There are many things that can be learned from studying the history of other parts of the world, but just what can the American city of Philadelphia learn from Medieval France and Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral? Michael Leibrandt considers this question.

A depiction of Napoleon Bonaparte arriving at NotreDame Cathedral for his coronation as emperor in December 1804.

In Philadelphia we like to think that our colonial roots in history — some of the oldest and most important from the inception of the U.S. — is pretty ancient. But when is comes to the history from across the pond — from our ancestors who spawned European colonization to these colonies — we’re actually relatively youthful.

What we do have, is some of the very first history given to us from the earliest days of William Penn’s Philadelphia. Penn wasn’t just interested in a temporary settlement at the convergence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers in the 17th century. His metropolis — who name was chosen from the roots of Greek mythology — was built to last.

This week, the historic Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral — located in the 4th arrondissement on an island in the River Seine in Paris, France — reopens to the public for the first time in nearly five years. In April of 2019, the Cathedral fell victim to a fire to its structure on the roof area including its iconic spire. The resulting damage led to Notre Dame not holding a Christmas Mass for the first year since 1803.

The vision of Bishop Maurice de Sully in 1163, Notre Dame Cathedral was finally substantially complete in 1260. Through the centuries, Notre Dame Cathedral was the site of many historic events. It saw the signing of the Magnificat which liberated Paris from German control during World War II eighty years ago, saw the funerals of many French Presidents, and even was the site of Emperor Napoleon’s coronation in 1804.

Back home in Philadelphia across the Atlantic Ocean, Philadelphia’s oldest remaining structure and oldest Church in Pennsylvania was damaged in April 1964 when lighting ignited a fire sixty years ago in Old Swedes (Gloria Dei) Church under Christopher Columbus Blvd. The resulting fire damaged the roof forcing repairs to be made.

Also in 1964 — South Philadelphia’s Third Baptist Church burned to the ground and could not be saved causing $400,000 worth of damage. Within five years, the church was rebuilt and was dedicated in September of 1969. The rebuilt structure kept alive the Third Baptist Church which had been a South Philadelphia landmark since 1811.

In May of 2021 in Northeast Philadelphia — St. Leo’s Catholic Church in Tacony was burned beyond repair. Four suspects were charged in the arson of the church whose original structure that dates between 1885–1895. St. Leo’s memories were relegated to its historical time capsules.

But what Notre Dame’s five year, $740 million restoration that included some 2,000 architects isn’t just a financial commitment of epic proportions. It’s paying a homage to the past that won’t let the most historic architecture be demolished when met with modern day disasters. Philadelphia — one of America’s oldest cities that still in 2024 contains architecture from the days of its founder William Penn — shares that same resolve.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

War is full of unlikely stories, isn't it? But what happened at Castle Itter in May 1945 almost defies belief. Imagine this: American soldiers, disillusioned German troops, and French political prisoners standing shoulder to shoulder to fend off a Waffen-SS attack. It sounds like something out of a dramatic wartime novel, or a late-night history channel special, but it's not. This really happened, complete with all its strange twists and turns.

Richard Clements explains.

Major Josef Gangl.

Castle Itter: A Fortress of Contrasts

Nestled above the Austrian village of Itter, Castle Itter has seen its share of transformations over the centuries. Originally a medieval fortress, it evolved into a 19th-century Alpine retreat, the kind of place you'd imagine travelers visiting for fresh air and sweeping mountain views. Picture it: quiet mornings with coffee on the terrace, surrounded by the majesty of the Tyrolean Alps. But history has a way of disrupting even the most tranquil settings.

In 1938, when Nazi Germany annexed Austria, the castle's fate changed dramatically. The Nazis took over and, by 1943, had turned this once-idyllic spot into a high-security prison for France's most influential captives. I've always found it jarring to imagine, a place that once welcomed guests with charm now holding figures like former French premiers Édouard Daladier and Paul Reynaud under lock and key. The contrast between its picturesque exterior and the grim reality inside is hard to shake.

 

Desperation and Calls for Help

By early May 1945, the Third Reich was in free fall. Hitler was dead, Allied forces were advancing on all fronts, and German command structures were collapsing. Castle Itter's SS guards, sensing the end, fled their posts. For the prisoners, their temporary freedom was bittersweet. They were unarmed, surrounded by hostile forests teeming with Waffen-SS troops, and unsure of their fate.

Their first hope came in the form of Zvonimir Čučković, a Yugoslav handyman. Risking everything, Čučković slipped out of the castle with a plea for help. He eventually reached American troops near Innsbruck. Meanwhile, Andreas Krobot, the castle's Czech cook, pedaled to the nearby town of Wörgl, where he found Major Josef Gangl, a Wehrmacht officer who had turned against the Nazis. Gangl was already working with Austrian resistance fighters to protect local civilians from SS reprisals.

Gangl's decision to side with the Allies wasn't simple. A decorated veteran of the Eastern Front, he had seen more than his share of the horrors inflicted by Nazi ideology. By May 1945, his disillusionment was complete. Protecting the prisoners at Castle Itter wasn't just a strategic choice; it was a deeply personal stand against a regime he no longer believed in.

 

An Unlikely Alliance

Gangl sought out Captain Jack Lee, a tank commander in the U.S. 12th Armored Division. When I picture their first meeting, I imagine a tense moment. Gangl, a former enemy, approaching with a white flag, hoping the Americans wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later. To Lee's credit, he listened. Gangl explained the situation, and the two men devised a rescue mission. It wasn't a large force – just a handful of American soldiers, some of Gangl's defecting troops, and Lee's Sherman tank, nicknamed Besotten Jenny.

By the time they reached the castle, night was falling, and tensions were high. Inside the castle, the prisoners had armed themselves with whatever they could find. Jean Borotra, the French tennis star, had taken charge of organizing them, though most were untrained in combat. Lee and Gangl knew they were outnumbered and outgunned, but retreat wasn't an option.

 

The Battle Begins

The Waffen-SS launched their attack at dawn on May 5, 1945. Machine gun fire rained down on the castle, and the SS deployed a formidable 88mm flak cannon. Besotten Jenny provided critical support until it was destroyed by enemy fire. The defenders, American GIs, Wehrmacht defectors, and French prisoners, fought side by side. Gangl, ever the protector, was killed by a sniper while trying to shield one of the French leaders from harm.

Jean Borotra was an unexpected figure in this story. A celebrated tennis champion and former French official, he seemed far removed from the violence of war. Yet, by the time he stood with a rifle in Castle Itter, the choice was clear, fight or face certain death. His courage, like that of many others in this strange battle, was a testament to the resilience of those thrust into unimaginable circumstances.

As the situation grew desperate, Borotra volunteered for a daring mission. Scaling the castle wall, he slipped past enemy lines to find reinforcements. It's hard not to marvel at his courage. Imagine sprinting through a war zone, unarmed, knowing that every step could be your last. But Borotra succeeded. He reached a nearby U.S. unit, and by mid-afternoon, reinforcements arrived. Tanks rolled up the hill, scattering the SS and securing the castle.

 

Relief and Redemption

By the time the battle ended, the defenders had achieved the impossible. Around 100 SS soldiers were captured, and the castle was safe. But the victory came at a cost. Major Gangl's death was a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who stood against tyranny, even at great personal risk.

Gangl was posthumously honored as a hero of the Austrian resistance, with a street in Wörgl named after him. Captain Lee was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his leadership. The French prisoners, including Borotra, returned to France as symbols of resilience and survival.

 

A Moment of Shared Purpose

The Battle of Castle Itter is more than a bizarre historical event – it's a stark reminder of how humanity can emerge in even the darkest moments of war. Think about it: American soldiers and disillusioned Germans, once fierce adversaries, joining forces to defend French prisoners. For a few hours, all the labels – enemy, ally, prisoner, faded, leaving behind something simpler and more profound: the will to survive together.

When I reflect on this story, it's the humanity that stands out. War often draws hard lines between people, but this battle reminds us that those lines aren't as immovable as they seem. Sometimes, shared danger is enough to bring people together, even when everything else says they should be divided.

 

The Castle Today

Castle Itter still stands, quiet and unassuming, on its hill above the village. Its weathered stones, scarred from the events of May 1945, seem almost reluctant to reveal the extraordinary story they witnessed. To me, that makes its story even more compelling. It's not just a relic of history; it's a reminder of what can happen when courage and circumstance push people to rise above the divisions of war.

This is a tale worth telling, not just for its strangeness, but for the glimpse it offers into the complexities of human nature. The walls of Castle Itter hold more than memories; they hold a legacy of unity in the face of chaos.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

References

·       Bell, Bethany. "The Austrian Castle Where Nazis Lost to German-US Force." BBC News, 7 May 2015.

·       Harding, Stephen. The Last Battle. Da Capo Press, 2013.

·       Rampe, Will. "Why the Battle of Castle Itter Is the Strangest Battle in History." The Spectator, 28 April 2022.

·       Wands, Christopher. "Strange History: The Battle of Castle Itter." The Historians Magazine, 2022.

·       Various authors, "Battle of Castle Itter," Wikipedia, accessed 2023.

Julius Caesar, born in 100 BCE, remains one of history's most celebrated and controversial figures. A military genius, a shrewd politician, and a man of undeniable ambition, Caesar reshaped the Roman Republic and laid the foundation for the Roman Empire. His life, filled with dramatic conquests and political maneuvering, ended in tragedy but left an indelible mark on the ancient world.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Death of Caesar by Jean-Léon Gérôme.

Early life and rise to power

Born into the patrician gens Julia, a family claiming descent from Venus, Caesar's youth was marked by political instability. His family was influential but not wealthy, and Rome was rife with power struggles. Caesar aligned himself with populist causes, earning the favor of Rome's lower classes. His early political career included service as a quaestor, aedile, and praetor, during which he gained popularity through public games and displays of generosity.

Caesar's charm, intelligence, and oratory skills made him a rising star and his strategic marriage alliance strengthened his position. His partnership with Crassus, Rome's wealthiest man, and Pompey, its most powerful general, formed the First Triumvirate in 60 BCE. This unofficial alliance enabled Caesar to secure the consulship in 59 BCE and set the stage for his unprecedented rise.

 

Military campaigns and triumphs

Caesar's military career began in earnest when he was assigned governorship over Gaul. From 58–50 BCE, he conducted the Gallic Wars, expanding Roman territory to the Rhine and the English Channel. His conquest of Gaul is considered one of history's most brilliant military achievements, chronicled in his work, Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

Caesar's key victories include:

·       Battle of Alesia (52 BCE): A masterstroke of siege warfare, Caesar defeated a vast Gallic army led by Vercingetorix, ensuring Roman dominance over Gaul.

·       Crossing the Rhine (55 BCE): Caesar became the first Roman general to bridge and cross the Rhine River, showcasing Rome's engineering prowess and his daring leadership.

·       Invasions of Britain took place in 55 BCE and 54 BCE. Although not a complete conquest, Caesar's expeditions to Britain demonstrated Rome's capacity for far-reaching campaigns.

 

These victories earned him immense wealth, the loyalty of his legions, and a reputation as one of Rome's greatest generals. However, his successes also bred envy and fear among the Senate.

 

Political ambitions

Caesar's military triumphs bolstered his political ambitions. Upon returning from Gaul, he faced resistance from the Senate, led by Pompey, now his rival. Refusing to disband his army, Caesar crossed the Rubicon River in 49 BCE, famously declaring, Alea iacta est, (the die is cast). This act of defiance ignited a civil war.

Caesar's campaigns during the Civil War showcased his strategic brilliance:

·       Battle of Pharsalus (48 BCE): Outnumbered, Caesar defeated Pompey's forces in Greece, forcing his rival to flee to Egypt, where Pompey was assassinated.

·       Battle of Thapsus (46 BCE): Caesar crushed the remaining opposition in North Africa, consolidating his hold over the Republic.

·       Battle of Munda (45 BCE): His final victory over the sons of Pompey in Spain marked the end of the civil war.

 

In 44 BCE, Caesar declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). While his reforms, including the Julian calendar and debt relief measures, were popular with the masses, his consolidation of power alienated the Senate and traditional republican elites.

 

Strengths and weaknesses

Caesar's greatest strength was his ability to inspire loyalty. His soldiers admired him for sharing their hardships and leading from the front. His charisma and oratory won over allies and citizens alike. Strategically, Caesar was unparalleled, blending boldness with calculated risk-taking.

However, his ambition was also his Achilles' heel. His drive for power and disregard for republican norms alienated many, fostering deep resentment among Rome's elite. His rapid accumulation of titles and honors, such as the right to wear a laurel wreath and purple robe, was perceived as monarchic.

 

Assassination and legacy

On the 15th of March, 44 BCE, (the Ides of March), Caesar was assassinated by a group of senators led by Brutus and Cassius. They claimed to restore the Republic, but their act plunged Rome into further civil wars, ultimately leading to the rise of the Roman Empire under Augustus, Caesar's adopted heir.

Caesar's legacy is profound. His reforms reshaped Rome's governance and society. His military campaigns expanded Rome's borders and demonstrated the capabilities of Roman arms. His assassination symbolized the end of the Republic and the dawn of imperial rule.

In life, Julius Caesar was a man of contradictions: a populist aristocrat, a conqueror with a vision for unity, and a leader whose ambition both built and unraveled his world. His name endures, synonymous with power and legacy, a testament to his extraordinary life.

In conclusion, Julius Caesar's life exemplifies the complex interplay of ambition, leadership, and fate. Rising from modest beginnings within the Roman elite, he redefined the trajectory of Rome through military brilliance, political acumen, and an unrelenting drive for power. Caesar's reforms laid the groundwork for a more centralized and structured governance system, while his conquests expanded the Roman world to unprecedented dimensions.

However, his journey also illustrates the perils of unchecked ambition and the fragility of power. Caesar's consolidation of authority, while transformative, disrupted the delicate balance of the Republic and ignited fears of tyranny among his contemporaries. His assassination, meant to restore the republican ideal, instead catalyzed the final collapse of the Republic and ushered in the era of the Roman Empire under Augustus.

Caesar's enduring legacy is not merely in the monuments, texts, and reforms he left behind, but in the larger-than-life figure he became. His name itself became a title for emperors—Caesar in Rome and later derivatives such as Kaiserand Tsar. To this day, he symbolizes both the potential for greatness and the dangers of overreaching power.

Julius Caesar's story is a reminder of the profound impact a single individual can have on history. His genius, ambition, and flaws continue to captivate and inspire, making him not only a cornerstone of Roman history but also a figure of timeless significance. As we look back on his life, we see in Caesar a reflection of humanity's greatest strengths and most enduring vulnerabilities—a man who reshaped his world and remains, even millennia later, a symbol of what it means to lead and to aspire.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

Notes:

Quaestor

In ancient Rome, a quaestor was a public official primarily responsible for financial and administrative duties. The position, which originated during the early Republic, was among the first steps on the cursus honorum, the structured sequence of public offices leading to higher positions of power.

Quaestors managed the state treasury, oversaw the collection of taxes, and kept financial records. Some served as aides to provincial governors, supervising the financial aspects of governance, while others managed Rome's grain supply or military finances, accompanying generals on campaigns to handle funds and supplies.

Over time, the number of quaestors expanded to accommodate the growing administrative needs of the Republic and, later, the Empire. Their work was crucial for maintaining the fiscal stability of the Roman state.

 

Aedile

An aedile was a public official in Ancient Rome responsible for various aspects of the city's administration, particularly its infrastructure and public order. The position originated in the early Republic, initially tied to the plebeians as assistants to the tribunes, but later expanded to include patrician aediles.

Their duties included overseeing the maintenance of public buildings, roads, and temples, as well as managing the water supply and sanitation. Aediles also regulated markets, ensured the availability and fair pricing of goods, and organized public games and festivals, making the role both administrative and ceremonial. Serving as an aedile was often seen as a stepping stone in a political career, providing an opportunity to gain public favor through the sponsorship of grand spectacles and improvements to the city.

 

Praetor

A praetor was a high-ranking public official and magistrate in Ancient Rome, second only to the consuls in the hierarchy of the Roman Republic and later the Empire. Originally established in 367 BCE, the office of praetor was primarily judicial, with praetors overseeing legal cases and interpreting Roman law.

They were tasked with administering justice in both civil disputes among Roman citizens (praetor urbanus) and cases involving foreigners (praetor peregrinus). Over time, their responsibilities expanded to include governance of provinces and command of military forces, especially as Rome's territories grew. Praetors held imperium, a form of authority that allowed them to command armies and exercise significant control in their areas of jurisdiction. They also played a vital role in proposing and enacting laws, often shaping Roman legal and administrative systems significantly.

 

Cursus honorum

The cursus honorum in Ancient Rome referred to the structured sequence of public offices and political positions that aspiring politicians and magistrates were expected to follow as they progressed through their careers.

Translating to the "course of honors," this system embodied the hierarchical nature of Roman political life and served as a framework for career advancement among the senatorial and equestrian classes. It began with lower-ranking roles, such as the position of quaestor, responsible for financial administration, and gradually advanced to more prestigious offices like praetor and consul, with each step requiring prior service in a lesser role.

The cursus honorum was not merely a ladder of power but also a mechanism to instill governance experience and maintain order within the Republic, emphasizing merit, seniority, and adherence to tradition. Exceptions, however, did exist, particularly during the Empire, when emperors and their influence could bypass traditional norms.

 

Points of interest:

Crossing the Rubicon

Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BCE marked a pivotal moment in Roman history, symbolizing the irreversible decision to challenge the authority of the Roman Senate and the Republic itself. By crossing the Rubicon with his army, a direct violation of Roman law forbidding generals from leading an army into Roman territory, Caesar defied the Senate's authority and signaled the beginning of civil war.

His famous declaration, "Alea iacta est" ("The die is cast"), underscored the gravity of his choice and his acceptance of the uncertain and potentially catastrophic consequences of his actions. The event encapsulates the transition from the Roman Republic, with its fragile political balance, to the autocratic rule of the Roman Empire.

The phrase "crossing the Rubicon" has since become a metaphor for making a fateful and irreversible decision. Caesar's act demonstrated his ambition and belief in his destiny, setting the stage for a series of events that would ultimately lead to his dictatorship and the reshaping of Rome's political structure.

This decisive moment not only highlighted the weaknesses within the Republic but also emphasized the role of individual agency and ambition in altering the course of history. Caesar's defiance and the ensuing civil war profoundly changed Rome, laying the foundation for the rise of imperial rule under Augustus and the eventual transformation of the Roman world.

 

Et tu, Brute?

The often quoted statement, "Et tu, Brute?" literally means "and you, Brutus", which appears in Act 3 Scene 1 of William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, where it is spoken by the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, at the moment of his assassination, to his friend Marcus Junius Brutus, upon recognizing him as one of the assassins.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Battle of Gettysburg during the U.S. Civil War is usually considered a victory for the North; however, alternative arguments can be made. Here, Jeb Smith considers whether Gettysburg was really a major defeat for the Confederacy.

Bayonet charge by the Union’s 1st Minnesota against Confederate forces on July 2, 1863. By Dan Troiani, available here.

In his lecture series on the U.S. Civil War, renowned historian Gary Gallagher explained that the South in 1863 did not perceive the Battle of Gettysburg as a defeat but rather as a draw. Even though it ultimately fell short of its primary objective, to achieve a significant victory over the Army of the Potomac and thus bring about peace talks, many Southern leaders saw the campaign as a success because it pulled the Federals out of Virginia, providing its war-ravaged farmlands much-needed rest. It also maneuvered the war to the North where Confederates lived off of Northern farms and supplies. Famed cavalry general Jeb Stuart wrote his wife, "Gen Lee maneuvering the Yankees out of Virginia is the grandest piece of strategy ever heard of.”

Gary Gallagher mentioned how the Battle of Gettysburg was not driven from the field for the South; they simply failed to remove the Federals from their positions on Day 3. Since they made an orderly retreat rather than being driven from the battlefield, the engagement was viewed by most at the time as a draw. Some Southern soldiers (and the populace, newspapers, etc.) viewed it as a victory since they won day 1, driving the Federals back, and maintained their positions on days 2 and 3. In Jeb Stuart: The Last Cavalier Burke Davis wrote, “There was not a spirit of defeat in the army this morning; men waited hopefully for Federal attack on their hill.”

 

Battle

Gallagher described Day 1 as one of the great attacking victories of the war, with Southern forces successfully pushing back two Federal corps and inflicting heavy losses. On Day 2, the outnumbered South launched an attack against Federals who were entrenched on high ground, managing to cause more damage than they sustained. Federal General George Meade was so bloodied after Day 2 that he considered retreating and made plans to do so, but his subordinates persuaded him to stay. As Confederate General James Longstreet was quoted as saying in the Ken Burns Documentary on the Civil War, “When the second day's battle was over General Lee declared it a success.”

By the end of the three-day bloodbath, the Federals had suffered such enormous casualties (the largest of any battle of the war) that they did not mount a significant offensive in Virginia for 10 months.

Many see Gettysburg as a major defeat because Lee never invaded the North again. Yet this had more to do with the cumulative loss of manpower to all Southern armies and a drop in morale coupled with larger, more aggressive Northern armies. At the time, nobody knew Lee would not invade again, and some thought he would. General Jeb Stuart wrote his wife on July 13th “We return without defeat to recuperate and reinforce when no doubt the role will be reenacted."

Further, Confederate General Jubal Early invaded the North in ‘64, at one point threatening Washington D.C., and Lee sent Longstreet and two divisions to Tennessee after Gettysburg, enabling Braxton Bragg to take the offensive there and win the battle of Chickamauga. If Lee had just suffered a significant defeat or thought himself in danger, why would he send his top corps with two veteran divisions to the Western theatre? Why not consolidate defensively? Instead, he was still thinking offensively. And Lee showed the South had plenty of fight left in ‘64.

 

Loss?

Others say the South lost the war at Gettysburg; I don't see how this is so. Gettysburg, combined with Vicksburg, was a big blow to Southern manpower. However, it could also be argued the South was already finished when Stonewall Jackson died. But still, regardless of Jackson and the results of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Lincoln was not likely to be reelected (Peace Democrats would have triumphed) until General Sherman captured Atlanta and Jubal Early (who was making headlines) was defeated in the Shenandoah Valley. Those events, along with Admiral Farragut’s earlier triumph at Mobile Bay, secured Lincoln's reelection and won the war for the North, not Gettysburg. The high casualties of 1864 and battles like Gettysburg (union losses of 23,000) almost cost the Union the war, and the people of the North desired peace, until new Union victories restored popular morale.

 

 

Jeb Smith is the author of four books, the most recent being Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty. Before that, he published Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War. Smith has authored dozens of articles in various publications, including The Postil Magazine, History is Now Magazine, Medieval History, Medieval Magazine and Fellowship & Fairydust, and featured on various podcasts.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
4 CommentsPost a comment

In February 1910, a group of six friends played a prank on the British Navy. Newspapers proclaimed it the Dreadnought hoax after the battleship that they targeted. Among the group was Virginia Stephen. She later became known as Virginia Woolf; author of such classics as Mrs. Dalloway (1925), To the Lighthouse (1927), Orlando: A Biography (1928), and A Room of One’s Own (1929).

Michael Mirra explains.

Virginia Woolf, circa 1902.

The Prankster Horace Cole

A hoax is a deception that is intended to be discovered in order to ridicule someone or something. Those being ridiculed may include authority figures or established conventions, rules, and world views. Differing from forgeries, which are intended to go unnoticed, hoaxes require an audience to witness the victim being tricked and to mock the situation. This public attention prevents possible cover-ups and destabilizes the victim’s power.

The presumed leader of the Dreadnought hoax was a man named Horace de Vere Cole. He had previously joined the army and fought in the Second Boer War, which the British referred to as the South African War. By 1899, the British were interested in gold mines found in the Transvaal region, located in the northeastern part of South African Republic, and wanted voting rights given to foreign temporary residents. The Boers (South Africans of Dutch, German, and Huguenot descent) from the Transvaal declared war and defended the region with guerilla tactics. Larger British numbers, a scorched-earth policy affecting food supplies, and an urgency to save dying Boer women and children held in concentration camps contributed to the Boers surrendering in 1902. Part of the peace treaty conditions resulted in an alliance of the British and the Boers against Black Africans. We will return to this topic later.

During the war, Horace was wounded. Virginia, who described him as a “very charming” and “wild young man,” suggested that his injuries and struggle with hearing loss led to him becoming a practical joker. According to her, he could not take up any profession, and being a man with a “good deal of money,” he made it his profession “simply to make people laugh.” In one of his pranks, he dressed as a city worker and stood outside the Bank of England. He then roped off a space in the middle of the street, holding up traffic, and began to pickaxe the pavement. After he made a large hole, he walked away. Allegedly, it was hours before the police discovered that it was not official road work.

 

The Zanzibar Hoax of 1905

Despite Virginia’s suggestion, Horace at least had ideas of a profession when he became an undergraduate student after returning from the war. It was at Trinity College, Cambridge that he befriended Virgnia’s younger brother, Adrian Stephen. In March of 1905, Horace recruited Adrian for a hoax. The Sultan of Zanzibar, Sayyid Ali bin Hamud al-Busaidi, happened to be visiting London. At the time, Zanzibar was a British Protectorate made up of two islands off the coast of East Africa. It later united with Tanganyika on the mainland to form the United Republic of Tanzania. Horace and Adrian, with three friends, sent a telegram to the Mayor of Cambridge, Algernon S. Campkin, on behalf of the sultan. They claimed that he would be visiting Cambridge later that day and asked if the mayor could show him around.

After the mayor agreed, four of the pranksters dawned embroidered robes, fake beards, and blackface makeup. Adrian wore a headscarf while three of them (Bowen Colthurst, Horace Cole, and Leland Buxton) wore turbans. The fifth member (“Drummer” Howard), acting as their “translator,” wore a suit and overcoat. All had western pants and shoes on.

The disguised party boarded the train at the Liverpool Street Station and made their way to Cambridge. The actual sultan was visiting Buckingham Palace. When the pranksters arrived in Cambridge, they showed caution by claiming that the sultan’s uncle “Prince Mukasa Ali” was standing in for him. Horace acted as the made-up uncle. The mayor and the town clerk greeted the group and brought them in front of a large crowd at Cambridge Guildhall. When directed toward King’s College Chapel, the group refused to enter. They claimed religious reasons, possibly to leave before any detection. Returning to the train station, the group ran back outside and jumped into Hansom cabs that drove them into the country to change their clothes.

The Zanzibar hoax was revealed in The Daily Mail two days later to the embarrassment of the Mayor of Cambridge. The mayor threatened to have the students expelled, but the vice chancellor of the college ultimately did not deem the hoax worthy of expulsion. Virginia, speaking in 1940, recalled thinking it was a “very silly thing to do.” She worried about her brother being able to finish his degree and become a lawyer.

 

Planning the Dreadnought Hoax

Five years later, Horace and Adrian planned to repeat the Zanzibar hoax. According to Virginia, Horace had a friend in the navy, most likely on the H.M.S. Hawke. There were rivalries in the navy and the younger officers liked to play jokes on each other. This friend asked Horace to play a joke on the H.M.S. Dreadnought. A dreadnought is a type of battleship with the largest range weaponry of its time. The majority of its guns were 12-inch instead of smaller sizes, and it used turbines instead of steam engines. Earlier “pre-dreadnought” battleships were then considered “obsolete.” Its conception was significant because a dreadnought-building race began between Britain and Germany. By the start of World War I, Britain had nineteen dreadnoughts and Germany thirteen. The H.M.S. Dreadnought was a specific dreadnought. It was the first of its kind, having launched in 1906, and was the flagship of the British Home Fleet from 1907-1912. For this hoax, the admiral of the fleet would replace the mayor, and the Emperor of Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) would substitute for the Sultan of Zanzibar. Substituting one African nobility for another, however, suggests that the hoaxers believed Black peoples were interchangeable.

As they laid their plans, Horace and Adrian recruited four friends. Two of these friends dropped out days before the hoax was set to take place. This was when Virginia entered the story. Horace went to see Adrian at his and Virginia’s 29 Fitzroy Square residence in the Bloomsbury district of London. Virginia was there when Horace explained the situation to Adrian, which led to the two revealing the hoax plans to her. She volunteered to take one of the vacant places. By chance, their friend Duncan Grant stopped by that night and he took the other spot. The remaining two friends were Anthony Buxton and Guy Ridley.

Anthony was chosen to impersonate the Emperor of Abyssinia. However, Emperor Menelik II faced declining health including a minor stroke in 1906 and a partially paralyzing stroke in 1909. Empress Taitu, his wife, had an active role as his advisor and her influence grew during these years. Soon after, Menelik named his fifteen-year-old grandson, Lij Iyasu, his heir apparent. Due to Iyasu’s age, the general and statesman Ras Tesemma Nadow was assigned his regent. Rumors spread that the empress was organizing a resistance to stay in power. It was not until March of 1910, a month after the Dreadnought hoax, that Ras Tesemma prevailed over Empress Taitu. This situation complicates who would have been visiting England at this time and who Anthony should have been correctly impersonating. It is likely that the hoaxers assumed Menelik was still capable because that is who is often referenced.

During the following days, the group went to the shop of costume designer Willy Clarkson in Westminster. They claimed that they were going to a “fancy dress ball.” According to Virginia, Clarkson saw through the lie and was on board with aiding a hoax. At another location, they bought a Swahili grammar book from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. While Swahili was not widely spoken in Abyssinia, it was spoken in Zanzibar. The accurate choice would have been Amharic. Regardless, they spent time attempting to learn Swahili.

 

The Dreadnought Hoax of 1910

On the morning of the hoax, Clarkson arrived at the home of the Stephen siblings and personally put the wig and blackface makeup on Virginia who was playing a prince. She also wore a turban, fake beard, gold chain, and a royal red satin caftan. Clarkson warned her not to drink or eat, for liquid or the warmth of food could cause her makeup to run. This time, Adrian was acting as the “translator,” so he only wore a bowler hat, fake beard, and a suit with a long coat.

Virginia and Adrian met up with the rest of the group at Paddington Station. There was a first class carriage reserved for the “Emperor of Abyssinia and suite.” Horace, wearing a top hat and suit, was posing as an official from the Foreign Office, which handled affairs between Great Britain and foreign powers. Duncan, Anthony, and Guy were dressed similar to Virginia with turbans, robes, and blackface.

Before the train left the station at 12:40, a telegram was forged to Admiral William May. Another friend, Tudor Ralph Castle, was enlisted solely to send the telegram. It read that “Prince Makalen of Abbysinia [sic]” and suite were arriving in Weymouth (the home of the fleet) at 4:20 and that he wished to see the Dreadnought. It was signed “Harding” [sic], misspelling Charles Hardinge who was the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. It is possible that “Prince Makalen” was an inconsistency with their plan or that the “emperor” was an error in their accounts of the hoax. The intention of sending the telegram with short notice was to make sure the admiral did not have any time to check its validity.

Once the train arrived at Weymouth Station, a uniformed naval officer named Peter Willoughby greeted them with a salute. A red carpet was then unfurled and barriers put up to keep the gathering crowd away. The group walked down it in pairs while onlooking men raised their hats and women bowed. Marines presented their arms and the group bowed for them. According to Virginia, they purposely did not smile, believing that native princes should be “severe and dignified.” Willoughby saluted them once more as they entered a car that took them to the pier where marines in blue jackets stood at attention.

The admiral’s steam launch took the group to the Dreadnought. As they approached, they heard the sounds of military music being played. Coincidentally, it was the Zanzibar National Anthem, for the navy could not get the music for the Abyssinian anthem in time.

After boarding, Admiral May bowed and saluted them. Standing nearby was the commander of the Dreadnought, William “Willy” Fisher, who happened to be Virginia and Adrian’s first cousin. He did not recognize Virginia in her costume. According to her, after Fisher looked at Adrian, he said something inaudible to the nearby captain of the Dreadnought. This man was Captain Herbert William Richmond, who was also a friend of the Stephen siblings. In a moment that could have revealed the hoax, luck was on their side and Adrian was not recognized either.

Admiral May suggested, to Adrian and Horace, that “His Majesty” would like to know the different divisions of marines; possibly that the admiral’s center squadron flew red ensigns, the vice admiral’s van squadron flew white ensigns, and the rear admiral’s squadron flew blue ensigns. This put Adrian’s translation skills to test. There was a member of the Dreadnought that spoke Amharic. Fortunately, he was on leave that day. According to Adrian, he “could hardly remember two words” of the Swahili he had practiced. Instead, he broke up and mispronounced words he remembered from Homer, Ovid, and Virgil. It was later reported in newspapers that the “Abyssinians” responded with “bunga-bunga,” and Virginia specifically with “chuck-a-choi.” Some reports described “bunga-bunga” as a catchphrase said in unison at “every fresh sight.” This chorus de-individualizes actual Abyssinians and creates an image of them being amazed at every achievement of Western Civilization. Both Stephen siblings denied the use of these words.

At this point, Admiral May handed over tour duties to Fisher and Richmond. He had planned a day of golf and only left it to greet the “emperor.” The tour included the living quarters, the mess, and the battleship’s equipment. They saw the guns, rangefinders, compasses, and wireless equipment. In order to see this technology, they climbed a ladder onto an observation mast. There was a breeze and it began to rain. Virginia noticed Duncan’s mustache being blown by the wind, revealing his white skin underneath. She nudged Adrian who took Duncan aside to fix the mustache. Adrian had an umbrella, but there were too many people to cover. Therefore, he talked to Richmond about “the heat of the Abyssinian climate and the chill of England.” The captain took the hint and led the group below deck, showing off the officer’s bathrooms.

The tour now led to the wardroom and drinks were offered. To avoid ruining anyone’s makeup, Adrian said that the Abyssinians did not drink alcohol of any kind. Nonalcoholic drinks were then offered, but Adrian said that the Abyssinians did not drink or eat until after sunset and unless it was prepared in a certain way for religious reasons. This was probably what the hoaxers believed to be Islamic traditions. However, Christianity had been the official religion of Abyssinia for over 1500 years. This shows that they were mimicking their expectations and not the reality.

When the tour was ending, an officer asked Adrian if the “emperor” would like a twenty-one gun salute as he left the battleship. Virginia later said that “by this time we had all of us begun to be slightly ashamed of ourselves.” She felt guilty of abusing their hospitality. Adrian declined the offer claiming that the “emperor” wished to suspend any further ceremony.

Marines in blue and red lined up on the deck and saluted as the group returned to the steam launch. Willoughby escorted them back to the pier, pointing out the sites on the way. According to Virginia, he pointed out the H.M.S. Hawke. She imagined the officers on board watching them through spy glasses and laughing. Horace took a case out of his pocket containing a star with jewels, provided by Clarkson. This prop medal represented the Order of the Star of Ethiopia, which was a real award created by Emperor Menelik II in five levels (Knight Grand Cross, Grand Officer, Commander, Officer, and Member). Horace presented it to Willoughby in acknowledgment of the courtesy he had shown “His Majesty” and the “princes.” Willoughby graciously declined stating that he was not allowed to accept an honor from a foreign power.

A car took the group back to the train station, the red carpet, and their first class carriage. As the train left, the “emperor” looked at the people of Weymouth from the window and raised his hands to his forehead. It was now 6:00 in the evening. A meal was arranged to be served in their compartment once the dining carriage was open. Waiters brought in a table. Horace was not done with the hoax, though. He informed the waiters that they could not serve the “emperor” dinner without wearing white gloves, for he could not take a plate from a man with bare hands. The train was held at the next stop while the men left to purchase white gloves. The group did not change out of their costumes until they were home.

 

Aftermath

The next day, Horace had the group photographed in costume. According to Virginia, she believed it to be a private souvenir of the hoax. It was not long after that she saw the photograph printed in The Daily Mirror with news of their exploit making the front page. A hoax requires an audience after all. The article did not report anyone’s name except for Horace who had leaked the story to The Daily Express and Mirror. Adrian also claimed that Horace acted without his knowledge.

More newspaper articles were followed by questions being asked by members of parliament. Some responded with laughter. However, the hoax reflected the credit of the navy, showed that anyone could forge a telegram to the admiral of the fleet, and raised suspicions of German spies being shown secret equipment. Afterward, Adrian and Duncan apologized to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna, and explained that they did not mean harm against the admiral or any officers. They were let off with a warning about the hoax. McKenna was stern that the forgery could have led to jail time. However, pursuing the case would bring more publicity, so a light fine was given.

The apology appeased the House of Commons, but not the navy. Young boys would run up to Admiral May and other marines in the street, yelling “bunga-bunga” at them. Fisher eventually learned who was involved. He visited Adrian in a fury and demanded the addresses of the others. Virginia heard their voices from upstairs. Years later, she wrote in a letter that she did not remember seeing her cousin again.

Fisher and three navy officers took a taxi straight to Duncan’s house. Duncan was sitting down to breakfast when they pulled him into the taxi. Somewhere around Hampstead Heath, they got out to cane him. According to Virginia, it was “two ceremonial taps.” He rode the tube home in his slippers despite being offered a ride home from his abductors. Horace received a similar symbolic punishment. For him, it was six ceremonial taps to his backside, which he was allowed to give back. Virginia’s punishment was being called “a common woman of the town” in the mess.

 

Evaluating History

Biographers often praise Virginia’s involvement, claiming that she decided to take part in the hoax as an expression of solidarity with oppressed groups against imperialist racial hegemonies. To begin supporting this claim, she may have been influenced by the history of radicalism in her family. Her grandfather, Sir James Stephen, drafted the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Her godmother, Julia Margaret Cameron, photographed Prince Alemayehu of Abyssinia in British drapery with his British caretaker, Captain Tristram Speedy, holding a lion-skin tippet. This reversed a racist political cartoon that depicted Britannia jailing Emperor Tewodros II, Alemayehu’s father, wearing a feathered headdress. Virginia’s father, Leslie Stephen, opposed slavery in the United States. He also wrote about racism behind British colonialism, believing that the Second Boer War could have been prevented and fearing that England would invade Abyssinia. England did support Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1896. It is suggested that the closest child to Leslie was Virginia and that she was his literary successor. Her interest in his writings could have left an impression.

At the time of the hoax, Virginia was working on a draft of her first novel, The Voyage Out (1915). Its characters are implicated in colonialism, which she linked to racism and sexism. While set in South America, there are allusions to Africa and Abyssinia. Anti-imperialist views are typically interpreted in many of her later works such as The Waves (1931) and Three Guineas (1938). At the very least, she made an expression of solidarity in literature.

Many of the same writings are remembered for their discourse on gender issues. Her challenge of patriarchy is seen as extending back to the hoax. Wearing a beard and acting as a man signaled her stance. Biographers claim that she was ridiculing masculine establishment in the form of the British Navy. Her short story “A Society” (1921) featured a character named Rose who disguised herself as an Ethiopian prince, went aboard a British ship, and received six light taps on the behind as punishment. The story, however, comments on the ramifications of male civilization. The connections between her experiences and Rose have led to the belief that her role in the hoax was a comment on patriarchal values.

Lastly, Virginia married Leonard Woolf in 1912. While he did spend seven years as a colonial administrator in Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), he returned to England as a vocal opponent of colonialism. He similarly put his views into his novels. Together, they founded the Hogarth Press giving more opportunity for Virginia to publish political writings and reason to view her as standing against oppression.

This claim ignores Sir James Stephen’s role in the British Empire, having served as Counsel to the Colonial Board of Trade. He was nicknamed “Mister Mother-Country” for his devotion to the ideals of the empire. Julia Margaret Cameron’s first major photography exhibit lionized men who opposed abolition in the United States and supported Britain's invasion of Abyssinia. Leslie Stephen preserved England’s nation-builders in the Dictionary of National Biography (1882), perhaps his most famous work. All were complicit with colonialism. As for their potential influence on Virginia, when England supported Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia, she wrote, “What is it all about, and which side am I?” in a letter to her older brother Thoby.

Virginia reported that she entered the hoax for fun. She could have been just as easily influenced by hearing about her brother and his friend’s exploits. In her own account, she presented the hoax as an adventure, expressed remorse, and did not discuss colonialism.

The hoaxers revealed the navy’s ignorance of Abyssinia at the cost of their own. Speaking Swahili and going along with assumed Islamic practices for an Amharic-speaking nation with one of the longest ties to Christianity shows Virginia’s ignorance of the oppressed. There is also the glaring matter of blackface. This was not the only time that Virginia wore blackface makeup. Virginia and her older sister, Vanessa Bell, attended curator Roger Fry’s Post-Impressionist Ball in 1911. In Vanessa’s words, “we wore brillant flowers and beads, we browned our legs and arms and had very little on beneath the draperies.” While this was in response to London audiences’ negative reaction to Fry’s inclusion of non-Western subjects, it did not stop Virginia from using the n-word when writing about another one of Fry’s shows.

Biographers are often quick to claim that Horace and Adrian were not politically motivated by the hoax. Instead, they label them as crude jokesters who probably thought African royalty was inherently funny. In this view, unlike Virginia, they were not interested in ridiculing imperialism or the masculine establishment. Adrian was not interested in his father’s writings and neither of them were particularly studious on history or politics.

This claim may be true for Horace. He was already complicit with colonialism through his involvement in the Second Boer War. His record of pranks, which he favored over studying for exams, does not help his case.

Adrian may deserve more credit. His account reads as anti-militarist and anti-authoritarian. This was something that Virginia’s account lacked. According to Adrian, “anyone who took up an attitude of authority over anyone else was necessarily also someone who offered a leg for everyone else to pull.” He described “armies and suchlike bodies” as “almost irresistible” targets for a hoax. His views were cemented by adding “I do not know either that if everyone shared my feelings towards the great armed forces of the world, the world would not be a happier place to live in.” Perhaps he was the most likely of the hoaxers making a statement.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

Works Cited

Asserate, Asfa-Wossen. King of Kings: The Triumph and Tragedy of Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia. London, Haus Publishing, 2015.

Greacen, Robert. “The Dreadnought Hoax.” Books Ireland, no. 236, 2000, pp. 372–372. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20632234. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Johnston, Georgia. “Virginia Woolf’s Talk on the Dreadnought Hoax.” Woolf Studies Annual, vol. 15, 2009, pp. 1–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24907113. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Kennard, Jean E. “Power and Sexual Ambiguity: The ‘Dreadnought’ Hoax, ‘The Voyage out, Mrs. Dalloway’ and ‘Orlando.’” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 20, no. 2, 1996, pp. 149–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3831472. Accessed 6 Dec. 2024.

Niehoff, Simone. “Unmasking the Fake: Theatrical Hoaxes from the Dreadnought Hoax to Contemporary Artivist Practice.” Faking, Forging, Counterfeiting: Discredited Practices at the Margins of Mimesis, edited by Daniel Becker et al., transcript Verlag, 2018, pp. 223–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1wxr9t.16. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Reid, Panthea. “Stephens, Fishers, and the Court of the ‘Sultan of Zanzibar’: New Evidence from Virginia Stephen Woolf’s Childhood.” Biography, vol. 21, no. 3, 1998, pp. 328–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23540072. Accessed 6 Dec. 2024.

Reid, Panthea. “Virginia Woolf, Leslie Stephen, Julia Margaret Cameron, and the Prince of Abyssinia: An Inquiry into Certain Colonialist Representations.” Biography, vol. 22, no. 3, 1999, pp. iv–355. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23540033. Accessed 7 Dec. 2024.

Seshagiri, Urmila. “Orienting Virginia Woolf: Race, Aesthetics, and Politics in ‘To the Lighthouse.’” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, 2004, pp. 58–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26286282. Accessed 9 Dec. 2024.

Themistocles (524–459 BCE), (Θεμιστοκλῆς (Themistoklēs)), is a name that resonates through history as one of the most influential political and military figures of Ancient Greece. Known for his astute political acumen and strategic brilliance, Themistocles helped shape the course of Greek and Western civilization, most notably through his pivotal role in the Persian Wars.

Terry Bailey explains.

Themistocles honored at Sparta.

Themistocles was prominent during the early 5th century BCE an era often referred to as the classical period or sometimes as the Golden Age of Greece.

This era is marked by significant developments in art, philosophy, architecture, drama, and politics. It was a time when city-states like Athens reached the height of their cultural and political influence, particularly under the leadership of figures like Pericles, (Περικλῆς (Periklēs)), and Themistocles.

During the golden age of ancient Athens, democracy flourished into a revolutionary political system that empowered its citizens. This transformative era also gave rise to philosophy, as towering figures such as Socrates laid the foundations for critical thinking and ethical inquiry. At the same time, Athens became a hub of artistic and architectural innovation, epitomized by the construction of iconic structures like the Parthenon. Advancements in sculpture and pottery reflected a society striving for excellence and beauty, with artisans achieving unprecedented levels of detail and realism.

Cultural achievements extended to drama and literature, as the works of playwrights such as Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides captivated audiences with their profound exploration of human experience. Meanwhile, Athens also faced significant challenges, including the Persian Wars—marked by pivotal battles like Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis—and the protracted Peloponnesian War against rival Sparta. These conflicts shaped the political and cultural trajectory of Athens, leaving an indelible legacy on Western civilization.

 

Early life of Themistocles

Born into a modest family in Athens, Themistocles' early life was marked by ambition and determination. Unlike many of his contemporaries, who hailed from aristocratic families, Themistocles relied on his sharp intellect and ability to navigate the intricate dynamics of Athenian politics. He demonstrated an early understanding of the importance of naval power, an insight that would later prove critical to Athens' survival and dominance.

 

Strengths of Themistocles

Themistocles stood as one of the most remarkable leaders of ancient Athens, his legacy defined by a combination of visionary strategy, political acumen, and military brilliance. Foreseeing the significance of naval power, he revolutionized Athenian defense by championing a strong fleet. His insight that Athens' geography lent itself to maritime dominance proved transformative, laying the foundation for the city's survival and eventual expansion. This strategic foresight culminated in his pivotal role during the Persian Wars, particularly at the Battle of Salamis, where his tactical ingenuity ensured a decisive victory that safeguarded Greece's independence.

Beyond the battlefield, Themistocles was a master of Athenian democracy. His skillful manipulation of alliances, public opinion, and rhetoric made him a commanding presence in the Assembly. Charismatic and persuasive, he rallied Athenians to invest in the very navy that would secure their future. This innovative leadership style not only inspired his contemporaries but also redefined Athens as a maritime powerhouse, setting the stage for its Golden Age. Themistocles' blend of strategic vision and political mastery cemented his place as one of history's most dynamic leaders.

 

Weaknesses of Themistocles

Despite his undeniable brilliance and monumental contributions to Athens, Themistocles was a deeply flawed figure whose personal traits ultimately led to his downfall. His relentless ambition, while instrumental in securing Athens' survival during the Persian Wars, often alienated his allies and fostered hostility among his peers. This drive for power and influence overshadowed his statesmanship, turning many once-ardent supporters into bitter rivals.

Themistocles' ethical lapses further undermined his reputation. Accusations of corruption and self-serving behavior dogged his career, with critics alleging that he manipulated situations for personal gain rather than prioritizing the greater good of Athens. His arrogance only deepened the resentment, as his growing hubris left little room for compromise, particularly among the aristocracy and political rivals. Later in life, his pragmatic dealings with Persia alienated him entirely from Greek society, casting him as a traitor in the eyes of his countrymen. These missteps, combined with his overreaching ambition, ultimately eclipsed his achievements, leaving behind a legacy as polarizing as it was remarkable.

 

Political achievements

As one of Athens' most visionary leaders and the architect of its maritime supremacy. Themistocles at a pivotal moment in Athenian history proposed using the wealth from newly discovered silver mines at Laurium not for personal gain but for the construction of a formidable naval fleet.

Rejecting the idea of distributing the silver among citizens, Themistocles championed the building of triremes—sleek, fast warships that became the backbone of Athenian naval defense and future expansion. This bold decision transformed Athens into a naval superpower, enabling it to dominate the Aegean and secure its place as a leader among Greek city-states. The fleet not only protected Athens but also laid the foundation for the Delian League, a stepping stone to the city's imperial aspirations.

Beyond his naval innovations, Themistocles left a profound impact on Athenian society and infrastructure. He championed democratic reforms that curtailed the influence of aristocrats and amplified the political and military roles of ordinary citizens, fostering a more inclusive society. Recognizing the need for strategic urban planning, he fortified Athens and spearheaded the construction of the Piraeus harbor.

This sprawling port evolved into a bustling hub of trade and military power, ensuring Athens' economic prosperity and securing its strategic dominance in the Mediterranean. Through his multifaceted vision, Themistocles transformed Athens into a thriving, resilient city-state capable of withstanding the challenges of its turbulent era.

 

Military achievements

The Battle of Marathon (490 BCE)

Although Themistocles was not the commander at the Battle of Marathon he did fight in this decisive battle against the Persians. The victory solidified his belief in the importance of military and naval preparedness and guided the way for future victories.

The Battle of Salamis (480 BCE)

Themistocles' crowning achievement was his leadership during the Battle of Salamis. Facing overwhelming Persian forces led by King Xerxes, Themistocles devised a cunning strategy to lure the Persian fleet into the narrow straits of Salamis. The confined space neutralized the numerical superiority of the Persians, allowing the Greek triremes to achieve a decisive victory. This battle effectively saved Greece from Persian domination and marked a turning point in Western history.

 

Cultural and political legacy in Athens

Themistocles' emphasis on naval power laid the foundation for the Athenian Empire and its Golden Age. The naval dominance he established enabled Athens to become a hub of art, philosophy, and democracy.

The strategies of Themistocles thwarted the Persian ambitions ensuring the survival of Greek culture, which later influenced Roman civilization and, subsequently, Western thought. The Greek ideals of democracy, individualism, and freedom owe much to the Athenian resilience during the Persian Wars.

 

Inspiration for leadership and strategy

Themistocles' life and strategies have inspired military leaders and political thinkers throughout history. His ability to adapt and innovate in the face of challenges remains a model of effective leadership.

Despite his monumental contributions, Themistocles' later years were marked by misfortune. Political rivals, jealous of his achievements, accused him of corruption and conspiring with Persia. Ostracized from Athens, he sought refuge in the Persian court of King Artaxerxes I, where he served as a governor in Asia Minor. While some view this as a betrayal, others argue it reflects his pragmatic approach to survival and diplomacy.

Themistocles' long-term influence on humanity lies in his demonstration of how individual vision and determination can alter the course of history. His contributions to the survival and flourishing of Athens paved the way for the cultural and intellectual achievements of Classical Greece, which continue to shape modern thought. His life also serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of unchecked ambition and the fragility of political success.

In conclusion, Themistocles was a giant concerning the transformative power of vision, intellect, and strategic brilliance. His role in safeguarding Athens and Greek cultural independence during the Persian Wars, particularly through his masterful leadership at the Battle of Salamis, not only preserved the cultural and political fabric of Classical Greece but also ensured the survival of ideals that continue to underpin Western civilization.

Through the championing of naval power and democratic reforms, Themistocles laid the groundwork for Athens' ascendancy as a cultural and intellectual beacon throughout the Golden Age of Ancient Greece. However, his life also underscores the complexities of leadership. His remarkable achievements were matched by personal flaws—his over-ambition, pragmatism, and willingness to alienate allies ultimately led to his exile.

Yet, even in his downfall, Themistocles demonstrated adaptability, serving Persia with the same strategic acumen that once made him the savior of Athens.

The story of Themistocles is one of contrast, a leader who rose from modest beginnings to unparalleled influence, only to face the inevitable consequences of hubris and political rivalry. His enduring impact reminds us that the actions of a single individual, armed with vision and determination, can alter the trajectory of history, leaving a legacy that inspires both admiration and reflection.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

Notes:

One of the most influential aspects of the Classical Greek era is democracy, however, democracy looked very different in Ancient Athens compared to today's democratic system even though today's system of democracy finds its roots in classical Greece.

The word democracy originates from the Greek term δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), which is a combination of δῆμος (dēmos), meaning people or citizens and κράτος (Kratos), meaning power or rule.

Therefore, δημοκρατία translates to rule by the people which describes a system of governance, where eligible citizens participate directly in decision-making processes.

As indicated Ancient Greek democracy was distinct from modern representative democracy, as it emphasized direct participation, with citizens voting on laws and policies themselves, rather than electing representatives to do so.

 

Trireme

A trireme was an ancient warship that played a central role in the naval dominance of Mediterranean powers such as Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome from the 7th to the 4th centuries BCE. Its name derives from the Greek tríērēs (τριήρης), a combination of Tri- (τρῐ-): meaning three and -ērēs (ῆρης): relating to rows or levels of oars, later Latinized triremis, meaning (three-rower), as indicated refers to the arrangement of oars-men in three vertically stacked tiers on each side of the vessel.

Triremes were designed for speed, agility, and effectiveness in naval combat, featuring a slim, elongated hull typically made of lightweight wood such as pine or cedar, (usually Lebanese cedar). This design minimized water resistance and allowed the ship to achieve remarkable speeds, often reaching around 8 knots under the power of oars and even more with a sail.

Triremes were equipped with a prominent bronze-plated ram at the bow, used to strike and disable enemy ships by puncturing their hulls. They also carried a crew of approximately 200 men, including at least 170 rowers, a handful of sailors, and marines for boarding actions. Despite their reliance on human-powered oars, triremes also utilized a single square sail for travelling longer distances.

The strategic use of these vessels was evident in pivotal naval battles like Salamis in 480 BCE, as outlined in the main text with the Athenian navy's superior trireme fleet defeating the Persian larger armada. The trireme's innovative design and tactical versatility made it a cornerstone of ancient naval warfare, shaping the outcomes of major conflicts and the dominance of seafaring civilizations.

 

Point of interest:

The Greek language holds a foundational role in shaping modern European languages, serving as a linguistic bridge from antiquity to contemporary times. Ancient Greek, particularly Classical and Koine Greek, has significantly influenced the lexicons, grammatical structures, and conceptual frameworks of many European languages, especially the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic families.

Terms related to philosophy, science, medicine, and the arts often derive from Greek roots. For instance, words like "philosophy" (from philos meaning love, and sophia meaning wisdom) and as already indicated "democracy" (from demos meaning people, and kratos meaning power) reflect the descriptive richness of Greek as a source of abstract and technical vocabulary. This influence became widespread through the Roman Empire, which adopted many Greek terms into Latin, the progenitor of the Romance languages.

One of the reasons the Greek language has had such an enduring impact is its modular and descriptive nature. The language constructs meaning through the combination of roots, prefixes, and suffixes, allowing for the creation of precise terms to describe new concepts. This modularity made the Greek language particularly adept at expressing scientific and philosophical ideas, as its components could be rearranged and adapted to articulate complex phenomena.

For example, modern scientific terminology, such as "microbiology" (mikros meaning small, bios meaning life, and logos meaning study), demonstrates this adaptability. This descriptive precision not only provided a linguistic template for technical and scholarly disciplines but also enriched the languages of Europe, creating a shared intellectual heritage that continues to shape the modern world. This influence is primarily due to the Golden Age of Classical Greece.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Salvation Army (the Army) is predominantly known as an international charitable organization. For over a million people worldwide, it is an Evangelical church with its own distinctive polity and practice, owing its heritage to British Methodism and American Revivalism. Less well-known is that between 1891 and 1932, the Army supported over 100,000 men, women, and children to travel from Britain to her colonies across the sea. This Evangelical movement and engine for social reform became an emigration agency because they believed that moving the ‘surplus population’ out of Britain into unclaimed land in the colonies would reduce poverty, specifically urban deprivation, in the mother country.

Christopher Button explains.

Salvation Army co-founder William Booth.

Introduction

The Salvation Army began social service work in 1866, with the first food depots providing meals for dockers who had been laid off during the collapse of the Poplar shipyards. By the 1870s, social service work had transformed into social reform work. Early examples included the establishment of rescue homes for female sex workers who were trained to become domestic servants or given jobs such as bookbinders. They also set up sheltered workshops for unemployed or homeless men to enable them to learn a trade and return to work. According to William Booth, the simple principle was that:

Any person who comes to a shelter destitute and starving, will be supplied with sufficient work to enable him to earn the fourpence needed for his bed and board. This is a fundamental feature of the scheme, and which I think will commend it to all those who are anxious to benefit the poor by enabling them to help themselves without the demoralising intervention of charitable relief…There is no compulsion upon anyone to resort to our shelters, but if a penniless man wants food her must, as a rule, do work sufficient to pay for what he has of that and of other accommodation. I say as a rule because, of course, our officers will be allowed to make exceptions in extreme cases.[1]

 

The Victorian demand that people should lift themselves up by their bootstraps was adopted by the Army. The Army expected and demanded from the customers of its social relief efforts that they engage in hard work, commitment to personal transformation, and, where absolutely necessary, the absolute minimum of charity to allow them to do so.

 

In Darkest England

In 1890, the Army released the blueprint for a new, totalizing, and universal scheme of social reform that would provide a system of welfare designed to work towards eradicating poverty and destitution and bring about the salvation of the world. This project was called In Darkest England and the Way Out, written principally by William Booth and published in 1890. It sold over 100,000 editions within the first few months. It was, in its way, quite a simple scheme. There were three parts to this scheme. Each was a form of colony, consciously adopting the structures of empire just as the book’s title borrowed from David Livingstone’s book Darkest Africa. The language is telling and is something we will return to.

The first step was the ‘City Colony’ including food depots, shelters, rescue work for women, salvage yards and ‘elevators.’

The ‘Elevator’ was a new concept in social services, combining generous acceptance with patient but unwavering discipline. ‘No one brings a reference here’ explained an officer in charge of one such institution. ‘If a man is willing to work, he stays; if not, he goes.’ No guide line could be simpler for the entrant; none more demanding upon those who were seeking his rehabilitation…The elevator was, in effect, and entry form of ‘sheltered workshop’ – a concept which was little known at the time and consequently less understood.[2]

 

The elevator was a combination of shelter and workshop or factory. Men could find somewhere to live and work in various trades to pay for their bed and board and gain enough stability to seek work in the trade they were learning. Central to every part of the city colony was regular, often daily, worship for all the residents. None were compelled to attend, but for many, it was an easy source of entertainment. Attendance at salvation meetings in the shelters across 1891 was recorded at 136,579, with 708 recorded as being converted. The work of social reform was undertaken hand in hand with the work of personal reformation with the intent of universal conversion.

For those city colonists who thrived and demonstrated their proper attitude to work, the second stage of the Darkest England scheme beckoned. This was the ‘Farm Colony.’ The Army intended to take select members of the urban poor who had demonstrated their willingness to work and submit to discipline and transplant them to training farms. Sir John Gorst QC MP wrote:

The unemployed is taken away from the town where he competes with a congested mass of workers, too numerous for existing employment opportunities, and brought back to the land, where he produces more than he consumes, where his labour enriches the nation without lessening the earnings of his fellow workmen.[3]

 

The Army in the UK bought a farm in Hadleigh, Essex, and developed it to receive colonists from the city. Similar farms were purchased in Australia, America, and South Africa. Farm colonists would work for the first month purely for bread and board. Then, if they demonstrated their willingness to learn, work, and behave, they would start to be paid. The farm colonists learned to work the land in small holdings or as tenant farmers. Some were returned to the city as unsuitable for the farm. Others were encouraged to purchase a 5-acre smallholding from the Army at favorable interest rates and become independent. But for others, they would be eligible for the third part of the Darkest England scheme — the Colony Across the Seas.

 

The Colony Across the Sea

Here, we come to the point at hand. The Darkest England scheme was dependent upon the British Empire. The Darkest England scheme could not have worked without the shared culture, language, infrastructure and transportation links. The fact that the scheme did not live up to its promise has less to do with the Empire and more to do with the incredible amount of funding necessary to make it practicable. Despite the relative failure of the Darkest England scheme beyond the city colony, the limited successes and the plans for the scheme highlight the inherent links between the Army and the Empire. William Booth said:

It Is absurd to speak of the colonies as If they were a foreign land. They are simply pieces of Britain distributed about the world, enabling the Britisher to have access to the richest parts of the earth.[4]

 

In the same way, the Army intended to send Britain’s poorest, properly trained and equipped, out to the parts of the Empire where land was underutilized. The movement from city to farm to overseas farm or factory was meant to become a new system built into the structure of Britain. By reducing the overall population and upskilling the urban poor, not only would Britain benefit, but the colonies would be developed. Ausubel wrote:

Indeed, one of the purposes of the In Darkest England scheme itself was to bring about structural change, since Booth was one of those Victorian reformers who believed that as population was the root course of the long depression from the early 1870s to the late 1890s and that mass emigration was part of the answer to this problem.[5]

 

The Army started supporting the emigration of its farm colonists to the colonies over the seas in 1891. Initially, colonists went to New South Wales and Queensland. By November 1891, 95 emigrants had been sent overseas by the Army with letters of recommendation for farms and factories in the receiving territories. The 1907 yearbook reported that since 1905, 15,000 people had emigrated through the Army’s agency. However, problems in the scheme were starting to emerge.

A key example comes from New Zealand, where there was…

Agitation against the scheme by Trades and Labour Councils…On the grounds that living standards of workers would be depressed by this introduction into the Colonies of what they termed ‘undesirable persons the Pauper and criminal scum of the alleys and byways of Great Britain.’[6]

 

The colonies, especially New Zealand and Australia, did not want to receive people who had been destitute and dwelling in London’s slums until recently. The costs involved in emigration had, until then, helped to ensure that those emigrating from Britain had been able to support themselves on arrival. The Army supported the Salvationist colonists, but they were travelling to improve themselves and did not go with their own resources.

Another issue was that William Booth and the Army had somewhat misunderstood the relationship between Britain and her colonies and dominions. By the early 1900s, the Empire was already starting to decentralize, especially in the self-governing states and dominions. Britain could not simply tell the governments of Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa to give spare land to colonists from The Salvation Army. The Army was not empowered to create new colonies, and the Imperial government could not provide the Army with new land. The Army was not given unused land in the existing colonies. The third stage of the Darkest England scheme seemed to be failing, so the Army had to turn to a broader approach to emigration.[7]

 

Family Emigration

Colonel David Lamb, the new commander of the emigration department, decided to broaden the project to include families as well as single men. This brought into reality some of William Booth's hopes for Darkest England.

In the Salvation Ship we shall export them all – father, mother, and children. The individuals will be grouped in families, and the families will, on the farm colony, have been for some months part more or less near neighbours, meeting each other in the field, in the workshops, and in the religious services. It will resemble nothing so much as the unmouring of a little piece of England, and towing it across the sea to find a safe anchorage in a sunnier clime. The ship which takes out emigrants will have the produce of the farms, and constant travelling to and from will lead more than ever to the feeling that we and our ocean-sundered brothers are members of one family.[8]

 

With Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa actively working against William Booth’s scheme of social imperialism, it was up to Canada to rescue Darkest England. The relationship between the Army emigration service and Canada developed until the Army became one of Canada’s leading immigration agencies, accredited and financially sponsored by the Canadian government and funded by direct donations in the UK. Between 1905 and 1907, the Army chartered fourteen ocean liners with a thousand immigrants on each. By the opening of the First World War, over 50,000 settlers had been supported in moving to Canada. By 1932, when the emigration service ended, more than 112,000 people from Britain had moved to Canada.

The system was comprehensive. Corps officers in the UK advertised the scheme and supported families in applying for emigration through the Army’s agency. Social officers helped identify likely candidates from the shelters or Hadleigh Farm and made their applications to the agency. The emigration department also stationed agents in the Army’s labour exchange bureaus, particularly helping domestic servants emigrate. The Army also offered emigration insurance for the settlers. For 10 shillings, the traveler would be insured against loss of belongings and against the risk of not finding employment. Whilst most settlers using the Army’s emigration agency had a position organized on their behalf for when they arrived, some went without work waiting for them in the hope of finding a position. The Army would pay for their return to Britain if they did not find work.

The Army chartered liners to carry the new colonists from the UK to Canada on an alcohol-free trip. They were accompanied on the ships by Salvation Army officers who led worship and prayer meetings, offered counsel, and gave lectures on the culture of the colonist's new home. The Salvationist colonists would then be welcomed by officers at receiving stations and transported to their new homes, where the local officer would make introductions and ensure they were connected to the corps. Then, if they did not join the local corps, they would receive a semi-annual visit from an Army officer to assess their progress. From start to finish, the whole scheme was operated as part of the Army’s international mission.

 

Conclusion

The Army combined the structures and methods of the British Empire with an Evangelical Zeal for conversion and the belief that salvation was as much about this world as it was about the next. William Booth wrote:

I saw that when the Bible said, ‘He that believeth shall be saved’ it meant not only saved from the miseries of the future world, but from the miseries of this [world] also. Then it came from the promise of Salvation here and now; from hell and sin and vice and crime and idleness and extravagance, and consequently very largely from poverty and disease, and the majority of kindred woes.[9]

 

The Army's social reform work was grounded In the underlying principle that social transformation would only make a lasting difference to the world if it were combined with individual conversion. Helping the poor through social reformation was at least partially undertaken to remove the obstacles to salvation. A hungry person, a cold person, or a homeless person would not become a Christian. By removing them from their circumstances of poverty, giving them a trade, and moving them to a new land with a place to become independent, the individual would better themselves and society as well.

However, far more critical for the Army was the hope that by transporting saved Salvationists around the world, they would create colonies of salvation which would spread the word of Salvationism. The central doctrine of Salvationism was that its members evangelized to the groups they had been part of. The converted drinker went back to preach to the drinkers. The sex workers told her previous colleagues about the possibility of rescue and redemption. Walker wrote:

One of the most significant features of The Salvation Army was the relationships of its members to the wider community. As soon as people were saved, they were asked to stand before a crowd and relate their experience of conversion…If the Spirit of God pervaded an individual, he or she was ready to preach and testify regardless of previous sinfulness, lack of education, of inexperience.[10]

 

Without the British Empire, its transportation network, its shared culture and language, and William Booth's implicit assumptions that the Imperial territories were simply an extension of Britain, The Salvation Army would not have been able to grow in the way it did. The British Empire was to be matched by a Salvation Empire, spread around the world, transporting Salvationists in ready-made units to the far reaches of Christendom to go out and grow William Booth’s Christian Imperium and usher in the prophesied Millennium.

 

Christopher Button writes at Theology Corner (link here).

 

  

Bibliography

All The World – Salvation Army Publication

Ausubel, Herman. In Hard Ties: Reformers Among the Late Victorians, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Booth, William, In Darkest England and the Way Out, (London: The Salvation Army, 1890)

Coutts, Frederick. Bread for my Neighbour: The Social Influence of William Booth, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978)

Sandall, Robert The History of The Salvation Army Volume III 1883-1953 Social and Welfare Work, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1955)

Walker, Pamela J. Pulling the Devil’s Kingdon Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain, (London: University of California, 2001)

White, Arnold, The Great Idea: Notes by an Eye-Witness on Some of the Social Work of the Salvation Army, (London: The Salvation Army, 1910)


[1] William Booth, quoted in Sandall, The History Vol. III, p. 120

[2] Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, pp. 106-107

[3] John Gorst quoted in Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, p. 78

[4] William Booth, Darkest England, pp. 143-144

[5] Ausubel, In Hard Times, p. 180

[6] Bradwell, Fight the Good Fight, pp. 53-54

[7] White, The Great Idea, p. 47-49

[8] William Booth, In Darkest England, p. 152

[9] William Booth, “Salvation to Both Worlds” All The World, January 1889 pp. 1-6

[10] Walker, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down, p. 187

During the U.S. Civil War, the North and South treated minority groups in different ways – and some of these may be surprising to readers. Here, Jeb Smith looks at how the North and South treated Catholics, Jews, and Native Americans during the Civil War period.

Brigadier General Stand Watie.

"Their clergy [Catholic]blessed the flags of Confederate regiments, and their opposition to the federal regime in New Orleans was more uncompromising than that of any other group...A Richmond editor wrote, "Catholic Hierarchy of the South… were warm supporters of the Southern cause, and zealous advocates of the justice upon which this war of defense….was conducted."

-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America 1861-1865 Baton Rouge: The Louisiana State University Press 1950

 

Historian Phillip Tucker wrote, "The South in general was actually far more multicultural and more multiethnic than the North in 1860...the South was in general less racist towards ethnic groups, including the Irish and Jews, than the North." Minorities received better treatment in the South than in the North. Catholicism played a more significant role in the South and was more accepted by the population. Like the old South, traditional Catholicism honored hierarchy, aristocracy, chivalry, and other traditional values. Also, like the South, pre-Vatican II Catholics were traditionalists and rejected modernity. Traditional Catholics had more in common culturally and politically with the South than with the progressive North.

 

Catholics

Historian James McPherson  shows that Catholics under Pope Pius the IX (Pope from 1846-1878) still maintained much of their older traditional identity. Pius was described as a "violent enemy of liberalism and social reform." In his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, he wrote that it was an error to think the Pope should agree with "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." Pope Pius X commanded "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries" to take an "oath against modernism." In The Story of Christianity Volume II.  Historian Justo Gonzalez observed "a growing gulf between mainstream modern thought and society on the one hand and Catholicism on the other."

Further, nothing brings groups together like similar enemies. Robert Fogel shows that Republicans viewed "Catholicism and slavery as twin despotisms." They hated Catholics because "The Catholic church was in league with the pro-slavery democratic party to destroy the principles of free government," wrote an 1858 organ of the Republican party in Illinois. James McPherson  wrote, "The Puritan war against popery had gone on for two and a half centuries and was not over yet...hostility to Romanism (as well as rum) remained a subterranean current within Republicanism."

Like the Virginian theologian R.L Dabney, Archbishop John Hughes of N.Y. referred to abolitionists as "Red-republicans." Hughes condemned public schools as godless promoters of "Socialism, Red Republicanism, Universalism, Infidelity, Deism, Atheism, and Pantheism." And while Dabney was no friend of Catholic theology, they were kin in mind when it came to modernity. In Catholics Lost Cause, Adam Tate writes, "Catholics and southern conservatives viewed the North as the locus of American radicalism and took refuge in Jeffersonian conceptions of both the Union and the Constitution."

"Protestants funded Catholic churches, schools, and hospitals, while Catholics also contributed to Protestant causes. Beyond financial support, each group participated in the institutions created by the other. Catholics and Protestants worshipped in each other's churches, studied in each other's schools, and recovered or died in each other's hospitals…Catholic-Protestant cooperation complicates the dominant historiographical view of interreligious animosity and offers a model of religious pluralism in an unexpected place and time."

-Andrew Stern Southern Harmony: Catholic-Protestant Relations in the Antebellum South Cambridge University Press 2018

 

Kinship

Southerners felt a kinship with Catholics that was absent in the North. According to southern writer Daniel Hundley, "In Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and other portions of the far South, the progenitors of the Southern Gentleman were chiefly Spanish Dons and French Catholics." Compared to the North, Catholics had a much more significant influence on southern society. The Cavalier South was more tolerant and did not seek to conform others to their image as the Puritan North did. As a result, the South was admired by old-time Catholic conservatives like Lord Acton, Hilaire Belloc, and G.K Chesterton, who said: "Old England can still be faintly traced in Old Dixie."

In Catholic Confederates, Gracjan Kraszewski notes that "Catholics made themselves virtually indistinguishable from their Protestant neighbors." He refers to the "Confederatization" of Catholics that occurred to a greater extent in the South than in the North. The South accepted Catholics, and Catholics accepted the South. They became one with each other. Kraszewski writes, "More than one hundred years before Vatican II and JFK, Catholics in the South were fully integrated members of society who, save for their religion, believed the same things and acted similarly to their well-known Protestant neighbors."

When the separation came, southern Bishops almost universally sided with the South. After the fall of Fort Sumter, the local bishop, a rabid secessionist, led Catholics in the celebration by singing a Latin hymn. A number of Confederate generals were Catholics, including James Longstreet and the Confederacy's first general, Pierre Toutant Gustave Beauregard. The secretary of the Navy, Stephen Mallory, was also a Catholic and a member of Jefferson Davis's cabinet.

When federals occupied Natchez, Mississippi, they ordered all pastors and priests to pray for Abraham Lincoln, but Catholic Bishop William Henry Elder refused. He was briefly  imprisoned for his non-conformity and was heralded as a legend across the South. The most popular post-war poem among former Confederates was "The Conquered Banner." This poem -recited in southern schools for generations was composed by Catholic priest and Confederate army chaplain Abram Joseph Ryan.

Catholic priests made devotionals for the soldiers used by all denominations, and nuns served in confederate hospitals. Some Catholic Confederate chaplains could not stay out of the war; despite it being against canon law, John Bannon fired a cannon at the Yankee hordes. The similarities between traditional Catholicism and the South provided an "easy symbiosis" for the thousands of southern Catholic soldiers, writes Kraszewski. When the Confederacy sent Father John Bannon to Ireland, it was his view that devout Catholics of Europe could find in the Confederacy the remnant of Christendom. In the North, Bannon stated, one could only find puritans and anti-Catholic prejudice.

"Roman Catholics and Jews found an accepted place, sometimes a very successful place, in the South when such was unknown in the North....at the time of the war, a high proportion of American Catholics and Jews were found in the South and were loyal confederates. Nearly all Catholics and Jews elected to public office in the U.S. were in the South. The two most famous anti-Catholic incidents in the pre-war period took place in Boston and Philadelphia...no such incidents occurred in the South. The letters of Lincoln supporters are full of anti-Semitic comments, and , notoriously, General Grant was to banish Jews from the Union army lines."

-Clyde Wilson The Yankee Problem An American Dilemma Shotwell publishing 2016

 

Jews

Jews were clearly more accepted in the Southern states. Robert Rosen, in The Jewish Confederates, tells how the Southern Jewish population were among the most rabid secessionists. They were integrated into Confederate units, and some reached high ranks in the military, such as Col. Abraham C. Myers, quartermaster general of the Confederacy; Maj. Adolph Proskauer of the 12th Alabama; Maj. Alexander Hart of the Louisiana 5th; and Phoebe Levy Pember, chief matron at Richmond's Chimborazo Hospital, are some examples he gives. Judah Benjamin was a Senator from Louisiana before joining President Jefferson Davis' cabinet. He served as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State for the Confederacy. Rosen wrote, "the Confederate South was, contrary to popular belief, the exact opposite of the image of the Old South held by most contemporary Americans."

Union General U.S Grant gave General Order No. 11, expelling all Jews from his military district. He had earlier ordered a subordinate to "Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out." The following day he issued another command to "Give orders to all the conductors on the [rail] road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them." Grant said the black-market cotton exports were done "mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders." General Sherman wrote to the Union Army adjutant-general that "The country will swarm with dishonest Jews who will smuggle powder, pistols." And as with Jews and Catholics, so it was with Native Americans.

"In the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power…Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade…Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed ...The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government...the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August , in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes."

-Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861. THOMAS PEGG, President National Committee. JOSHUA ROSS, Clerk National Committee. Concurred. LACY MOUSE, Speaker of Council. THOMAS B. WOLFE, Clerk Council. Approved. J.N.O. ROSS.

 

Native Americans

The most significant discrepancy in the treatment of minorities is given when we look at Native Americans. The majority of the "civilized" Native American tribes sided with the South during the war. General Stand Watie of the Cherokee was the last Confederate general to surrender on June 23, 1865. He was the only Native American to be promoted to general on either side of the war. Native American tribes sent a higher percentage of their population to war than any state in the Confederacy and lost a higher percentage than any southern state. No one was more devoted to the Southern cause, not South Carolina or Virginia. They sacrificed the greatest and held out the longest.

The Indian Territory mainly sided with the South and sent delegates to Richmond. Richmond sent government officials, food, money, and supplies to the Indian Territory to help and support them. The formation of an Indian State in the Confederacy was offered to the tribes if they desired it. However, the Confederacy gave them complete autonomy for their government and offered a postal service even if they remained autonomous.

"...the several Indian treaties that bound the Indian nations in an alliance with the seceded states, under the authority of the Confederate State Department.. an innovation, in fact, that marked the tremendous importance that the Confederate government attached to the Indian friendship. It was something that stood out in marked contrast to the indifference manifested at the moment by the authorities at Washington...The Confederacy was offering him [the Indian] political integrity and political equality."

-Annie Heloise Abel Ph.D. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist an Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy Arthur H Clark Company Cleveland 1915

 

The Federals attacked and killed women and children of a neutral tribe during the war, driving even more support for the South. In response, the Confederacy sent financial support to displaced families under Union occupation. In General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians, Frank Cunningham quotes multiple tribal leaders' thankfulness for the treatment of their tribes by Richmond and President Davis.

Historian Annie Heloise Abel tells how it was John Calhoun and other Southern men who desired the entire west to be shut off from whites and to allow the Native Americans self-governance, "Southern politicians, after his time, became the chief advocates of Indian territorial integrity, the ones that pleaded most often and most noisily that guarantees to Indians be faithfully respected." As with Catholics, the tribes had more in common with the South in culture and institutions. As slave owners and planters, they tended to be agrarian. For example, on January 29, 1861, Arkansas governor Henry Rector wrote to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, "Our people and yours are natural allies in war and friends in peace."

"On behalf of the Creek people...the cause of the South is our cause, her hopes our hopes, and whatever her misfortunes may be it shall be our pleasure to bear them patiently with her, even unto death. If she falls we fall, and if she prospers we only desire it to be our privilege to enjoy her prosperity….we are enrolling every able-bodied man in service for war."

-Samuel Checote, Creek Nation

 

Heneha Mekko, "Principal Chief of the Seminoles," said:

"The Confederate States have not deserted us, we have been provided for, our women and children are fed, our soldiers get all they should expect. The Government is engaged in a great war, she cannot do any more for us now then she is doing...assure the President the Seminoles are yet true and loyal. Their treaty stipulations are sacred. The destiny of your government shall be ours. If she falls we will go with her: if she triumphs no rejoicing will be more sincere than ours."

 

The western "wild" plains Native Americans did not side with the South, but still fought against the North. The North sent General Pope to deal with the "savages' 'like the Sioux. Lincoln signed off on the hanging of 38 Native Americans in 1862 in Minnesota.

Lincoln's attitude towards Native Americans might have been affected by an earlier time in his life. His close friend Ward Lamon tells of the great impact that the murder of Lincoln's grandfather by Native Americans had on the future president. Lincoln said, "The story of his death by the Indians, and of Uncle Mordecai, then fourteen years old, killing one of the Indians, is the legend more strongly than all others imprinted upon my mind and memory." Lincoln's uncle Mordecai "hated Indians ever after" and even was reputed to murder innocent Native Americans when he had the chance. Lamon tells us "Many years afterward, his neighbors believed that he was in the habit of following peaceable Native Americans as they passed through the settlements, to get surreptitious shots at them and it was no secret that he had killed more than one in that way." So it should not surprise us that aged 23, Abraham Lincoln volunteered for a chance to fight Native Americans in the Black Hawk War.

 

Attacks from the North

The North then attacked and kicked the wild plains Native Americans off their land in pursuit of a transcontinental railroad to bring their territory under the domain of the industrialists and capitalists. In their book The South Was Right!James and Walter Kennedy document numerous cases of northern abuses of minorities. Federal General Pope ordered that the Native Americans "Are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made." He declared, "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux." Professor Thomas DiLorenzo quotes Lincoln's friend Grenville Dodge, Union general and railroad icon, who suggested using captive Native Americans as forced labor (I thought Republicans did not like slavery- though perhaps it was only when they were not master) on the railroads.

Republicans did not care for Native American rights. In the Personal Memoirs of U.S Grant, among his ruminations on the consequences of the conflict was "It is probable that the Indians would have had control of these lands [west] for a century yet but for the war. We must conclude, therefore, that wars are not always evils unmixed with some good." So the taking of land from the Native Americans was such an excellent "good" that it helped justify the evils of the civil war to our former Republican President and civil war "hero."

In Nothing Like it in the World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869, Historian Stephen Ambrose quotes the Chicago Tribune newspaper as observing, "The railroad men...have an infallible remedy for the Indian trouble, that remedy is extermination. These men, most of them tender and gentle with the weak of their own race, speak with indifference of the wiping out of thousands of Papoos and Squaws." Ambrose then quotes General Sherman, "The more [Indians] we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of Paupers." Dodge said, "We've got to clear the dumb Indians out." Oliver Ames, President of the Union Pacific railroad, said, "I see nothing but extermination to the Indians as a result of their thieving disposition, and we shall probably have to come to this before we can run the [rail] road safely."

Before the war, northern abolitionist Republicans like William Seward had declared the removal of the Native Americans was necessary. Arthur Ferguson, Union Pacific Railroad surveyor, said, "I have no sympathy for the red devils…. May their dwelling places and habitations be destroyed. May the greedy crow hover over their silent corpses. May the coyote feast upon their stiff and festering carcasses." Drunk on industrial power, Sherman told the Native Americans, "We build iron roads, and you can't stop the locomotive any more than you can stop the sun or moon, and you must submit...we now offer you this, choose your homes, and live like white men, and we will help you all you want."

According to DiLorenzo in The Feds versus the Indians, "During an assault," Sherman instructed his troops, "the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as "the final solution to the Indian problem," a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later." DiLorenzo said Phil Sheridan and Sherman popularized the phrase "a good Indian is a dead Indian." Sherman's ultimate objective was to eliminate the tribes. "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux," Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant, "even to their extermination, men, women, and children." The Sioux must "feel the superior power of the Government."

The U.S. superintendent of Indian affairs, Clark Thompson, revealed the mindset of Republicans towards Native Americans and how to make them worship the same god [money] as the Yankees do.

"Many plans proposed to bring about a change of their habits, customs, and mode of living...his whole nature must be changed. He must have a white man's ambition, to be like him…to change the disposition of the Indian to one more mercenary and ambitious to obtain riches and teach him to value the position consequent upon the possession of riches."

-Clark W Thompson Superintendent Indian Affairs United States Congressional serial set, Volume 1117

 

The North could not allow anything or anyone, no matter what race, to get in its way of building an empire in the worship of its true god, progress. So, they would either exterminate or remake such culture that got in its way, either the South or the Native Americans. The South had experienced it from the Union and prophetically warned the Native Americans.

"Another, and perhaps the chief cause, is to get upon your rich lands and settle their squatters, who do not like to settle in slave States. They will settle upon your lands as fast as they choose, and the Northern people will force their Government to allow it. It is true they will allow your people small reserves—they give chiefs pretty large ones—but they will settle among you, overshadow you, and totally destroy the power of your chiefs and your nationality, and then trade your people out of the residue of their lands. Go North among the once powerful tribes of that country and see if you can find Indians living and enjoying power and property and liberty as do your people and the neighboring tribes from the South."

-Quoted in Annie Heloise Abel Ph.D. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy Arthur H Clark Company Cleveland 1915

 

Distrust

It should be no wonder that the Native tribes distrusted the North and sided with the South when the war broke out.

"Resolved further.. We shall be left to follow the natural affections, education, institutions, and interests of our people, which indissolubly bind us in every way to the destiny of our neighbors and brethren of the Southern States upon whom we are confident we can rely for the preservation of our rights of life, liberty, and property, and the continuance of many acts of friendship, general counsel, and material support."

-Choctaws Council Resolutions February 7, 1861

 

The Native Americans, Jews, Catholics, and the South were diverse cultures that held to a live and let live attitude. They did not seek to conform each other to their image but allowed for diversity and self-governance. This was unlike the Yankees, who puritanically thought themselves superior to all and through military force, government coercion, sheer numbers, and forced indoctrination eradicated opposing cultures' ideologies and brought them all under its dominion. There no longer is any such thing as self-governance unless you are a disciple of the Yankee empire in America. This subjugation of opposing cultures and forced conformity seems a perfectly intolerant and discriminatory practice. While Cash is speaking of the South here, it equally applied to all non-conforming societies the Yankee empire came into contact with.

"The Civil War and Reconstruction represent in their primary aspect an attempt on the part of the Yankee to achieve by force what he had failed by political means: first, a free hand in the nation for the thievish aims of the tariff gang, and secondly, and far more fundamentally, the satisfaction of the instinctive urge of men in the mass to put down whatever differs from themselves—the will to make over the South in the prevailing American image and to sweep it into the main current of the nation."

-W. J. Cash The Mind of the South Vintage Books New York 1941

 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

The Battle of Aspern-Essling, fought on May 21nd and 22st, 1809 marked one of the most significant land engagements of the Napoleonic Wars and the first major setback for Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte on the battlefield.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Essling, May 1809. By Fernand Cormon.

Taking place on the northern bank of the Danube River near Vienna, this confrontation was part of the War of the Fifth Coalition, wherein Austria, under the leadership of Archduke Charles, sought to challenge Napoleon's dominance in Europe. The battle demonstrated the growing capacity of the Austrian military to resist the previously unstoppable French Grande Armée.

Napoleon's strategic goal was to cross the Danube and strike decisively at the Austrian forces, effectively neutralizing their threat and consolidating French control over Central Europe. The crossing of the mighty river presented logistical challenges, requiring the construction of pontoon bridges. Despite the French emperor's reputation for meticulous planning and tactical brilliance, unforeseen complications and the resilience of the Austrian forces thwarted his ambitions.

Archduke Charles, leading the Austrian army, with his subordinate commanders capitalized on the vulnerabilities created by the French reliance on fragile pontoon bridges. The Austrians launched a surprise counteroffensive, targeting Napoleon's forces as they attempted to consolidate their position in the villages of Aspern and Essling.

Over two days, intense combat unfolded, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. While the French initially made gains, the destruction of their supply lines and bridges by Austrian forces turned the tide of the battle, forcing Napoleon to withdraw, a rare occurrence in his military career.

The battle's outcome was a psychological and strategic turning point. For the Austrians, it was a validation of their renewed efforts to oppose French hegemony. For Napoleon, the defeat underscored the risks of overextension and the challenges of managing a vast empire amidst persistent opposition. Aspern-Essling also highlighted the emergence of Archduke Charles as a capable commander and underscored the shifting dynamics of warfare in the Napoleonic era.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling would set the stage for further confrontations, most notably the Battle of Wagram in July 1809, a decisive yet costly victory for Emperor Napoleon's French and allied army. However, its immediate impact resonated as a demonstration of Napoleon's vulnerability and the fierce resistance of a reformed Austrian army.

 

The political and cultural lead-up to the battle

By 1809, Napoleon's grip on Europe was tightening. After numerous battlefield victories, his dominance was largely unchallenged. However, Austrian dissatisfaction with French hegemony and the territorial rearrangements of the Confederation of the Rhine led to a resurgence of resistance. Austrian reformers under Archduke Charles modernized their army, introducing conscription and improved training. Encouraged by Napoleon's focus on Spain and the perceived overstretch of French forces, Austria declared war in April 1809.

The Fifth Coalition War was characterized by Austria's attempt to rally German-speaking states to their cause and Napoleon's swift counteroffensive. The French Emperor sought to decisively crush Austrian resistance early to discourage other powers from joining the coalition.

Culturally, the war symbolized a clash of national pride. Austria, as an old European power, sought to restore its waning influence, while Napoleon aimed to consolidate his modern empire.

 

The strategic context

The Danube River was the lifeline of the theatre, serving as a critical supply route and barrier. Napoleon's strategy revolved around rapidly crossing the Danube to bring Archduke Charles to battle, using his signature approach of speed and decisive action to envelop and destroy the Austrian forces.

Archduke Charles, on the other hand, aimed to exploit Napoleon's reliance on rapid maneuvers. He sought to use the Danube as a defensive advantage, forcing Napoleon into a constrained engagement while leveraging Austria's numerical superiority.

 

The Commanders

Napoleon Bonaparte: The French Emperor's reputation as a military genius was unassailable by 1809. Known for his bold tactics and ability to adapt to battlefield conditions, Napoleon sought to secure yet another victory to maintain his aura of invincibility.

Archduke Charles of Austria: A reformer and tactician, Charles was Austria's most competent commander. Though often overshadowed by Napoleon, he was well-versed in defensive operations and had a deep understanding of the terrain.

 

The development of the battle

On the 20th of May, Napoleon initiated his plan to cross the Danube using pontoon bridges constructed by his engineers near the villages of Aspern and Essling. His goal was to establish a bridgehead on the northern bank, a vital step toward forcing the Austrians into a pitched battle. However, the Austrian army, aware of his movements, positioned itself strategically to counter this crossing.

 

Initial French success (May 21st, 1809)

Napoleon's forces crossed the river and established positions near Aspern and Essling. The French vanguard quickly pushed into Aspern, with fierce fighting erupting as Austrian troops counterattacked. By evening, the French had secured a tenuous foothold but faced relentless Austrian pressure.

 

Austrian resilience (May 22nd, 1809)

Overnight, the Austrians launched a determined assault on both villages, seeking to isolate the French forces. The Austrian artillery targeted the French pontoon bridges, severing Napoleon's critical supply line and reinforcements. This disruption stalled French momentum and left Napoleon unable to fully commit his reserves.

Throughout the day, the battle seesawed, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. Napoleon personally led counterattacks, attempting to retake Aspern and secure the river crossing, but Austrian resistance, bolstered by their superior numbers and entrenched positions, held firm.

By late afternoon, Napoleon realized his precarious situation. With his forces dangerously exposed and his supply line compromised, he ordered a retreat across the Danube, marking the first time he was forced to abandon a battlefield under direct opposition.

 

The influence and outcome of tactics

French tactics

Napoleon's strategy hinged on rapid crossing and overwhelming force, but his reliance on hastily constructed pontoon bridges proved a critical vulnerability. His characteristic use of concentrated artillery and massed infantry attacks faltered due to supply disruptions and Austrian counter-battery fire.

 

Austrian tactics

Archduke Charles's decision to engage the French immediately after their river crossing was pivotal. He leveraged his superior numbers and defensive positions to great effect. Austrian engineers and artillery played a crucial role, repeatedly targeting the French bridges and disrupting Napoleon's logistical base.

The Austrian use of flexible defensive lines and coordinated counterattacks demonstrated their improved tactical doctrine and underlined their determination to resist French dominance.

 

The aftermath

The Battle of Aspern-Essling was a pyrrhic victory for Austria. While they successfully halted Napoleon and inflicted heavy casualties (37,000 combined), they could not capitalize on their success in delivering a decisive blow. For Napoleon, the battle was a sobering experience that exposed vulnerabilities in his strategy and his army's logistical operations.

The immediate aftermath saw both sides preparing for the inevitable rematch. Just six weeks later, Napoleon reorganized his forces and decisively defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Wagram. However, Aspern-Essling tarnished his image of invincibility and emboldened resistance movements across Europe.

 

In conclusion, the Battle of Aspern-Essling stands as a defining moment in the Napoleonic Wars, a clash that tested the limits of Napoleon's strategic brilliance and Austria's resolve. While not a decisive strategic victory for either side, it marked a significant psychological shift in the war and the perception of Napoleon's invincibility on land.

For Austria, the battle symbolized the fruits of military reform and demonstrated that even Napoleon's formidable forces could be thwarted with preparation, determination, and tactical ingenuity. Archduke Charles's leadership, the precise targeting of French supply lines, and the Austrians' effective use of defensive positions and counterattacks revealed the vulnerabilities in Napoleon's reliance on speed and maneuver.

For Napoleon, Aspern-Essling was a sobering reminder of the risks inherent in overconfidence and the perils of logistical weakness. The loss of pontoon bridges and the resultant supply line collapse illustrated the growing complexity of sustaining a large, modern army in the field. While he would swiftly recover and triumph at Wagram, the psychological and symbolic implications of this defeat reverberated across Europe, inspiring his adversaries and energizing resistance movements.

Strategically, the battle highlighted the increasing role of engineering, logistics, and coordination in early 19th-century warfare. The lessons learned on both sides would shape subsequent engagements, influencing military thought and practices for years to come.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling is not merely a story of tactics and bloodshed but a tale of the evolving nature of war. It serves as a powerful reminder of the interplay between leadership, preparation, and adaptability, a narrative that continues to resonate in military studies and strategic planning to this day.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of ​​democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Here, Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter look at Hitler’s actions in the build-up to World War II. Read part 1 on Hitler’s early years here, and part 2 on Hitler taking power in the 1930s here.

Seyss-Inquart and Hitler with (on the right) Himmler and Heydrich. Vienna, March 1938. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-5243 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

After World War I, Germany was subjected to economic sanctions, lost territory, and was prohibited from having more than 100,000 soldiers in its army, or arming itself in any way that might pose a threat to another country. The German army did not even have an air force.

Hitler portrayed himself in all his speeches and international meetings as a peace-loving man, but at the same time he was working to rearm Germany and strengthen its army as quickly as possible. The truth is that the rearmament plan was initiated by some officers in the German army before Hitler even came to power. For example, in 1920, General Hans von Seekt, one of the generals who was responsible for building the army, decided to train soldiers as officers to overcome the shortage of soldiers, because if there was an opportunity to increase the number, it would be easier for these officers to lead the new recruits.

The German army was also not allowed to have tanks, so the same General Hans von Seekt used tanks called tractors. As for the air force, the leaders of the civil aviation industry were studying designs for fighter aircraft, in anticipation of the time of implementing these designs, but this was impossible as long as Germany was committed to the Treaty of Versailles.

 

Rhineland

In 1935, Hitler ended the Treaty of Versailles, and made a law reorganizing the armed forces, establishing the Air Force, and returning compulsory conscription from the age of 20. Even children were included in an organization called the Hitler Youth, and the League of German Girls. This would over time implicitly help to increase the size of the army, which in 1937 had 5 million members in service and 8 million in the reserves.

In 1936, France signed a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, which Hitler considered a violation of the Locarno Treaty of 1925, in which five treaties were then signed: a Rhine Pact which guaranteed the western borders of Germany, and four other arbitration treaties (Germany-France, Germany-Belgium, Germany-Poland, and Germany-Czechoslovakia).

Hitler ordered the redeployment of troops to the Rhineland, a strip between Germany and France that had been demilitarized, consisting of the western bank of the Rhine River to France, and 25 miles from the eastern bank.

The army leaders opposed the German entry into this area because it would provoke France, especially since the German army was not ready because the rearmament process was not yet complete, but Hitler was determined to put the army to the French border because he thought that any move without military action was evidence of weakness for him.

Hitler also believed that France would not respond militarily, and would not exacerbate the issue for two reasons: the first reason is that it could not enter a second war after World War I, and the second reason is that the British government was pursuing a policy of appeasement in dealing with Nazi Germany.

On February 12, 1936, Hitler authorized the ‘Operation Winter Exercise’ to remilitarize the Rhineland.

On March 7, 1936, 19 German battalions crossed the Rhine River; fearing war with France, Hitler ordered them to withdraw if they opposed it.  In fact, the French had already proposed a joint attack on 11 March 1936, but when Britain refused to participate, France decided it could not do it alone.

As a result, Germany occupied the Rhineland and its military fortifications, which only increased his ambitions.

 

Austria

In his book Mein Kampf in 1925, Hitler wrote: ‘Germany-Austria must return to the great German motherland, and not because of economic considerations of any sort. No, no, even if from the economic point of view this union were unimportant, indeed, if it were harmful, it ought nevertheless to be brought about. Common blood belongs in a common Reich. As long as the German nation is unable even to band together its own children in one common state, it has no moral right to think of colonization as one of its political aims. Only when the boundaries of the Reich include even the last German, only when it is no longer possible to assure him of daily bread inside them, does there arise, out of the distress of the nation, the moral right to acquire foreign soil and territory.’

Hitler saw the need to unite the Germans in Europe under one rule, and the largest place where there were Germans outside of Germany was Austria, where he was born.

To move safely, Hitler decided that there should be no country on the borders of Austria that would move against him.

Italy was internationally isolated and needed allies, so Mussolini sent his son-in-law and his foreign minister to Berlin, and then signed a secret agreement in which Italy agreed to Germany's invasion of Austria, but on the condition that it would not violate the Italian borders. Hitler also promised Mussolini his support, and that he would let him do what he wanted in the Mediterranean region, in exchange for Mussolini letting Hitler do what he wanted in Europe north of the Alps.

Hitler only had to find a pretext to invade Austria, for the sake of the international community, and in 1938, Hitler hosted the ruler of Austria, and threatened him that if he did not do what he wanted, he would invade him militarily. At the end of the same day, the members of the Nazi Party who were arrested in 1934 when they carried out a failed coup in Austria were released. The ruler of Austria also agreed to appoint Nazi ministers in the government, including the Minister of the Interior, Arthur Seyss-Inquart.

After that, the Nazis in Austria rioted and demonstrated, the result of which was that the Minister of the Interior asked Hitler to intervene and send the German army into Austria to maintain security and safety, so Hitler ordered the invasion of Austria. The invasion happened without a single drop of blood and Hitler then organized a referendum to legitimize their military action.

On April 10, 1938, more than 99% of Austrians voted to join Germany - in a sham referendum.

 

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.