methods used by the Plantagenet kings to obtain and secure Gascon loyalty and why the Gascon noblemen provided this allegiance.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Abstract not available

The frontier was once described as lands on the periphery of a culture. I argue that frontier spaces are a third space where hybridity can occur. Several of these areas existed in the medieval world with many centering around the Mediterranean and its surrounding lands. The Norman kingdom of Sicily is one such place. Utilizing three chronicles of the time, while looking through the lens of the frontier, something not done by other modern historical texts, a distinctiveness begins to become apparent. The geographic location, the island's past, and the eventual conquest by the Normans provide a base for hybridity to appear. The eventual kingdom came to have more than Christian subjects, they would have Muslim, Jewish and Byzantine Greeks as well. These communities entangling with one another eventually adopted ideas, languages, building styles, and more which is common in a frontier environment. They created something unique when compared to other Norman settlements such as Antioch, Edessa, or in Wales. When looking at the administration, propaganda, toleration and material culture of the kingdom and these settlements a uniqueness becomes clear. After usurping the former ruler and instilling their own administration the Normans had maintained the former structures of power; they had also utilized their subjects to help create a lasting legacy, one which is admired even today. The other settlements shared similarities, Antioch, for instance, was conquered the same way as Sicily. The Norman administration pushed for full integration, but the Christian subjects often still clashed showcasing a long-held unease with the other cultures in the kingdom. The administration also experienced their own cultural entanglement adopting Muslim thinking. The hybridity of cultures experienced in Sicily went unmatched by any other Norman settlement and would be the cause of their unique identity.

The Fall of Rome (or more specifically the Western Roman Empire) remains a hotly debated subject in the history of Late Antiquity. The Battle of Adrianople can be argued to be the beginning of Rome's end, but the cause of the battle lay more with Rome's imperial mismanagement than any deliberate attempt at war from the barbarians. Rome turned against those who would have defended the empire, and for many centuries had done just that. Despite being forced into an antagonistic relationship with Rome, their reputation as the cause of Rome's calamity has remained to the present day. This thesis will first argue that the fault lies more with Rome than with the various barbarian tribes. After making that argument, it will investigate why the "barbarian invader" myth has remained in the public consciousness for more than 1500 years after Rome's fall.