Comments on: Regarding Henry (and his bodycount)

By: Mark in Texas

Mark in Texas — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:29:16 +0000

But there was that business with the monasteries. I would imagine that would cause some sort of spike in the numbers. I remember hearing the number 10,000 deaths from the destruction of the monasteries but I don’t remember where so I can’t vouch for its veracity.

Considering that monasteries tended to organize the agriculture, manufactures and commerce in the areas where they operated, it seems likely that there might have been some kind of “Great Leap Forward” type disruption that might have resulted in similar sorts of results even if people were not being stabbed with swords or dragged to the gallows.

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:04:15 +0000

Thanks Jack, a nice bit of considered working-out. Your result seems about right considering the order of magnitude by which (post)medieval sources tend to exaggerate numbers.

By: Jack Sprocket

Jack Sprocket — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:58:47 +0000

Well, unless they claimed 72000 per year, I make it about 5 a day or 36 a week, for the whole of his reign. That’s a lot, but assuming it was spread over the whole country, not just London, but approximately pro rata to population with extra for London to allow for the greater wickedness of the capital, that would be something like 10 a week in London (3 or 4 batches perhaps), 3 each in Norwich and Bristol, and the rest in ones and twos up and down the country. And given that executions would have peaked at times of unrest, like the Pilgrimage of Grace, the “peacetime” average could have been quite a lot lower.

So though a large number, it’s not impossible, but is it likely? In the 18th century executions seem to have averaged about 100 per year for England and Wales, and I think (without evidence) that contemporaries would have remarked had there been a steep decline in the intervening tyears. So my guess would have been for perhaps 4 or 5 times the rate in the bloodthirstly Tudor period- giving Henry a gross total of about 17000 or so.

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:10:07 +0000

Not a bit of it – you can’t be expected to fact-check every little thing. That’s what pedants like me are for! Keep up the good work.

By: Last Writes

Last Writes — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:24:46 +0000

What a great site. Thanks for your kind words and for debunking the dubious 72,000 stat. And yes, you’re absolutely right ‘Big Brother’ is a truly alarming source to quote. It won’t happen again.

BTW, apologies if I made it sound like Henry overzealously bumped off all his wives. That was not my intention. I’ve hopefully clarified our latest post to ensure the record is straight.

As for ‘Deadliest Warrior’ being arse gravy, so very true.