The Long History of Tourism at Pompeii and Mount Vesuvius

The Ancient Romans have left a legacy of its sprawling empire through ruins, architecture and history firmly rooted in Italian culture. This legacy has inspired artists and writers for generations and the archaeological site of Pompeii, located in southern Italy, has fascinated historians as a place frozen in time after the tragic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE.

Here, Amy Chandler considers the history of tourism at Mount Vesuvius.

The eruption of Vesuvius in 1794 by Alessandro D'Anna.

This tragic natural events after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius buried both Pompeii and Herculaneum and was left undisturbed until 1748. In the immediate aftermath of the eruption, efforts were made by the new Emperor Titus to relocate those who survived to nearby cities such as Nola, Naples and Capua. (1) Despite initial attempts, human interference reduced with only looters attempting to dig through the newly formed igneous rock to retrieve valuables. Soon the site became overgrown and forgotten leaving Pompeii frozen in tragedy. In 1863, under Italy’s new leader Garibaldi, Giuseppe Fiorelli was appointed as director of the excavation to uncover Pompeii’s lost history. (1)

The story of Pompeii and those fateful days leading to the eruption fascinates visitors and draws 2.5 million tourists each year to the site, with 1 million visiting Mount Vesuvius. Visitors are eager to walk in the footsteps of history and understand the civilisation that was destroyed and connect with the past in a meaningful way. The reasons as to why many visit the historic site and climb the mountain with such a volatile reputation has changed over the centuries from a spiritual enlightening to an insatiable form of consumerism. Arguably, climbing Mount Vesuvius was seen as what modern society refers to as the bucket list. The attitude and needs of the tourist shifted from a spiritual enlightening to the desire for comfort and speed where travellers focused on the destination rather than the journey. The types of tourists shifted as new forms of interacting with the area and travel evolved. This article will explore how tourism has changed from the elite grand tour to Mount Vesuvius and Pompeii to a destination attracting tourists from all over the world.

The eighteenth century tourist

In the eighteenth century, the Grand Tour of Europe was common amongst the elite upper class of the male English aristocracy to broaden their knowledge and experience of the world through cultural enrichment in Europe and beyond. (2) Seen as a rite of passage, many would bring back souvenirs from their travels. (2) Travel was primarily common in the elite and most wealthy as it wasn’t financially or physically accessible, therefore the only way to experience these locations was through travel writers, and paintings from those privileged enough to travel across Europe. It wasn’t until the 1840s with the rise of the middle class and the boom of industrialisation and railways that this elite activity became more accessible to a wider group of people who could afford to travel for leisure. This soon broadened the type of tourist and diluted the exclusivity of the elite grand tour. Grand tourists visited the main cities in Europe and travelled by boat and horse drawn carriage in a lengthy and often challenging journey that could easily last a year or longer. There wasn’t any set route but would begin by crossing the English Channel by boat and entering France. From there the journey could deviate but would mainly consist of entering Italy either from the Alps and Lyon or Marseille to Livorno, Italy. Once in Italy, the tour would drift through Florence for the Renaissance art, Venice for partying and the annual carnival and detour to Rome to visit the ancient ruins. It wasn’t until the excavation of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 1738 and 1748 that tourists deviated to southern Italy into Naples to visit the ruins.

The journey to climbing up Mount Vesuvius in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century was either by purchasing a private carriage that provided a leisurely journey or, which was most common, a communal horse drawn carriage called a corricolo or calesso. (3) The journey became easier after the introduction of the 1839 railway to Portici that was one of Italy’s first railway lines that followed the Vesuvius coastline offering a picturesque journey for visitors. Before this, the journey was often an exciting and treacherous adventure where the visitor became involved with the locals. Most tourists arrived at the Piazza della Fontana, which was compiled of 12 buildings and a stable. (3) This was usually where many would haggle and bargain with local tour guides. Once visitors had acquired a guide, they begun the ascent up the mountain where the landscape suddenly transformed from rich volcanic soil to a “realm of death and the slain earth’s dust alone slips beneath your unassured feet” as described by Madame de Stael in her 1807 travel guide Corinne, ou l’Italie. (3) Travellers usually rode on donkeys until they reached what many referred to as a “half-way house to heaven”, “Casa Bianca” or most commonly the Hermitage of San Salvatore. (3) The Hermitage offered travellers rest and food before the next journey towards the summit and was built in the 1650s, 600 metres above sea level by fugitives of the plague and was close to the previous Hermitage that was destroyed by the 1631 eruption. Galignani’s Guide (1824) described the lodgings as a “neat plain white building of two stories” with a chapel. (3) The Hermitage offered more than just a rest for travellers, but was an opportunity for a change in tour guides. The Hermitage also offered a Visitor’s Book for travellers to sign with many recording details of their stay. While there was no fee for staying, those who ran the Hermitage expected a suitable reward in return for their hospitality.

From that moment on, tourists travelled on foot for about an hour, which was followed by a strenuous ascent to the volcano. As eruptions occurred, so did the increase in tourism, the Hermitage was particularly busy in autumn after 1822 which meant a need for more staff and tour guides. Many illustrations depicted flocks of wealthy tourists in inadequate attire climbing the mountain, which emphasises the mass interest in the area. Due to the nature of the hot and rough terrain a cobbler was stationed at the Hermitage to mend worn out and damaged shoes. The higher the climb the tougher it became as one traveller described the ascent as “climbing a sand hill” combined with the sulphurous fumes from the volcano. (3) At this point, the guides would wrap belts around their group and drag each other up the mountain. On some occasion, sedan chairs carried those who were unable to walk on the rough terrain.Much of the allure of visiting the volcano came from the thrill and unpredictability of nature. No two visits were the same, with the terrain altering after an eruption to occasional explosions to full eruptions depending on the time and environmental factors of the climb. The greater the danger meaning the greater the thrill that only created a mixture of fear, awe and apprehension at the strength of nature. Mount Vesuvius was a reminder that this volcano was responsible for wiping out a civilisation in one swoop leaving history frozen in time.

Modern intervention

The process of finding and bargaining with a guide was seen as a rite of passage and perceived as a fixed itinerary when visiting Naples by the 1820s. However, by 1862 the process was streamlined through a ticketing system and aided by Thomas Cook tours in 1864, which organised excursions across Europe and the UK. (3) Thomas Cook introduced Pompeii into the wider itinerary for European travel and created structured visits, transforming the whole experience entirely. (4) This streamlining process aided in structured and accessible exploration without the reliance on local knowledge from tour guides. The structured approach to visiting Naples and the volcano became compacted in visitor guidebooks that provided details, logistics and descriptions of the site that prepared visitors instead of blindly entering the area. In many ways, this approach allowed greater control, but took away that thrill of foreign travel that was once alluring to those undertaking the grand tour and the stories of unknown territory. However, with an influx of tourists and the instability of volcanic eruptions the typography changed through man-made interventions and eruptions cutting new paths to the summit. For example, throughout the nineteenth century, a road was built leading to the Hermitage and by 1844 an Observatory was built that increased accessibility and scientific interest, once again changing the way visitors interacted with the area. (3) The road allowed easy access for carriages and turned the path to Mount Vesuvius into a commodity that many could just ride up in a carriage and pay enough money to be taken to the summit. Some travellers referred to the lines of carriages all flocking the summit as ‘Derby Day’. Even the way that visitor experienced the climb changed from many embracing the dirt and ash and the physical toil that the climb had on their body to those who didn’t need to exert themselves at all.

As tourism flourished, the need for tighter regulations also increased. The local government began to regulate the guides and control their numbers and activities on the mountain. (3). The Ordinance of 1846 reduced the number of official guides to 16 with the requirement to speak at least one foreign language and be of “good character”. (3) These official guides were issued permits and given fixed prices to charge for tours to the summit, this eliminated the need for bargaining that so many travellers associated with early visits to Naples. The intervention of the local government undermined the select few who held a monopoly on activities in the area and controlled the routes to and from Mount Vesuvius previously. Visitors now had a variety of options and better communication while travelling. Despite this improvement a handful of tourists still preferred to continue to travel through the Resina area for the adventure rather than to choose the convenience of the railway. Ultimately, the need to haggle and bargain for a guide was unnecessary and the production of widely accessible guidebooks stating the dangers of guides who bargain eliminated this step. The intervention of travel agencies like Thomas Cook played a major part in the flourishing of tourism and the accessibility to a wider audience. This intervention sanitised the experience and today it is very common for travel agencies to employ English-speaking travel reps to work in hotels abroad and act as a point of contact and excursion organiser for British tourists. This checkpoint removes the need to integrate within the local culture and is distant from the experience of those who undertook the grand tour in the eighteenth century.

Growing strains

Furthermore, the greater the number of visitors the greater the strain on the surrounding infrastructure to accommodate the growing needs. It is only natural that as these attractions become popular, the need to modernise or transform the way that visitors interact with the area must adapt to the new needs of tourists. The development of photography and ability to produce souvenirs from the excursion created a heightened awareness that reached a wider audience. By 1880, the introduction of a funicular railway to Mount Vesuvius eased the journey and reliance on guides for the whole journey. Instead guides were only needed for the climb to the summit. This railway cut a 1 hour and 30 minute ascent to a 12-minute ride that could transport 300 passengers a day. (3) Despite improving the visitor experience, the funicular didn’t achieve much of a profit and cost too much to run. By 1887, Thomas Cook’s son John Mason Cook swooped in to save the funicular but refused to accept the guide’s request for a concession payment. (3) This created major tension and protests from the tour guides resulting in the burning of the station, cutting the track and throwing one of the funicular cars into Vesuvius’s crater. The guides interfered with repairs and damaged the line, prompting the closure for 6 months until an agreement was settled. Finally a settlement agreed that a portion of every ticket sold on the funicular was given to the guides in exchange for their services at the upper station to the top of the volcano (100 yards). (3) This agreement changed the structure of guides from independent to employees. Albeit, the funicular did close in 1955 after the completion of a road and was no longer used. Tourism rapidly changed because of the work of travel agents like Thomas Cook. They created an itinerary and holiday with strict structures that focused on stress-free experiences that avoided the issues that past travellers had to negotiate. Before long, a hotel, restaurant, railway and toll roads that issued levies on non-Cook customers surrounded the volcano. (3) These infrastructures provided stable income for the local community and the romantic idea of struggle and enlightenment through the treacherous climb was replaced by comfort, ease and convenience. Tourists were distanced from physical challenges of the environment and the immersion with the locals. The volatile volcano could be conquered with little effort, which is a far cry from the gruelling path made by many grand tourists of the eighteenth century.

Both the site of Pompeii and Herculaneum preserve history in a fixed point in time, but some historians argue that this moment may not reflect the extent of daily life as many did evacuate and take personal possessions. These sites still offer historians and visitors a unique opportunity that no other historical or archaeological site can do, even if much of the original structures were severely damaged during the eruption. The excavation of Pompeii opened up a human and emotive narrative that connected with visitors on a different level than just an event in the past. However, with the growing number of tourists visiting Naples today, there is increased concern for the safety of both the site of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Pompeii has a lasting legacy and it appears many tourists wish to do the same. Reports include tourists vandalising and purposefully damaging the frescos with one Dutch visitor writing their name in permanent marker in bold letters and some scratching their initials into the stone. (5) In the future, there must come a point where local governments and heritage bodies such as UNESCO need to evaluate the safety of the sites with the growing number of visitors. Arguably, some visitors potentially view the site as a tourist attraction or commodity for their personal consumption rather than a place of immense historical value and a memorial to those killed by the eruption. This point is something that is lost through the commercialisation and allowing open access to the public. Italy has also started to restrict the number of tourists entering Pompeii by only issuing 20,000 tickets per day and utilising timed slots in peak summer times to help ease the human pressures placed on the fragile site. (6) It’s not just Pompeii that is struggling under the number of visitors, popular locations like Venice, Portofino, Capri and Rome also experience immense strain during peak season. (6)

Conclusion

The awe and unpredictability of nature is one that has captivated visitors for centuries and still offers an unmatched experience. To visit Mount Vesuvius and walk around the site of Pompeii has only grown in its popularity due to the timeless preservation of history. Pompeii is a haunting reminder the natural world cannot be domesticated irrespective of technology that monitors and tries to predict the next natural disaster. The rise of tourism to the area and many other UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Europe have been made accessible through industrialisation, railway and other transport options that connected remote areas that were once only accessible by carriage. Large travel agents have replaced the control from the local monopoly that select families had over visitor routes and territory by structured excursions. The Grand Tourists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century embellished a daring and treacherous experience through writing, artwork and word of mouth, which creates this fear of missing out. Social media is just a more advanced way to distribute these stories about Pompeii and other cities that replaces the old-fashioned grand tourists. However, like with all major cities that often become shrouded in a romanticised version or one that is often embellished, the reality of visiting some of these locations can often be underwhelming. This is especially evident when heritage sites become flooded with tourism that poses a threat to the preservation of heritage and culture. What is most evident is that while museums, writers and artist can attempt to capture the feeling and atmosphere of cities and heritage sites, they cannot always replicate that feeling of being there in person.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

(1) J. Renshaw, In search of the Romans (London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2012),pp. 267, 273.

(2) Royal Museums Greenwich, ‘What was the Grand Tour?’, 2025, RMG < https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/what-was-grand-tour >[accessed 20 January 2025].

(3) J. Brewer, Volcanic: Vesuvius in the age of revolutions (USA, Yale University Press, 2023), pp. 12, 14,15,21-23, 152 -154.

(4) Pompeii Archaeological Park, ‘How Tourism in Pompeii Boomed Through Photography and Middle Class Enthusiasm’, 2025, Pompeii Archaeological Park <

https://pompeiiarchaeologicalpark.com/tourism-in-pompeii/ > [accessed 22 January 2025].

(5) Reuters, ‘Dutch tourist accused of graffitiing Ancient Roman villa in Herculaneum’, 2024, CNN Travel < https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/05/travel/dutch-tourist-defacing-roman-scli-intl/index.html >[accessed 30 January 2025].

(6) G. Dean, ‘Pompeii to cap daily tourist numbers at 20,000’, 2024, BBC News <

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdl1njj1peo >[accessed 22 January 2025].

The 1860 U.S. Presidential Election - Part I: Candidates

The 1860 Presidential Election set the stage for the Civil War and had significant repercussions for the United States. Throughout the 1850s, the nation grappled with contentious issues surrounding states' rights and the institution of slavery in the territories, which ultimately shaped the political landscape of the election. This period saw the Democratic Party splinter into Northern and Southern factions, reflecting deep divisions within the country. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln emerged victorious against Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, and Constitutional Union candidate John Bell. The electoral divide between Northern and Southern Democrats highlighted a profound sectional conflict, enabling Lincoln and the Republican Party to ascend to power without any backing from Southern states. In the wake of Lincoln's election, and before his inauguration in March 1861, seven Southern states chose to secede from the Union, a decision that precipitated the onset of the Civil War. Just weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina formally declared secession.

Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at the background to the election and the conventions that selected candidates.

Republican Party candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Democratic Party candidate Stephen A. Douglas.

President Buchanan and the Election of 1856

The factors that shaped the 1860 Election became evident shortly after the 1856 Election. The Democratic nomination of James Buchanan over Stephen Douglas was largely orchestrated by James Slidell from Louisiana, who would play a significant role during Buchanan's presidency. Following Buchanan's victory over Douglas for the nomination, Douglas pledged his support to Buchanan in order to defeat John Fremont, the inaugural nominee of the Republican Party. Douglas anticipated having a say in patronage matters post-election, particularly regarding cabinet positions for two of his associates from the West. However, Slidell obstructed these appointments, having been granted authority over such decisions alongside Senator Bright of Indiana. The relationship between Douglas and Buchanan soured over the contentious Lecompton Constitution, leading to a fierce rivalry. By the time Douglas sought re-election as Senator in Illinois in 1858, Slidell had already purged many of Douglas's allies from federal positions.

The Dred Scott Decision

Another pivotal element influencing the 1860 Election was the Dred Scott decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857. This ruling invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, effectively legalizing slavery across all U.S. territories. The Court's determination that the Constitution safeguarded the institution of slavery and that formerly enslaved individuals could never attain American citizenship heightened the existing sectional tensions. As a result, the election of 1860 was poised to further illuminate the stark divisions between those advocating for the abolition of slavery and those intent on preserving it.

Stephen Douglas and Popular Sovereignty

While the term "popular sovereignty" is closely associated with Stephen Douglas in contemporary discussions, it was neither his invention nor his original concept. The term gained a negative connotation due to its association with the contentious issue of slavery. The idea was first proposed by Michigan Senator Lewis Cass, who also had presidential ambitions tied to this principle. By the year 1848, Cass had established himself as a prominent figure in American politics, leading to his selection as the Democratic Party's candidate for the presidency. The party believed that his stance on slavery would resonate with a diverse electorate.

Cass's advocacy for popular sovereignty meant that the residents of a territory would have the authority to determine the legality of slavery within their borders. While this approach garnered some support, it also raised concerns among many Americans who viewed it as ambiguous and potentially disruptive to the delicate balance between slave and free states. This apprehension contributed to Cass's defeat in the presidential election, where he lost to Zachary Taylor, a Mexican War hero known for his reluctance to express clear opinions on contentious issues, including slavery. After his electoral defeat, Cass returned to Michigan, where he continued to serve as a U.S. Senator until 1857, when he was appointed Secretary of State under President James Buchanan.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, championed by Stephen A. Douglas, introduced the concept of popular sovereignty to the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. This legislation empowered the settlers of these territories to determine for themselves whether to permit slavery within their borders, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise, which had previously established a geographical boundary for the expansion of slavery based on latitude.

Douglas's initiative aimed to organize the Nebraska territory and bring it under civil governance. However, southern senators raised concerns since the area was situated north of the 36°30’ latitude line, which would classify it as a free state according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. To secure support from the Southern faction, Douglas suggested the creation of two distinct territories—Kansas and Nebraska—while also repealing the Missouri Compromise. This arrangement allowed the settlers to decide the status of slavery in their territories, with the expectation that Kansas would lean towards being free and Nebraska would be more accommodating to slavery, thus preserving the political equilibrium.

Douglas himself was not a slaveholder, though his wife was. His political position was that it mattered not to him whether a state or territory was free or slave as long as that had been popularly decided. He maintained that the status of a state or territory—whether free or slave—should be determined by the vote of its citizens rather than by federal intervention. This belief led him to advocate for a compromise on the contentious issue of slavery, viewing it as a pragmatic approach to address the political turmoil surrounding the topic. His key contribution was the promotion of popular sovereignty, which allowed the residents of territories to vote on the legality of slavery within their borders.

Douglas argued that the decision regarding slavery should rest with the people living in the territories, rather than being dictated by the federal government. By framing the issue in terms of democratic choice, he aimed to navigate the divisive question of slavery without taking a definitive stance for or against it. While this approach seemed like a reasonable compromise at the time, it ultimately proved detrimental to Douglas's political aspirations, as it alienated various factions and diminished his support.

The legislation had unforeseen consequences, particularly the repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had previously prohibited slavery in Kansas. This change galvanized anti-slavery advocates in the North, leading to the formation of the "anti-Nebraska" movement, which eventually evolved into the Republican Party, dedicated to halting the spread of slavery. Additionally, the influx of both pro- and anti-slavery settlers into Kansas to influence the vote resulted in violent confrontations, culminating in a brutal conflict known as "Bleeding Kansas."

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates

n 1858, Senator Douglas sought re-election in Illinois, facing off against Abraham Lincoln, a circuit lawyer and former congressman. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln focused on the concept of popular sovereignty, which ultimately placed Douglas in a precarious situation. His stance on slavery began to alienate Southern Democrats who perceived him as insufficiently supportive of the institution.

Lincoln's perspective on slavery was rooted in moral opposition, yet he recognized that immediate abolition was not a feasible solution. He aimed to navigate a middle ground regarding the contentious issue of slavery. Upon receiving the Republican Party's nomination for the Senate in 1858, Lincoln asserted that the nation needed to reach a definitive conclusion on the matter, expressing skepticism about the practicality of popular sovereignty with his famous assertion that "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

This viewpoint became central to Lincoln's campaign, as his debates with Douglas significantly elevated his profile in national politics. The discussions not only highlighted the deep divisions within the country regarding slavery but also positioned Lincoln as a formidable figure in the political landscape, setting the stage for his future leadership.

At their debate in Freeport, Lincoln challenged Douglas on the legality of a state or territory determining the status of slavery, given the Dred Scott decision had already addressed this issue. In his response, Douglas articulated the "Freeport Doctrine," asserting that while he cared about the outcome of votes on slavery, he believed it was the prerogative of white citizens to make that determination. His position was that the state government could determine the implementation of Dred Scott by legislating or not enacting local authority and passing additional laws. This was the very definition of nullification, which had been the basis of the Tariffs Crisis 25 years before. Douglas seemed to hold the view that slavery was on the decline and had reached its limits, as it was primarily profitable in regions suitable for cotton and rice cultivation. He argued that slavery would not expand into areas where the climate and soil were unsuitable for these crops. Furthermore, Douglas maintained that the slavery issue should be approached as a local community matter rather than a constitutional one.

Although Douglas emerged victorious in the election, he ultimately fell prey to the very political dynamics he aimed to eliminate from territorial governance through his promotion of popular sovereignty. His actions were not evaluated based on their original intent but rather through the lens of the ongoing power struggle between the North and South, particularly concerning the expansion of slavery. Despite Douglas's aspirations, the territories remained mere instruments in a broader political conflict, illustrating the complexities and challenges of addressing the slavery issue in that era

The Cooper Union Speech

Stephen Douglas was poised to become the Democratic nominee for president in 1860. He strategically positioned himself to attract support from both northern and southern constituents, presenting his stance as a means to end slavery for the North while simultaneously appealing to the South's desire to preserve it. Abraham Lincoln recognized that the Freeport Doctrine was merely a political maneuver and understood the necessity of demonstrating that Douglas lacked genuine support from either faction. Additionally, Lincoln sought a compelling response to the Dred Scott decision to rally northern sentiment.

On February 27, 1860, Lincoln articulated his views in a pivotal speech at the Cooper Union in New York City. This address elevated him from a regional politician to a formidable contender for the presidency, as he presented a principled argument against the expansion of slavery and the enforcement of fugitive slave laws. His position was grounded in legal reasoning and reflected a politically moderate stance for the era. In his speech, Lincoln highlighted that at least 21 of the 39 signers of the Constitution believed that Congress should have the authority to regulate slavery in the territories:

“I defy any man to show that any one of them(the Founding Fathers)  ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. “

Although not as widely recognized as many of Lincoln's other statements, these particular words showcased his political acumen and played a crucial role in securing his nomination for the Republican Party. Lincoln adeptly shifted the focus of the debate from the legality of slavery, which was constitutionally sanctioned at the time, to the issue of its expansion into new territories. This strategic pivot resonated with the centrist factions within the Republican Party, who were eager for a stance that sought to limit slavery's reach while allowing it to remain where it already existed. Lincoln believed that by restricting slavery's expansion, it would eventually wither away.

In his address, Lincoln raised significant questions about whether the Constitution actually barred the Federal Government from regulating the spread of slavery, or if it enshrined slavery as a permanent institution, effectively treating enslaved individuals as property devoid of rights. He argued that the Founding Fathers had envisioned a role for Congress in overseeing matters of enslavement. By referencing the signers of the Constitution who later voted to impose regulations on slavery, Lincoln illustrated that even prominent figures like George Washington had taken legislative action to control the institution.

As a result of Lincoln's arguments, Douglas found himself politically outmaneuvered. In the Southern states, Douglas had championed the idea of popular sovereignty as advantageous to their interests, but Lincoln's assertions exposed this stance as disingenuous. Meanwhile, in the Northern states, Douglas had attempted to align himself with anti-slavery sentiments, despite being the architect of legislation that supported slavery. This contradiction undermined Douglas's credibility and highlighted the effectiveness of Lincoln's strategic approach.

1860 Democratic Convention

The Democratic Party convened its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, during April and May of 1860. At this juncture, the party was in disarray; despite being the only truly national political entity, it failed to present itself as a unified front. The deep divisions over the issue of slavery were evident, with Southern Democrats advocating for its expansion while their Northern counterparts vehemently opposed this stance. The rift within the party had been brewing long before the Charleston meeting, primarily fueled by the rivalry between supporters of Stephen A. Douglas and those aligned with President James Buchanan, particularly figures like John Slidell. Southern senators, including Jefferson Davis (Mississippi) , Yancey (Alabama), and Rhett (South Carolina), rallied against Douglas's Freeport Doctrine and his notion of Popular Sovereignty, deeming them insufficiently supportive of Southern interests. This internal discord ultimately culminated in a divisive split when Douglas arrived at the convention lacking the necessary backing for his nomination.

During the Democratic National Convention, Slidell collaborated with Alabama's William Lowndes Yancey to obstruct the nomination of Douglas. As the specter of secession loomed, Slidell aligned himself with the more radical elements known as the "fire eaters." His actions were pivotal in the fracturing of the Democratic Party, which had far-reaching implications. The division within the party not only weakened its position but also facilitated the rise of Abraham Lincoln, whose election might have been improbable had the Democrats managed to maintain their unity.

The events surrounding the 1860 Democratic National Convention serve as a critical moment in American political history, illustrating how internal conflicts can lead to significant electoral consequences. The inability of the Democratic Party to reconcile its differences over slavery not only fractured its base but also paved the way for the emergence of a Republican president. This period marked a turning point, highlighting the profound impact of party unity—or the lack thereof—on the trajectory of national politics.

The conflict regarding the official stance on slavery led to the withdrawal of numerous delegates from Southern states prior to the selection of a candidate at the convention. Although Senator Douglas garnered significant support from the delegates, he fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary for nomination, a threshold that his adversaries had deliberately established. Southern Democrats declined to back him due to his refusal to endorse a pro-slavery agenda. In protest, many delegates exited the convention, resulting in an insufficient number of remaining delegates to secure Douglas's nomination, ultimately leaving the convention without a chosen candidate.

Northern Democrats convened for a second convention in Baltimore, Maryland, from June 18 to 23, although many Southern delegates were absent. During this gathering, the Democrats nominated Stephen A. Douglas, who won decisively against John C. Breckinridge, the current vice president from Kentucky. In an effort to reconcile the factions within the party, the convention initially approached Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama for the vice presidential nomination, but he declined. Ultimately, they selected Herschel V. Johnson, a former U.S. senator and governor of Georgia, to join Douglas on the ticket.

Southern Democratic Convention

Discontented Democrats, primarily from the South, staged a second walkout during the Baltimore convention when two replacement delegations were seated. They left the convention and met on their own, where they nominated John C. Breckinridge for president, with Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon as his vice-presidential candidate. Both Stephen A. Douglas and Breckinridge asserted their positions as the legitimate Democratic nominees. In June, Yancey and a faction of staunch supporters convened in Richmond to reaffirm Breckinridge's nomination. President Buchanan endorsed this ticket, as Breckinridge had served as his Vice President and was an advocate for slavery and states' rights.

Breckinridge proposed a federal mandate that would permit slavery in the territories, mirroring the existing laws in the states, provided that the local populace supported it, thereby safeguarding the rights of slaveholders to maintain their property.

Breckinridge, a two-term congressman from Kentucky, was a notable ally of Stephen Douglas during the 1856 election. Opting not to seek a third term, he turned his focus to horse breeding and legal practice. Following Douglas's defeat at the 1856 convention, Breckinridge's name emerged as a potential vice presidential candidate to appease the faction that had lost. However, this created tension with Buchanan, who viewed Breckinridge unfavorably due to his previous support for both Pierce and Douglas, whom Buchanan considered political adversaries. Despite their earlier friendship, the Lecompton controversy ultimately severed ties between Breckinridge and Douglas, allowing Breckinridge to rise in prominence as Buchanan's presidency faltered in 1860.

At this juncture, a significant number of southern Democrats were not in favor of secession. Southern Unionists opposed the idea of breaking away from the Union. Some of these individuals chose to fight for the Union during the Civil War. Notably, several Confederate leaders, including Alexander Stephens, who would later become the vice president of the Confederacy, initially resisted the notion of secession, advocating instead for the benefits of remaining part of the Union. They held out hope that President Lincoln would adopt a conciliatory stance regarding the issue of secession. However, following the events at Fort Sumter, many shifted their allegiance to the Confederate States of America. Although Slidell initially belonged to this group, he ultimately aligned himself with the secessionist cause.

Southern Unionists can be divided into two distinct categories. Conditional Unionists typically supported the unrestricted expansion of slavery or at least favored the principle of Popular Sovereignty, advocating for the Federal government to allow the Southern states to secede peacefully. In contrast, Unconditional Unionists remained steadfastly loyal to democratic principles, regardless of the electoral outcomes. This latter group played a significant role in the Civil War, contributing approximately 200,000 troops from the South to the Union army, demonstrating their commitment to the Union despite the prevailing sentiments in their region.

The onset of the war led to noticeable fractures within the party, which undoubtedly contributed to the challenges faced in 1860. The War Democrats, a faction of Northern Democrats, were in favor of continuing the fight in the Civil War. While the majority of Northern Democrats remained committed to the Union following the secession of the Southern states, the War Democrats expressed their support for the war but were critical of the economic policies implemented by the Republicans and President Abraham Lincoln's early actions, including the suspension of habeas corpus and the detention of dissenting publishers and politicians.

In the lead-up to the 1864 presidential election, the War Democrats allied with Republicans to establish the Union Party, which ultimately renominated Lincoln for the presidency and selected War Democrat Andrew Johnson from Tennessee as his vice-presidential candidate. This group consisted of Democrats who were in favor of the war effort aimed at preserving the Union. Notable figures among the War Democrats included Benjamin Butler, who would later switch parties, and Edwin Stanton, who also changed his political allegiance.

On the other hand, the Peace Democrats, represented by individuals like George Pendleton and Clement Vallandigham, advocated for a peaceful resolution with the Confederacy, even if it meant accepting disunion. Often referred to as "Copperheads," these Democrats opposed the war and sought a negotiated settlement that would involve concessions to the South, allowing it to rejoin the Union. The term "Copperhead" was first introduced by the New York Tribune on July 20, 1861, symbolizing a deceptive and treacherous approach, akin to the snake that strikes unexpectedly.

The Republican Convention

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

 — Abraham Lincoln

The Republican convention took place in Chicago from May 16 to 18 at the Wigwam. Established in the mid-1850s following the disintegration of the Whig Party, the Republican Party primarily opposed the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories. While a significant number of its members advocated for the complete abolition of slavery, the party adopted a more pragmatic approach, refraining from calling for abolition in states where slavery was already entrenched. This moderate position focused on preventing the spread of slavery, although some delegates were in favor of its total eradication.

As the convention commenced, New York Senator William H. Seward appeared to be the frontrunner for the nomination. However, he faced considerable competition from several notable figures, including Ohio Senator Salmon P. Chase, Pennsylvania Senator Simon Cameron, Edward Bates from Missouri, and Illinois's favorite son Abraham Lincoln, who was a popular candidate among local supporters.

During the first ballot, Seward garnered the most votes but fell short of the necessary majority for nomination by about 59 votes. The second ballot saw a tightening race between Seward and Lincoln, ultimately leading to Lincoln's nomination on the third ballot. Additionally, Senator Hannibal Hamlin from Maine was selected as Lincoln's running mate, solidifying the ticket for the upcoming election.

Of all the Republican candidates who were running for President in 1860, Lincoln stood out as the most unrefined and least experienced, possessing a notably sparse resume. His political career included a single term in Congress, during which he faced defeat in two Senate elections in Illinois, a state characterized by its western prairie. Lacking both administrative and military experience, Lincoln's appearance was also unconventional; he was often noted for his ill-fitting attire and somewhat disheveled look. However, history reveals that he may have been one of the most articulate figures of his time, and with the benefit of hindsight, we can recognize that his skill as a persuasive orator was a significant asset. Observers of his speeches remarked on his awkwardness and the high pitch of his voice, yet his compelling narrative resonated with the public: he was the embodiment of the self-made man, having emerged from humble beginnings in a log cabin through sheer determination and intellect, rather than through the privileges of wealth or elite education.

The prosaic truth is that he might have been nominated simply because he was the least offensive candidate. He was a shrewd politician, first and foremost. His political positions were in the center of the party, and that was his precise political intent. Seward, who had been the Governor and Senator from New York, and Chase the Governor and Senator from Ohio, were abolitionists; and Bates, an elder statesman from Missouri, was conservative on the slavery issue, being from a border state that wasn’t inclined to overturn slavery.  In that sense, Lincoln was a safe choice for the general election.  Importantly, unlike the others, he had made no enemies along the way.  Each had people that didn't want him as the President and Lincoln’s strategy was superb.  He said to the supporters of each one of those men, “If you can’t get your first love, come to me as your second love.” He also played his cards skillfully: he didn't attack any of the others, while they were all busy attacking one another.

Lincoln demonstrated considerable political acumen, bolstered by a network of allies who actively supported him during the convention. Six months prior, his associate Norman B. Judd had journeyed to New York to advocate for Chicago as the venue for the gathering, engaging with influential figures like Thurlow Weed. The decision to select Chicago was influenced by the perception that Illinois posed no significant challenge to Seward's candidacy. Judd effectively communicated this perspective, suggesting that Illinois, lacking a clear frontrunner, could serve as a suitable compromise location. Once the convention was confirmed for Chicago, Judd facilitated discounted train tickets for attendees traveling to the city.

In addition to promoting Chicago, Judd skillfully orchestrated the seating arrangements for the convention. He strategically placed New York and other states firmly aligned with Seward to the right of the podium, while Illinois and delegations that were either opposed to or indifferent about Seward were positioned to the left. This arrangement created a central section occupied by reporters, which effectively obstructed New Yorkers from engaging with undecided delegates during the sessions. As a result, Lincoln's supporters enjoyed greater access to those delegates who were uncertain, while Seward's team faced significant challenges in swaying them.

LINK: https://thirdcoastreview.com/2023/05/26/review-against-all-odds-the-lincoln-miracle-inside-the-republican-convention-that-changed-history-by-edward-achorn/

Thanks to a resourceful convention team working behind the scenes, Lincoln successfully garnered support and fostered the impression of a popular movement. Justice David Davis, who served as the presiding judge of the Illinois 8th Circuit, played a pivotal role in this effort. Having been a close friend of Lincoln and a fellow practitioner in the same legal circuit, Davis took on the role of campaign manager. He incentivized delegates with promising job opportunities in exchange for their votes, ultimately orchestrating Lincoln's triumph over rivals Seward and Chase. Without Davis's strategic influence, Lincoln's ascent to prominence might have remained a mere footnote in history.

Ward Hill Lamon, a lawyer within the same 8th Illinois Circuit, held opposing views on abolition and leaned towards Southern sympathies. Despite their ideological differences, he and Lincoln forged a strong friendship. Lamon's notable presence made him a recognizable figure, and he played a crucial role in rallying support for Lincoln at the convention. To ensure a favorable audience during the critical balloting, Lamon resorted to printing counterfeit tickets, allowing Lincoln's supporters to fill the convention hall. Meanwhile, Seward's camp, overly confident in their chances, celebrated the night before and found themselves inebriated and distracted, leading to a missed opportunity.

As the convention unfolded, the dynamics shifted dramatically. While Seward's supporters were preoccupied with their parade outside the hall, Lincoln's backers, armed with duplicate tickets, gained entry and filled the venue. This strategic maneuvering resulted in enthusiastic cheers for Lincoln every time his name was mentioned, creating an atmosphere that suggested he was the preferred candidate among the delegates. In stark contrast, Seward's supporters, who had been unable to enter the hall, could not muster the same level of enthusiasm, undermining their candidate's position as the frontrunner. The scene painted a clear picture of Lincoln as the people's choice, swaying the delegates in his favor.

The Constitutional Union Party

The Constitutional Union Party emerged in 1859 as an effort to bridge the growing sectional divide in the United States, drawing together former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party. This coalition nominated John Bell, a former senator from Tennessee, for president, and Edward Everett, the former president of Harvard University, for vice president. Their platform was particularly attractive to voters in the border states, as it sought to sidestep the contentious issue of slavery and instead emphasize loyalty to the U.S. Constitution.

Comprising mainly discontented Democrats, Unionists, and former Whigs. It was also comprised of former Know-Nothings, especially Millard Fillmore’s 1857 American Party. The Constitutional Union Party convened for its inaugural meeting on May 9, 1860, called together by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, a former prominent Whig. At Crittenden's request, fifty former and current members of Congress met in Washington, D.C. in December 1859, where they agreed to form a new party dedicated to preserving the union and avoiding debates over slavery. This is the same Crittenden who would advance a compromise solution to secession in early 1861.During this gathering, they officially selected John Bell as their presidential candidate and Edward Everett as his running mate. The party's formation was a response to the political turmoil of the time, aiming to present a united front amidst the fractious political landscape.

The party positioned itself as a champion of law and constitutional order, deliberately refraining from taking a definitive stance on slavery or states' rights. Instead, they pledged to uphold the Constitution and maintain the Union, seeking to avoid the polarizing debates surrounding slavery that threatened national unity. Nevertheless, Bell proposed a compromise regarding slavery, advocating for the extension of the Missouri Compromise line across the nation, which would legalize slavery in new southern states while prohibiting it in northern territories, in hopes of attracting voters disillusioned by the Democratic Party's internal conflicts.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Crimean War – Part 2: Profiles of Nations

As the thunder of cannon fire echoed across the Black Sea, shattering the illusion of stability in 19th-century Europe, the Crimean War developed into more than a mere clash of empires, it was a crucible of change, where outdated military doctrines met the brutal efficiency of modern warfare. Nations entered the conflict seeking power, prestige, or survival, but few emerged unchanged.

Terry Bailey explains.

Read part 1 in the series here.

Tsar Nicholas I of Russia in the 1850s. By Georg von Bothmann.

From the battle-scarred plains of Crimea to the diplomatic chambers of Europe, the war reshaped alliances, exposed weaknesses, and accelerated transformations that would define the century to come. This was no ordinary war; it was a turning point in history.

In this second instalment of the series, the profiles of the combatant nations, their leaders, and the forces that shaped this conflict will be reviewed. This clash of titans brought Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia into a coalition against the might of Imperial Russia, each contributing distinct strengths, weaknesses, and strategies to the war.

Britain: An Empire at the Crossroads

As Britain waged war in the mid-19th century, it stood at a turning point between its imperial past and the demands of modern conflict. At the helm of British forces was Lord Raglan, a seasoned veteran of the Napoleonic Wars.

Though his experience was undeniable, his leadership was marked by outdated tactics, a reluctance to adapt, and infamous miscommunication, most notably, the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade. His reliance on traditional methods underscored the growing pains of an army struggling to transition into a new era of warfare.

Britain's military prowess rested on its powerful navy, which dominated the Black Sea and secured critical supply lines. Its infantry, battle-hardened by colonial campaigns, maintained discipline and skill on the battlefield. However, these advantages were offset by significant weaknesses.

Outdated tactics, poor logistical planning, and an over-reliance on aristocratic leadership created inefficiencies that often clashed with the harsh realities of war.

Strategically, Britain sought to curb Russian expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean, safeguarding its influence and protecting vital trade routes to India. However, the war exposed severe shortcomings in military organization, particularly in supply chains and medical care.

The horrific conditions endured by British soldiers in field hospitals prompted Florence Nightingale's revolutionary work in battlefield nursing, highlighting the urgent need for reform. The conflict ultimately forced Britain to reevaluate its military approach, paving the way for modernization in the years to come.

France: Revitalized under Napoleon III

Napoleon III, the Emperor of France, was a shrewd statesman determined to restore his nation's prestige on the world stage. Balancing diplomacy with military modernization, he played a crucial role in shaping the coalition against Russia. His support for the Ottoman Empire was not merely strategic, it was part of a broader vision to curb Russian influence while reinforcing France's status as a dominant European power.

Under Napoleon III's leadership, the French military emerged as a formidable force. Recent combat experience in Algeria had refined their tactics, and their superior artillery, particularly rifled cannons, giving them a significant edge over their adversaries. However, internal political divisions occasionally weakened their cohesion, and coordination with allies was not always seamless.

Despite these challenges, French forces played a decisive role in key battles of the Crimean War. Nowhere was their impact more evident than at the Battle of Malakoff, where their innovative siege tactics shattered Russian defenses. Through victories like these, Napoleon III's vision of France as Europe's arbiter became a reality, securing its place at the heart of 19th-century geopolitics.

The Ottoman Empire: Defending the Sick Man of Europe

The mid-19th century saw the Ottoman Empire, long derided as the "Sick Man of Europe," fighting for its very survival. Beset by internal strife and external threats, the empire found itself locked in a desperate struggle against Russian expansion.

Leading the charge in its defense was Omar Pasha, a Serbian-born military leader whose tactical brilliance helped revitalize Ottoman forces. By skillfully blending traditional strengths with modern military techniques, he played a pivotal role in resisting Russian advances during the early stages of the war.

Despite facing considerable challenges, the Ottomans proved to be formidable opponents. Their forces, though underfunded and technologically outdated compared to the European powers, demonstrated resilience in battle. Well-acquainted with the harsh and unforgiving terrain, they made effective use of fortified positions and defensive strategies to hold their ground.

Yet, the empire's military shortcomings were undeniable. Financial constraints and internal instability weakened their war effort, forcing them to rely heavily on foreign allies for support.

For the Ottomans, this war was more than just another conflict, it was an existential fight to maintain sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression. Against the odds, they stood firm, proving themselves as crucial partners in the broader coalition. In the end, their resistance not only delayed Russian ambitions but also underscored the enduring strength of an empire that many had already written off as doomed.

Russia: The Bear on the defensive

In the mid-19th century, the Russian Empire was embroiled in the Crimean conflict exposing its deep-seated military and logistical weaknesses. Under the rule of Tsar Nicholas I, Russia was an autocratic powerhouse, its policies driven by a commitment to Orthodox Christianity and territorial expansion. However, Nicholas miscalculated the resolve of European powers, particularly Britain and France, who united against him.

This misstep proved disastrous, dragging Russia into a war for which it was woefully unprepared. When Nicholas died in 1855, his successor, Alexander II, inherited not just a war, but an empire in urgent need of reform.

Russia's military was vast, boasting one of the largest standing armies in the world. It had an abundance of manpower, reinforced by the formidable Cossack cavalry, whose skill in open terrain made them invaluable on the steppes.

Yet, these strengths masked critical flaws. The majority of Russian soldiers were poorly trained conscripts equipped with outdated weaponry, a stark contrast to the well-armed and organized forces of their Western adversaries.

Furthermore, Russia's infrastructure was severely lacking. The empire's logistical networks struggled to support large-scale operations, particularly in Crimea, where inadequate supply lines hampered its war effort. Russia's strategic reliance on fortifications, especially at Sevastopol, showcased both its strengths and vulnerabilities.

While the city's defenses held out for nearly a year against relentless Anglo-French bombardment, the war exposed Russia's inability to adapt to modern warfare. Superior Western artillery, naval power, and battlefield tactics overwhelmed Russian positions, forcing a painful reckoning. The Crimean War laid bare the empire's systemic weaknesses, compelling Alexander II to embark on sweeping military and social reforms, these reforms would shape Russia's trajectory for decades to come.

The Kingdom of Sardinia: A small but strategic player

Amid the great powers of Europe, the Kingdom of Sardinia, often referred to as Sardinia-Piedmont was a relatively minor force. Yet, under the leadership of Victor Emmanuel II and his astute Prime Minister Count Camillo di Cavour, this small state played a shrewd diplomatic game.

In 1855, Sardinia joined the Crimean War, not out of direct strategic necessity, but as a calculated move to gain favor with France and Britain, an alliance that would prove crucial in the pursuit of Italian unification.

Despite its modest military size, Sardinia's army was well-trained and disciplined. More importantly, the state's leadership understood that battlefield victories were not the only path to success. Cavour used Sardinia's involvement in the war as a means to secure a voice in European politics, positioning the kingdom as a committed and capable player in continental affairs.

However, Sardinia's resources were limited, and its direct impact on major battles remained minimal. Nonetheless, the kingdom's participation paid off. By taking part in the postwar peace negotiations, Sardinia earned diplomatic recognition that would later prove instrumental in the Risorgimento, the movement for Italian unification.

Though small in military might, Sardinia's strategic engagement in the Crimean War helped pave the way for its ambitious transformation from a regional power into a key architect of a united Italy.

Comparative Analysis: Strategies, technologies and logistics

The Crimean War bridged the gap between traditional warfare and the advent of modern combat techniques. It was a conflict where outdated doctrines met emerging technologies, and where logistics played as crucial a role as battlefield tactics.

The war involved the major European powers, (Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire), and Sardinia against one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time, (Russia), each bringing its own strengths, weaknesses, and strategic approaches to the theatre of war.

Technological Advances

One of the most striking aspects of the Crimean War was the technological divide among its participants. Britain and France led the way in military modernization, equipping their forces with rifled firearms that boasted superior range and accuracy compared to older smoothbore muskets. They also capitalized on steam-powered ships, which allowed for greater mobility and effectiveness in naval operations.

Russia, in contrast, lagged behind its Western adversaries. Its army still relied heavily on smoothbore muskets, which were significantly less effective in combat. Similarly, its navy depended on wooden sailing ships, a stark contrast to the steam-powered vessels of the British and French fleets. This technological disparity had dire consequences for Russian forces, who found themselves outgunned and outmaneuvered on both land and sea.

Logistical challenges

Logistics played a defining role in the success and failure of the various armies involved. The British forces suffered from severe supply shortages, exacerbated by poor administration and mismanagement. The harsh Crimean winter further compounded these difficulties, leading to widespread disease and deprivation among British troops. These failings underscored the necessity for improved military logistics, prompting future reforms in army supply chains and medical services.

In contrast, the French military demonstrated superior organization in provisioning their troops. Their well-coordinated supply lines ensured that soldiers remained adequately equipped and fed throughout the campaign.

Whereas, the Ottoman Empire, while a crucial participant in the war, struggled with logistics and relied heavily on British and French support to maintain its forces in the field.

Naval dominance

Naval power played a decisive role in shaping the strategic landscape of the war. The British and French navies, with their technologically advanced fleets, dominated the Black Sea, allowing them to impose blockades and launch amphibious operations with relative ease. Their control of the seas enabled them to disrupt Russian supply lines and exert constant pressure on enemy forces.

Russia's naval position was significantly weaker. Faced with overwhelming naval superiority from the Anglo-French alliance, Russian commanders resorted to desperate measures, including the scuttling of their fleet at Sevastopol to prevent its capture. This move underscored the dire state of Russia's naval capabilities and the broader challenges it faced in contending with Western military advancements.

A quick breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of each force

Each participant in the Crimean War brought a unique set of strengths and weaknesses to the battlefield:

·       Britain:- possessed a formidable navy, yet its land forces suffered from poor administration and logistical failures.

·       France:- combined military innovation with efficient supply lines, though its political situation remained fragile throughout the war.

·       The Ottoman Empire:- proved to be resilient in its defense but was technologically inferior to its European allies and adversaries.

·       Russia:- wielded an enormous manpower advantage, but its forces were burdened by outdated weaponry and severe logistical constraints.

·       Sardinia:- though a relatively minor military player, leveraged its involvement in the war for diplomatic and political gains, aligning itself with the victors.

In conclusion, the Crimean War was far more than a regional conflict, it was a transformative event that reshaped the military, political, and diplomatic landscapes of Europe. It exposed the vulnerabilities of established powers, accelerated the modernization of warfare, and foreshadowed the shifting balance of influence on the continent.

The war's conclusion did not result in a decisive territorial conquest but rather a strategic recalibration among Europe's great powers, with lasting consequences for each participant.

For Britain, the war was a wake-up call, revealing significant flaws in its military organization, logistical capabilities, and leadership structure. The failures witnessed in Crimea led to crucial military reforms, particularly in medical care, with Florence Nightingale's pioneering efforts marking the beginning of modern battlefield medicine.

Britain also reassessed its role in European conflicts, gradually adopting a more cautious approach to continental affairs while focusing on global imperial expansion.

France, under Napoleon III, emerged from the war with enhanced prestige, having played a decisive role in securing victory. The war reinforced France's military modernization efforts, bolstered its geopolitical influence, and strengthened its alliance with Britain.

However, the triumph was short-lived, Napoleon III's ambitions for continued European dominance would ultimately contribute to France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871).

The Ottoman Empire, long considered a declining power, proved that it could still mount a formidable defense. However, its dependence on European allies highlighted its strategic vulnerability. While the war delayed Russian expansion into Ottoman territories, it did little to resolve the empire's deeper structural weaknesses.

The eventual decline of Ottoman power in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was, in many ways, foreshadowed by the Crimean War's revelations of internal instability and military shortcomings.

For Russia, the war was a humbling experience that exposed the limits of its vast but outdated military apparatus. The defeat at Sevastopol and the inefficiencies in its army and infrastructure forced Tsar Alexander II to embark on a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and the modernization of the Russian military. While these reforms helped Russia regain strength in the long term, the war had shattered its image as an invincible empire, marking the beginning of a more cautious approach to European affairs.

The Kingdom of Sardinia's involvement, though limited in scale, was a masterstroke of diplomacy. By aligning itself with Britain and France, Sardinia secured its place at the negotiating table, leveraging its participation to gain international recognition. This diplomatic success laid the groundwork for the unification of Italy, which followed in the subsequent decade.

Beyond the strategic and political consequences, the Crimean War introduced several key innovations that would shape future conflicts. The use of railways and telegraphs revolutionized military logistics and communications, while advances in weaponry underscored the shift toward industrialized warfare. The war also marked the beginning of modern war reporting, with journalists like William Howard Russell providing firsthand accounts that shaped public perception and influenced political decision-making.

In the grand scope of history, the Crimean War stands as a harbinger of change. It was a conflict that forced nations to confront their weaknesses, adapt to new realities, and prepare for the challenges of an increasingly modern world. Though often overshadowed by later, larger wars, its legacy endures in the lessons it imparted on military strategy, geopolitics, and the evolution of warfare.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Point of interest:

Greece

Greece's involvement in the Crimean War (1853–1856) was indirect but significant, as the conflict stirred nationalist aspirations and led to military action within the Balkans. At the time, Greece was a relatively young and small kingdom, having gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1830.

However, many ethnic Greeks still lived under Ottoman rule, particularly in Epirus, Thessaly, and Crete. The war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia, supported by Britain and France, presented an opportunity for Greek nationalists to push for territorial expansion.

King Otto of Greece, a Bavarian monarch ruling the country, sympathized with the Russian cause and saw the war as a chance to reclaim Greek-populated lands from the Ottomans. In 1854, Greece encouraged and covertly supported uprisings in Ottoman territories, particularly in Thessaly and Epirus, where Greek irregular forces launched attacks against Ottoman garrisons.

However, this intervention was not welcomed by Britain and France, who sought to maintain the balance of power in the region and prevent Russian influence from expanding. Viewing Greece's actions as destabilizing, they imposed a naval blockade on the country and even occupied Piraeus, the port of Athens, in April 1854 to force King Otto to abandon his expansionist ambitions.

As a result of the blockade and occupation, Greece was effectively neutralized for the remainder of the war, and the uprisings it had supported were suppressed by Ottoman forces. The episode weakened Otto's position domestically, as many Greeks resented the foreign intervention but were also frustrated by their government's failure to achieve territorial gains.

Ultimately, Greece's involvement in the Crimean War highlighted both its nationalist aspirations and its limitations as a small power caught between the interests of larger European nations.

The North Siders - Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods: George ‘Bugs’ Moran

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Three years, three bosses dead. The North Side track record was less than desirable, George Moran would have been well aware of this when he took over after the death of Vincent Drucci in April of 1927. He had said goodbye to three of his good friends, the flower shop was gone, Mr. Schofield having kicked them out after Hymie Weiss’s assassination, and having run from the past at least once already in his life, George Moran took stock of his life and probably thought about throwing in the towel. But Chicago was home and he couldn’t just forget everything that had happened. A part of him still wanted revenge and leaving the North Side would have felt like letting his friends down. So Moran did what he did best, he carried on.

Erin Finlen continues her series.

Part one is here, part two is here, and part three is here.

Note: An image of Moran is available here.

Minnesota Years

George Moran, the prohibition gangster most associated with being the arch enemy of Al Capone and by extension Chicago was actually from St. Paul, Minnesota and named Adelard Cunin. Born on August 21, 1893 to a French immigrant named Jules and his wife Marie, he was, like his friends enrolled in a Catholic School. And also like his friends, turned to crime at a young age, in fact he had served time three times before he reached the age of twenty one.

He and his father did not get along and Adelard regularly was hit with a belt by his dad for his behavior at home. At school, they also believed in corporal punishment and by the time he got home his father could be waiting to punish him again. Strong willed and resilient, the beatings did nothing to change his personality or willfulness. He turned to crime as an outlet for his frustration. At the age of eighteen, he escaped from jail and made his way south to Chicago. His father refused to have anything to do with him, but his mother still kept in touch.

It was after arriving in Chicago that Adelard started adopting different names, including George Gage, George Morrisey, George Miller and, of course, George Moran.

In photos, Moran typically is wearing something that covers his neck. When he was living in Chicago in 1917, he got in the face of someone heckling a public speaker. A fight broke out and Moran was cut several times on the neck with a knife. He was rushed to the hospital where they managed to stop the bleeding and save his life. He was lucky but also self-conscious of the way the scars looked and would do his best to hid them throughout his life. There was good to come of the incident, though. In his recovery he would meet Dean O’Banion.

The Beginnings of the North Side and Rise to Leader

In 1917, Dean O’Banion was working as a waiter at McGovern’s Tavern, charming customers with his beautiful singing voice. This tavern was where Moran began to become a regular during his recovery. He met there a man named Charles Reiser, who introduced him to bigger kinds of burglary. For the most part, George would steer clear of bootlegging, at least at first, he preferred to stick with thieving and safe cracking.

One of Reiser’s safe cracking proteges was O’Banion and the two were drawn to each other, both with independent, stubborn spirits. Although, Moran was much quieter and kept his cards close to his chest. They were joined shortly after by Hymie Weiss and the three became a trio of safecrackers. They were joined by Drucci last and though he was also readily accepted, it was not likely that it was for his thieving skills as his charm and reckless bravery.

They were well on their way to becoming the North Side Gang of legend, when Moran was sent to jail again and this time, after an escape attempt that was going well until he got caught, Moran would be absent in Chicago until 1921 as he served his sentence at Joliet Penitentiary.

When Moran got out his friends were waiting with good news: they were big shots in the bootlegging business and Moran was happy to help. He even went to Canada to see about a shipment for O’Banion. That wasn’t to say that bootlegging was his only occupation. He was arrested at least once with O’Banion and Weiss for burglary. And at one point Weiss and Moran were both involved in a police chase that ended when the police fired on the car and the pair decided it was safer to pull over.

Also, in 1921, Moran met a woman with whom he fell instantly in love, Lucielle Logan. Lucielle was worried that George would run when he found out she had a son, but George was just as smitten with him and adopted him, spoiling him and helping him learn English, as Lucielle and her son, who would go by John George Moran for the rest of his life, spoke French. Surprisingly, he loved being a family man and when one reporter asked him what was next after a funeral, he probably wasn’t lying when he said he just wanted to live with his wife and kid in peace.

In 1924, when O’Banion was murdered, Moran was fully on board with Hymie Weiss’s plans to get revenge. There was also another item of business that Moran could not wait to handle. He had never been a fan of O’Banion’s bodyguard, Louie Alterie. So, when Alterie was talking to the media about shooting the murderers of O’Banion and, strangely, following Torrio and Capone to New York after the funeral, Moran sent Alterie packing, saying there was no place for him in the North Side Gang. With that taken care of, it was time to get to the real business of getting even, even if the boss was in jail.

While Weiss was in jail in the summer of 1925, Drucci and Moran tried several hits on the Gennas. They weren’t exactly subtle about it though.

Between the two of them, neither Moran nor Drucci was known for thinking revenge plans through to the full extent. And with Weiss in jail and the grief over losing O’Banion mixed with a disdain for the Gennas they were more gung ho than usual. Amatuna, who had been a shooter of Dean O’Banion had agreed to hand over to Moran and Drucci the other two men believed to be responsible: John Scalise and Albert Anselmi. They believed Amatuna and went to the rendezvous where they were promptly shot at and both had to be treated at a nearby hospital.

After Weiss’s death, Moran agreed with Drucci that peace was the best option but he wasn’t happy about it. And when Drucci died, he kept the peace but he could feel his nagging hatred for Capone, the man who had stolen O’Banion and Weiss from him, itching at him. Then, after Capone battled with other men, he eventually started eyeing a Northwest gang whose territory he wanted. He had the leader bumped off. The man, John Touhy, was an old friend of Moran’s. Seeing another of his friends dead by the hand of Capone reopened the wounds that had never closed from O’Banion and Weiss’s deaths. The war was back. And this time it was going to take a massacre to end it.

Checkmate

After the death of Touhy, Moran and Capone continued to battle. Murdering continued until Capone had had enough. Somehow word got back to him that Moran was having a meeting at the North Side’s garage on Clark Street. Al Capone was never one to do anything quietly, a fact which irritated his friends back in New York, who found his ostentatiousness to be too attention seeking for their comfort. And what Capone had planned was nothing short of attention grabbing. Unfortunately for him and the seven men who would be in the garage, it wouldn’t see the end of his arch enemy.

On February 14, 1929, Moran was late to his meeting at the Clark Street garage. If he was like people of today, running late to your first meeting on a very cold, snowy morning, probably makes you think that your day isn’t going to go well. So, when he turned onto Clark Street and saw black police vehicle sitting outside his garage, he changed his course and went into a nearby diner to wait.

Men had been waiting across the street for Moran to enter the garage. When they thought they saw him enter, the signal was given and two men dressed as police officers entered. They had the men surrender their weapons and face a wall with their hands raised. Then they pulled out Thompson submachine guns and opened fire. Six of the men were killed instantly but one was still alive when the real cops arrived, although in his short time left he refused to identify the killers. The carnage was unlike anything Chicago had ever seen and the police and medical examiners were sickened by it. The lone survivor was the mechanic, James Mays, dog, Highball. When the police finally arrived they found him howling and shaking. He was later euthanized due to being unable to recover from what he had witnessed.

Word of what happened reached Moran and in a rare show of emotion, he checked himself into a hospital for exhaustion and a stomach issue. When police eventually found him, the only thing he would say was “Only Capone kills like that.” The man who was killed in Moran’s place was Al Weinshank. He looked uncannily like Moran in build and facial features. He was not a criminal, he simply associated with them.

Moran didn’t stay long in Chicago after that. And the North Side Gang was no more. Capone had won the Beer Wars.

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

Sources:

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

The 431-404 BC Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece

The Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE) stands as a seminal conflict in ancient Greek history, pitting the maritime power of Athens against the land-based might of Sparta. This article would, therefore, be intended to discuss the complex interplay of ever-changing alliances, along with the strategic motivations and overall balance of power characteristic of this long conflict.

Luke Rimmo Loyi Lego explains.

The destruction of the Athenian army at Syracuse. By John Steeple Davis.

 Introduction & Brief Background

The Peloponnesian War, which took place from 431 to 404 BCE, is in many ways exemplary of the very complex play of alliances, power dynamics, and strategic imperatives characterizing ancient Greece. First, it was a struggle expressing in its roots the very principles of structural realism that govern inter-state relations according to which, in an international system characterized by anarchy, only accumulation of power through forming alliances could reach security. To understand why war was almost an inevitable result, one has to look at the anarchic political landscape of the Greek city-state system. Unlike the centralized empires of Persia or Egypt, Greece was a fragmented collection of independent poleis, each with its own government, military, and strategic interests. There was no overriding authority to moderate disputes or impose order on this Greek world, making it an excellent example of what structural realism would identify as an anarchic international system.

Power, in this very decentralized system, became the final guarantor of security, whereas alliances were the mechanisms for survival—not instruments of collective peace. After the Persian Wars (499–449 BCE), two great powers with their respective coalitions began to look towards securing their respective interests. Athens, by its supremacy in naval affairs, transformed the voluntary defensive alliance against Persia into something of an Athenian-controlled empire through the Delian League. This centralization of power, allied with the use of tribute from allied states to fund its expansionist policies, caused resentment among the Greek city-states that had initially joined the league for mutual security.

On the other hand, Sparta, as the leader of the Peloponnesian League, led a coalition of land-based, conservative, oligarchic states opposed to Athenian imperial ambitions. Unlike the relatively open democratic society of Athens, Sparta was militarized and deeply invested in the maintenance of internal stability, especially given its dependence on an enslaved population of helots. Athenian interference in the affairs of Peloponnesian League members and its economic sanctions against key Spartan allies like Corinth and Megara fanned the flames of ill-will.

The structural realist perspective postulates that since Greece had no central authority, its system worked through the logic of self-help where no state could be completely secure about the intentions of another. This change in the balance of power, because of the rise of Athens, began to spur a security dilemma whereby both Athens and Sparta felt threatened by what each was doing for its own defense. The fear of encirclement by Athenian influence, and the anxiety in Athens over possible Spartan intervention in its empire, fed a cycle of hostilities. By the time war broke out in 431 BCE, diplomatic mechanisms had failed, and neither side was willing to give up strategic ground without risking a loss of prestige and power. The Peloponnesian War, then, was not a struggle of two ideologies—democracy versus oligarchy—but rather an structural necessity, given the logic of an anarchic system where competing hegemons cannot co-exist peacefully.

Alliances in the Peloponnesian War

Because of the Persian Wars, Greek city-states understood the need to develop alliances to safeguard themselves from future attacks. This gave birth to the Delian League and the Peloponnesian League.

The Delian League was created in 478 BCE, with an Athenian leadership base and was designed to be a coalition of states to continue fighting against Persia and free the Greek cities which, at that time, were under the Persian rule. Every free city-state trained sails or gave money to aid the league's primary aim of freeing the city-states and retrieving the ships. The league was based on the sacred island of Delos, so every city gave tribute. Gradually, the league shifted in aim when Athens assumed control and the resources aided imperial initiatives. Member states were thus used to enhance Athenian power.

The Peloponnesian League, headed by Sparta, was an alliance based on collective defense and the preservation of the order. In contrast with the formally established structures of the Delian League, the Peloponnesian League was less rigid, with Sparta taking political supremacy among its allies. Primarily, this coalition included the city-states from the Peloponnese region seeking to inhibit Athenian dominance and retain autonomy.

From a structural realist perspective, these alliances can thereby be viewed as strategic responses to the anarchic international system. Athens and Sparta, as principal actors, sought to enhance their security and project power through these coalitions, thereby attempting to mitigate the uncertainties inherent in a decentralized political landscape.

Motivations of Athens and Sparta

Although both city-states were substantially important in Greece, they were directed by motivations quite opposite to one another founded on the various political systems, economic structure, and attitudes of their citizenry.

Athens, being a burgeoning maritime power, wished to expand its influence and protect interests on the economic front. This ambition was exemplified firstly by the formation of the Delian League and then by its evolution into an Athenian Empire. A democratic-style government in the city advanced a culture of dynamic thinking and self-assertiveness that propelled the city toward the idea of empire. Control over critical sea routes and a network of trade was paramount in the suppression of dissent among its subordinate states. The Athenian leadership, under Pericles' authority, visualized Athenian supremacy both culturally and politically. Pericles' Funeral Oration, as presented in Thucydides' writings, praised the values of Athenian democracy, its imperial design, and is a reflection of a city-state quite confident in its destiny.  On the contrary, Sparta held itself back by conservatism, assuming immediate preservation of traditional interests and the preservation of an existing balance of power. The expansion of Athenian influence was perceived by Sparta as a shortcut to threaten Spartan hegemony and thus disrupt its pro-Allied alliance. The anxiety of encirclement and the potential weakening of the entire Peloponnesian League compelled the Spartans to contemplate going to war. Additionally, several speeches made in the Spartan Assembly by Thucydides gave light to incipient worries about the Athenians and how they could act if challenged. In brief, both states realized their choices as a deliberate action under the lens of a structural realist approach. Athens wanted to maximize its own power for the security of its state against economic threats.

War as a Balance of Power Mechanism

The Peloponnesian War may thus be interpreted, in a general sense, with the balance of power theory—a central tenet of structural realism. The balance of power theory posits that states will act to prevent any one actor from achieving hegemony, thereby maintaining an equilibrium that ensures their survival.

The rapid rise of Athens disturbed the previous balance and made it a bipolar system with two hegemonic powers. This change brought about a security dilemma where the defensive actions of one state were perceived as offensive threats by the other. In the eyes of Sparta, the fortifications and naval expansions of Athens were preparations for aggression, while for Athens, the mobilizations of Sparta were signals of an imminent invasion.

The proximate cause of the war was a dispute between Corinth and Corcyra, the intervention of Athens on behalf of Corcyra bringing about open hostilities between Athens and Corinth. The follow-up Athenian decree against Megara, better known as the Megarian Decree, acted as further aggrandizement. An ultimatum sent by Sparta to Athens, asking for the abrogation of the decree and the removal of economic sanctions on Megara, was brusquely refused. The failure of said diplomatic efforts finally led to the Spartan declaration of war in 431 BCE, and hence the long conflict started. The war that followed could therefore be an attempt on the part of Sparta and its allies to restore the balance of power by reining in the Athenian expansion and reasserting their own influence within the Greek world.

Security Dilemmas and the Escalation of Conflict

The Peloponnesian War is thus a stellar example of what would constitute a security dilemma: a state's actions to increase its own security decrease the security of others, which in turn leads to an escalatory dynamic.

To Sparta and her allies, such imperial policies by Athens—which included the enforcement of the Megarian Decree—came to be seen as direct threats to their economic and political interests. Equally, Athens viewed the mobilization of Sparta and her support for dissident elements within the Athenian empire as aggressive moves designed to destroy its authority.

This mutual suspicion and the lack of mechanisms to dispel the perceived threats led to an intensification of hostilities. The view from structural realism is that, in the absence of the Leviathan that characterizes the anarchic structure of the international system, there are no means for states but to resort to self-help. One of the important factors for the perpetuation of the war was the security dilemma in which both Athens and Sparta were trapped: neither could show weakness nor could either side give the other any strategic advantages.

The Role of Persia: Strategic Interventions and Realpolitik

Perhaps one of the most significant, yet sometimes underappreciated or simply not appreciated, aspects of the Peloponnesian War would be the role played by Persia. This war is generally remembered as a struggle among Greeks, but the Persian Empire did actively intervene in its course by choosing specific instances of intervention, giving financial aid to Sparta, and maneuvering diplomatically. In terms of the structural realist view, Persia's policy can be accounted for in that great powers play on the rivalries of emerging powers in a manner that allows them to conserve their influence without engaging in a frontal clash.

Thus, during the early years of the War, Persia kept mostly out of it, preferring to watch from the sidelines. But as the war dragged on and both Athens and Sparta began to suffer economic and military attrition, Persia saw its chance to reassert its authority over the Greek world, particularly in Ionia, which had been a contested region since the Persian Wars. The turning point came in the later years of the war when Sparta, realizing it could not hope to compete with Athens in terms of financial resources and naval power, turned to Persia for support.

In 412 BCE, Sparta negotiated the Treaty of Miletus with the Persian satrap Tissaphernes whereby Persia would provide financial aid to the Spartan fleet in return for Spartan recognition of Persian control over the Ionian cities—a classic realist strategy whereby states put survival and strategic advantage above ideological or historical scores. Sparta, though having fought on the side of Persia during the earlier Greco-Persian Wars, now joined its erstwhile enemy to conveniently help bring pressure on Athens—such intervention made all the difference.

This was possible only through the gold of Persia, which enabled Sparta to build a formidable navy and thereby ultimately conquer Athens at the Battle of Aegospotami in 405 BCE, in which the entire Athenian fleet was annihilated. This last blow led to the siege and surrender of Athens in 404 BCE. The ability of an exogenous actor, Persia, to manipulate and influence the war between the Greek city-states lends weight to the structural realist notion that weak states—here, Athens and Sparta relative to Persia—are always at the mercy of a stronger power's strategic calculations. Persia played Athens and Sparta rather perfectly against each other, making sure that none of them ever rose as an unrivaled hegemon in the Greek world.

Conclusion: A Structural Realist Interpretation of the Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War was the inevitable consequence of the rise of Athens to pre-eminence that fundamentally disrupted the existing balance of the Greek world. According to structural realism—especially the variant offered by Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer—the anarchic character of the international system compels states to seek power for survival, which entails conflict when a rising power challenges the dominance of an established hegemon. Sparta, the paramount land power, saw Athenian expansion as an existential threat to its very survival; it found itself in a security dilemma with the other great power, each escalating its military preparedness and making war all but inevitable. The war was not a matter of ideology but a structural necessity to restore equilibrium in the Greek world, proving the realist assertion that power struggles, rather than moral or ideological factors, dictate international relations.

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

References

Bedford, David, and Thom Workman. "The Tragic Reading of the Thucydidean Tragedy." Review of International Studies 27 (2001): 51–67. © British International Studies Association.

Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Thucydides. The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Richard Crawley. London: J.M. Dent; New York: E.P. Dutton, 1910.

Eckstein, Arthur M. "Thucydides, the Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, and Rationalist IR Theory." International Studies Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2006): 3–21.

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. "How International Relations Theories Explain the Peloponnesian War." Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 54, no. 113 (2007): 1–27.

Lebow, Richard Ned. "Thucydides and Deterrence." Security Studies 16, no. 2 (2007): 163–188.

Kagan, Donald. "The Peloponnesian War and the Future of American Power." Foreign Affairs, February 2001. https://www.foreignaffairs.com

The Crimean War – Part 1: Prelude

The Crimean War (1853–1856) stands as a defining chapter in the history of 19th-century Europe, encapsulating the tumultuous interplay of imperial ambition, religious contention, and the decline of long-established powers. Often described as the first "modern war," it bridged the era of traditional conflict with the rapid technological and political evolution that would reshape global dynamics in the decades to follow.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Sinope by Alexey Bogolyubov.

At its core, the Crimean War was a crucible of competing interests. It stemmed from the gradual disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, a once-mighty force now referred to as the "Sick Man of Europe." The war's genesis lay not only in disputes over the Christian holy sites of Palestine but also in the broader geopolitical struggle to control key territories and trade routes, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea. As Russia pressed forward with its imperial ambitions, the uneasy alliance of Britain and France sought to maintain the European balance of power, while Austria and Prussia trod cautiously, torn between geographic proximity and diplomatic neutrality.

This war, however, was more than a clash of empires; it was a reflection of an evolving Europe. It marked the end of the Concert of Europe, the fragile diplomatic framework established after the Napoleonic Wars, and introduced new elements of warfare and international relations.

Railroads and telegraphs revolutionized logistics and communication, while war correspondents brought the realities of battle into the public consciousness for the first time. The Crimean War also revealed the limitations of existing military strategies and forced nations to rethink their approaches to both war and governance, with significant consequences for domestic and international policy.

In examining the Crimean War, it is possible to delve into the political, diplomatic, and ideological forces that set the stage for one of the 19th century's most consequential conflicts. It explores the fragile alliances, deep-seated rivalries, and unfolding events that led to this watershed moment in European history.

Beyond its immediate outcomes, the Crimean War's legacy serves as a prelude to the seismic shifts that would shape the modern world, from the collapse of empires to the rise of nationalist movements and the ever-increasing complexities of international relations.

By the mid-19th century, the Ottoman Empire, once a dominant force stretching from the Middle East to Southeastern Europe, was in a state of gradual decline. Weakened by administrative corruption, economic stagnation, and military defeats, hence why the empire was often described as the "Sick Man of Europe." Its territorial losses in the Balkans and mounting internal unrest posed a question that gripped European diplomacy: what would happen to the vast Ottoman territories if the empire collapsed?

Russia

For Russia, the decline of the Ottoman Empire presented an opportunity. Czar Nicholas I sought to expand Russian influence over the Black Sea and into the Balkans. His ambitions, however, alarmed other European powers, particularly Britain and France, who feared that unchecked Russian expansion would upset the balance of power and threaten their interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Russia's relationship with the Ottoman Empire was marked by a mix of hostility and opportunism. The two empires had clashed in previous wars, with Russia seeking access to warm-water ports and control over strategic territories. However, the Crimean War's immediate spark lay in religious disputes over Christian holy sites in Palestine, then under Ottoman control. The holy sites were sacred to various Christian denominations, including Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians. A longstanding rivalry over their custodianship intensified in the 1840s, with France backing the Catholic claims and Russia championing the Orthodox cause. When Sultan Abdulmejid I granted concessions to the Catholics under French pressure, Nicholas I protested vehemently, demanding recognition of Russia's historical rights and protection for Orthodox Christians within Ottoman lands.

Diplomatic exchanges soon turned confrontational. In 1853, Nicholas referred to the Ottoman Empire as "a dying man" and proposed to Britain a secret deal to partition its territories. Britain, however, rejected the offer, fearing the implications of Russian dominance in the region. Relations between Russia and the Ottomans soured further, culminating in Nicholas's ultimatum demanding formal recognition of Russian authority over Orthodox Christians, a demand the Ottomans refused.

While Russia sought to exploit the Ottoman Empire's weakness, Britain and France were determined to curtail Russian expansion. Britain's primary concern was safeguarding its trade routes and colonial interests, particularly the overland route to India. France, under Emperor Napoleon III, aimed to bolster its international standing and assert its leadership in European affairs. Austria, geographically close to the Balkans, faced its own challenges in maintaining stability in its territories and sought to prevent any major power from gaining an upper hand in the region.

The interplay of these powers created a volatile environment. Austria, although wary of Russia's ambitions, hesitated to act decisively, while Britain and France moved toward a more confrontational stance. The French Emperor, eager to assert his nation's influence, supported military action against Russia. Meanwhile, Britain's government, led by Lord Aberdeen, reluctantly prepared for war, driven by public pressure and strategic imperatives.

By mid-1853, diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis had failed. Russia escalated tensions by invading the Danubian Principalities (modern-day Romania), then under Ottoman suzerainty. This act was a direct challenge to Ottoman sovereignty and a provocative move toward Europe. In response, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia in October 1853.

The first major clash occurred at the Battle of Sinope in November 1853, when the Russian Black Sea fleet destroyed an Ottoman squadron. The attack shocked Europe, prompting Britain and France to take decisive action. While religious disputes over the holy sites in Palestine served as a catalyst, as indicated, in reality, the Crimean War was fundamentally a struggle for geopolitical dominance. It was a war shaped by the ambitions of empires, the fragility of the Ottoman state, and the broader dynamics of 19th-century European politics. The war's early stages revealed the deep divisions and competing priorities of the involved powers. For Britain and France, the conflict was about preserving the balance of power; for Russia, it was about expanding influence; and for the Ottoman Empire, it was a desperate fight for survival.

Conclusion

The Crimean War's significance lies not only in its immediate geopolitical ramifications but also in the broader historical transformations it precipitated. This conflict exposed the fragility of alliances, the volatility of power dynamics, and the complex interplay between religion, politics, and imperial ambition in 19th-century Europe.

The war marked the decline of traditional forms of diplomacy and heralded a new era of modern warfare, characterized by the use of advanced technology, including railways and telegraphs, and the growing influence of public opinion shaped by war correspondents and photographs. For the Ottoman Empire, the war underscored its precarious position as a declining power entangled in the ambitions of stronger states.

Despite its nominal victory alongside Britain and France, the empire emerged weakened, its dependence on European support more evident than ever. For Russia, the conflict was a humbling experience that highlighted its military and administrative shortcomings, prompting internal reforms under Alexander II, including the emancipation of the serfs.

Britain and France, though triumphant, expended significant resources, and their alliance, rooted in mutual distrust of Russia, would prove to be temporary.

Ultimately, the Crimean War served as a prelude to later conflicts that would continue to shape Europe, such as the unification movements in Italy and Germany and the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century.

It revealed the limitations of the Concert of Europe, an earlier framework for maintaining stability, and demonstrated that the balance of power in Europe was increasingly precarious. In many ways, the Crimean War was a turning point, a harbinger of the profound political, social, and technological changes that would define the latter half of the 19th century and the early phases of the 20th century.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Note:

Lord Aberdeen

Lord Aberdeen's coalition government fell in 1855 over its handling of the Crimean War, Lord Palmerston was the only man able to sustain a majority in Parliament, and he became prime minister for Britain in the latter half of the Crimean War.

Nicholas I

Nicholas I, 6 July [O.S. 25 June], 1796 – 2 March [O.S. 18 February], 1855) was Emperor of Russia, King of Congress Poland, and Grand Duke of Finland from 1825 to 1855, however, died before the war was concluded and Alexander II ascended to the Throne

The Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire was one of the largest and longest-lasting empires in world history, spanning three continents at its height. It originated in the late 13th century as a small principality in northwestern Anatolia, founded by Osman I. Over the centuries, it expanded through military conquests, strategic alliances, and a sophisticated system of governance, reaching its zenith during the 16th and 17th centuries under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent.

At its territorial peak in 1683, the Ottoman Empire encompassed approximately 5.2 million square kilometers (2 million square miles). Its domains stretched from southeastern Europe, including large swaths of the Balkans and parts of modern-day Hungary, to North Africa, covering areas such as Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt. In the east, the empire included much of the Middle East, incorporating regions like modern-day Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and parts of the Arabian Peninsula. To the north, it reached into the Crimean Peninsula, while in the south, it extended deep into the Sudanese Red Sea territories.

The empire's size allowed it to control vital trade routes connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa. The cities of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul), Cairo, and Baghdad became major cultural and economic hubs. Despite its vast size, the Ottoman administration managed a highly diverse population of Christians, Muslims, and Jews through a system of "millets," or semi-autonomous religious communities, which helped maintain relative internal stability.

This vast expanse, however, also brought challenges. The sheer size of the empire required an extensive bureaucracy and a formidable military to maintain control over its territories. Communication and logistics across such a wide area were often strained, and local autonomy was sometimes granted to distant provinces to ensure their loyalty. Over time, these factors, combined with external pressures and internal struggles, contributed to the gradual decline of the empire, which ultimately dissolved in the aftermath of the First World War.

Assessing the Legacy of the Chehab Era: A Model for Contemporary Lebanon?

The Republic of Lebanon has had a sad history, one marred by religious hatred, conflict, and in recent years a financial catastrophe that has impoverished most of its citizens. But there was a time when the state experienced an age of great elevation, one that stands out as an example of the kind of nation Lebanon can be if it followed a similar path today. That period was the Chehab Era.

 Vittorio Trevitt explains.

Fouad Chehab.

September 2024 marked the 60th anniversary of the end of the presidency of Foaud Chehab, who rose to power following a civil war in 1958. This was precipitated by the attempt of the incumbent president Camille Chamoun to obtain a second term; a move that went against the constitution. In a tactful decision that went down well with the nation’s Muslim community, Chehab (the leader of the Lebanese Army), believed that if he used the military against the rebels it would lead to mutiny amongst Muslim soldiers and declined to do so.

Chehab’s rise to the presidency took place against the backdrop of enormous upheaval in the Middle East. Although during the second half of the Twentieth Century Jordan and most of the Gulf States (Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) maintained monarchical structures of government, a series of coups throughout the Fifties and Sixties brought to power authoritarian socialist leaders in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, while a military conflict in Yemen led to the formation of a radical left-wing state in the south of that country. Fearful that Lebanon’s turn would be next, Chamoun asked for help from the United States who subsequently sent thousands of troops to the country, although their presence was a nonactive one. At the end of the war, with the loss of thousands of lives, Chehab was elected president by the national legislature. What made Chehab different from many of his regional contemporaries was the fact that, instead of establishing a one-party state and (as dictators have often done throughout history) alter the constitution to prolong his tenure, Chehab relinquished his office after the end of his full six-year term.

Quality of life

A striking feature of Chehabism (the name given to his political movement) was the emphasis that its founder placed upon the quality of life of ordinary Lebanese. A major programme of reform and stage-supported development was rolled out that sought to tackle headlong the underlying causes of the 1958 civil war; namely the sectarian social divisions that had long been festering sores on the body politic of Lebanese society. Following the Arab-Muslim conquests of the 7th century, Christians found themselves essentially living as second-class citizens, but by the time of the conflict the situation had reversed itself to the point where Muslims found themselves at a disadvantage compared to members of the Christian community in terms of personal wealth, education and career opportunities; such as in the civil service. Adding to this disparity, uneven regional development under Chamoun meant that a rich Muslim minority and Christians were the primary beneficiaries of economic progress. The seeds of the conflict had therefore been planted long before its inevitable outbreak.

The extent of these inequities were highlighted when a French research institute (IRFED) was commissioned by Chehab’s government to examine the roots of the war, and estimated that half of the nation’s people lived in poverty. This culminated in a series of measures designed to bring about a more just and prosperous Lebanon. Multiple schemes aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas were launched, with government-operated hospitals and pharmacies set up and several villages provided with basic services like electricity and drinking water. Agricultural cooperatives were encouraged and a Green Plan was promulgated under which many farmers were supported by land reclamation. Efforts were made to enforce health and safety requirements in the workplace while a law aimed at stimulating the supply of affordable homes was enacted. During Chehab’s second year as president, an Office of Social Development was founded that improved the provision of social aid for vulnerable and elderly citizens. This was followed in 1963 by a landmark National Social Security Fund designed to provide workers and their families with a range of benefits such as health and workplace accident insurance and maternity support. The economy flourished, while workers received a larger slice of the economic pie, with the buying power of average earnings going up and the percentage of the nation’s gross national product accruing to labour outstripping that held by capital by 1964. 

Education

Apart from poverty alleviation, the hand of reform would reach out to other aspects of Lebanese life. Many educational initiatives were carried out during the Chehab Era, including the establishment of free primary schooling and new facilities, the encouragement of teacher training and vocational education, a new law school, and grants for overseas study. Joint bank accounts were enabled by law, May Day became a public holiday, and an array of new rights for women came into being, amongst which included local political representation, choice of citizenship, and equal inheritance for non-Muslims. A package of measures was introduced that sought to provide a 50-50 share for Muslims and Christians in the civil service, along with new universities and opportunities for state employment that benefitedShia Muslims. Chehab’s pragmatism towards religious community relations was additionally demonstrated in the international sphere, where he endeavoured to build bridges with both Arab and Western nations rather than favour one side over the other.

However, the tangible progress attained under Chehab, which continued to some extent under his successor Charles Helou, was not sustained, while the strong economic growth Lebanon experienced during their presidencies proved to be a two-edged sword. While developmental initiatives undoubtedly helped many people, big commercial farms replaced smaller ones and precipitated the exodus of peasants into squalid urban areas, while income distribution remained deeply unequal. Despite real wage gains, low pay and inflationary pressures fuelled multiple strikes. Although leading government figures expressed sympathy for their grievances and presided over an improved minimum wage, Chehabist administrations at the same time made use of legislative powers to dismiss striking workers and passed legislation curbing the ability of workers to do so. Additionally, the treatment of Palestinian refugees during the Chehab Era proved to be a black spot on that period.

Security

Seen as a threat to national stability owing to growing levels of armed and political activity amongst Palestinians, their lives were effectively controlled and monitored by the security services, with imprisonment, deprivation, restrictions on movement and even murder amongst the horrors experienced by refugees. Despite Chehab’s concern for the poor and commitment to social justice, the approach taken towards Palestinian refugees during his tenure was one of moral bankruptcy.

In spite of these moral and economic failings, the Chehab Era had many good points and important lessons that Lebanon’s political leaders would be wise to learn from. In his utilisation of the state as an instigator of social betterment, religious equality and economic expansion, Chehab left Lebanon a better country than how he found it, while showing what expanded government can do when used for public beneficence and not self-enrichment. In a nation wracked by financial hardship and sectarian tension, the more positive aspects of Chehabism serve not only as lessons from history, but as signposts for what Lebanon could potentially become.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Gastarbeiters and the Beginnings of a Multicultural Germany

Modern-day Germany is an image of 21st century globalization and multiculturalism; however immigration is still a relatively recent phenomenon. Eager to fill the labor force shortages threatening Germany’s post-World War 2 economic miracle, the West German government turned to foreign personnel and made Gastarbeiter, or Guest Worker, agreements with numerous countries during the 1950s and 1960s. This marked the start of Germany’s multiethnic diversity.

Holly Farrell explains.

An Italian Gastarbeiter family in 1962. Source: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-F013071-0001 / Wegmann, Ludwig / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

What was the Gastarbeiter program and why was it implemented?

In the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in the Second World War and the fall of the Third Reich, the allied powers found it imperative for Germany to undergo a process of democratization with institutions resilient enough to prevent a repeat of the Nazi dictatorship. This included a process of re-education to address the undue respect for authority and a process of denazification. As Germany was divided into four zones of occupation by each allied power, these processes were not uniform throughout the country. From 1949 this then differed between West and East Germany.

However, the allies were also very aware of the failures of the punitive approach after the First World War and so wanted to avoid leading Germany into economic ruin which could fuel extremist groups. Consequently, a robust economy and a well-functioning welfare state became further pillars for post-war stability. West Germany received extensive financial aid through the Marshall Plan which fueled an unexpectedly quick post-war economic recovery (East Germany did not receive Marshall Aid and underwent a socialist transformation). Soon there was not enough personnel to support West Germany’s growing industry due to the high casualty rate amongst German men during the war, and the broad consensus for women to remain at home. After the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the significant flow of East German workers into the West also dried up, leaving a shortfall of labor. The government subsequently turned to non-German workers. On December 22, 1955, West Germany signed an agreement with Italy for Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, to temporarily join the German labor force. Further agreements were later signed with countries like Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Portugal (1964), and Yugoslavia (1968). However, the arrival of Turkish workers was especially significant. By 1973, Turkish employees were the largest immigrant group, making up one-third of non-Germans and providing the foundations for the growth of Germany’s current Turkish community.

The Gastarbeiter’s countries of origin were also keen to cooperate. They hoped that the transfer of employees’ wages back to their families would benefit their balance of payments, whilst the loss of workers would relieve pressure on their own labor markets.

Life for the Gastarbeiter

By the fall of 1964 the number of foreign workers in West Germany exceeded 1 million, and this rose to 2 million five years later. Although the acceptance of foreign workers seemed to symbolize a strong break from the ethno-racial nationalism of the Third Reich, Germany’s steps towards greater diversity did not yet extend to social integration. The authorities tried to hire single men (and eventually women) due to their higher levels of flexibility and mobility. Workers were housed in isolated barracks, usually owned by the company, where there would be four to six beds per room. Contact with the native German population was therefore limited. The 1965 Ausländergesetz (Foreign Regulation Law) also categorized Gastarbeiter as foreigners, which determined their rights of work, social security, and residence but did not permit the right to naturalization. This was only eventually granted in 2000. Gastarbeiter were also frequently subject to discrimination and prejudice within German society. As divisions intensified between the Western allies and Soviet Union, West Germany’s economic recovery and entry into NATO took priority over denazification efforts. Consequently, denazification focused mainly on Nazi party membership and failed to give enough attention to social attitudes. A 1947 survey by the US Office of Military Government (OMGUS) consequently found evidence that a significant minority of the population still possessed lingering antisemitic and racist attitudes, which fueled an ‘othering’ of the Gastarbeiter.

Labor contracts also took the concept of a guest worker rather literally. Workers were initially only given one-year contracts, after which they should have been exchanged for other workers under the so-called rotation principle. However, this was not applied consistently. Industrial firms valued having trained permanent staff as frequent change required expensive training for new workers, who typically had low levels of language knowledge. Employers desired longer stays and their requests for an extension of a foreign employee’s work permit was usually granted. Relatives of the Gastarbeiter were then often able to join the company on the worker’s recommendation. However, the hiring of guestworkers was still flexible depending on the needs of the labor market. For example, following the recession in 1966/67 employment fell from 1.3 million in 1966 to 0.9 by January 1968.

Gastarbeiter typically took unpopular and low-paying positions in heavy industry, road, or underground construction. This led to stratification within the workplace. Whilst migrants filled positions with lower wages and higher health risks, German employees moved up to the better-paid higher positions.

The position of female Gastarbeiter

In presentations of the Gastarbeiter scheme, female workers have remained largely invisible. However, although there were initially fewer female Gastarbeiter, women made up approximately 30% of foreign employees in the German labor market by 1973. This was especially significant when you consider that less than one-third of West German were employed. The employment of female Gastarbeiter saw a positive shift in the 1970s due to the influence of the women’s emancipation movement and a growing demand for labor that could no longer solely be met by the male workforce.

Like their male counterparts, women were assigned the least attractive jobs in industry and services but were often preferred for jobs in factories involving stockings, porcelain, and electronics due to their smaller and delicate hands. From the 1950s women also filled labor demands within nursing and healthcare. This particularly attracted women from South Korea, the Philippines and India.

However, female Gastarbeiter faced additional challenges compared to the men. They were particularly exposed to racist stereotypes and exoticism from their coworkers or other sections of the population, and they were assigned to ‘light wage groups’ where they earned 30% less than the male Gastarbeiter.

Nevertheless, women did not remain passive. They often took instrumental roles in labor movements and strike action and so eventually achieved the abolition of discriminatory wage groups. At the Pierburg factory in Neuss, for example, women made up 1,700 of the 2,000 employees who initiated a general strike in June and August 1973 to demand the abolition of the low wage group and pay rises of 1 Deutsche Mark per hour for all workers. They were successful in gaining the abolition of the wage group and a wage increase of 30 Pfenning for all workers. This was one of over 300 ‘wildcat strikes’ (‘wildcat’ as they were not started or supported by a trade union) where foreign workers and Germans cooperated to improve working conditions.

The end of recruitment

By 1973 the oil crisis triggered a stagnation in West German economic growth, so the government passed a ‘recruitment freeze’ in November 1973 to relieve the labor market, marking the end of the Gastarbeiter program. Although 12 million of the 14 million Gastarbeiter had returned to their countries of origin by 1973, 2 million decided to remain in Germany. Returning would have led to the loss of their residence or labor permit and many Gastarbeiter faced economic or political uncertainty in their home countries. This fueled the migration of the Gastarbeiter’s family members to Germany, marking the beginning of Germany’s move towards a multicultural country of immigration.

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

References

Chin, Rita, Heide Fehrenbach, Geoff Eley, and Atina Grossmann. “German Democracy and the Question of Difference, 1945–1995.” In After the Nazi Racial State: Difference and Democracy in Germany and Europe, 102–36. University of Michigan Press, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.354212.8.

DOMiD | Documentation Center and Museum of Migration in Germany. ‘Invisible Caretakers – Labor Migration of Women in Germany’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://domid.org/en/news/die-versorgerinnen-arbeitsmigration-von-frauen-in-deutschland/.

DOMiD | Documentation Center and Museum of Migration in Germany. ‘Recruiting “Guest Workers” (“Gastarbeiter”)’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://domid.org/en/news/migrationhistory-in-pictures-1960-recruitment/.

DOMiD | Documentation Center and Museum of Migration in Germany. ‘Strike at Pierburg – Solidarity among Workers’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://domid.org/en/news/pierburg-strike-solidarity-among-workers/.

eKathimerini.com. ‘Doc Shines Light on the Overlooked Greek Female Gastarbeiter’, 11 May 2024. https://www.ekathimerini.com/culture/1238269/doc-shines-light-on-the-overlooked-greek-female-gastarbeiter/.

Historisches Lexikon Bayerns. ‘EN:Gastarbeiter (Guest Workers) ’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/EN:Gastarbeiter_(guest_workers).

Willems, Rebecca. ‘Female Guest Workers in Germany’. herCAREER, 11 March 2024. https://www.her-career.com/en/female-guest-workers-in-germany/.

Winston Churchill: A Titan of the 20th Century

Winston Churchill (1874–1965) was one of the most significant figures of the 20th century, renowned for his leadership during the Second World War, his eloquent oratory, and his indomitable spirit. Born into the British aristocracy, Churchill's life was marked by remarkable achievements, profound controversies, and an enduring influence on world history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Winston Churchill with Charlie Chaplin in 1929.

Early life and education

Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill was born on the 30th of November, 1874, at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire. He was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill, a prominent Conservative politician, and Jennie Jerome, an American socialite. Despite his privileged upbringing, Churchill's childhood was characterized by a distant relationship with his parents and struggles in school. However, he excelled in history and literature, which laid the foundation for his later career as a writer and historian.

After a turbulent education, Churchill attended the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, graduating with distinction. His military career began with postings in Cuba, India, and Sudan, where he participated in the famous Battle of Omdurman. His early experiences as a soldier and war correspondent showcased his bravery and literary talent, earning him public attention and acclaim.

Political career and ambitions

Churchill's entry into politics was swift and ambitious. He was elected as a Member of Parliament for Oldham in 1900 as a Conservative but soon defected to the Liberal Party in 1904 due to ideological disagreements. This shift marked the beginning of his reputation as a maverick politician.

As a Liberal, Churchill held several key positions, including President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty. His tenure at the Admiralty was particularly notable for his efforts to modernize the Royal Navy, an essential preparation for First World War. However, the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign of February 1915 to January 1916 for which Churchill was held partly responsible, temporarily derailed his career and damaged his political reputation.

In the interwar years, Churchill returned to the Conservative Party, where he became a vocal critic of appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany. His warnings about Adolf Hitler's ambitions were largely ignored, but they would later vindicate him.

Winston Churchill's strengths

Winston Churchill's reputation as a resolute leader stems from his extraordinary ability to inspire and galvanize people during some of the most turbulent periods in history. His oratorical skill was unmatched, with speeches like "We shall fight on the beaches" becoming iconic rallying cries during the Second World War. Churchill possessed a unique talent for using words to convey hope, determination, and resilience, even in the darkest hours. His speeches were not merely eloquent but infused with a profound understanding of the historical moment, motivating both his contemporaries and future generations to stand firm against adversity.

Another hallmark of Churchill's strength was his indomitable courage and determination. He was unafraid to make unpopular decisions when he believed they were right for the nation. During the Second World War, his unwavering opposition to appeasement and his insistence on standing up to Nazi Germany showcased his foresight and moral clarity. Churchill's ability to make tough choices, often under intense pressure, defined his leadership style and earned him the trust and admiration of many.

Churchill's intellectual curiosity and versatility were also defining traits. He was a prolific writer and historian, producing works such as 'The Second World War and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples'. His ability to synthesize complex historical, political, and military dynamics into compelling narratives reflected his sharp analytical mind. This intellectual rigor informed his policymaking, enabling him to navigate the intricate challenges of global conflict and diplomacy.

Furthermore, Churchill's resilience in the face of personal and political setbacks was remarkable. He endured numerous failures throughout his career, including the Gallipoli Campaign during the First World War and his political exile in the interwar years, yet he remained steadfast in his belief in his vision and abilities. This capacity to recover, adapt, and continue striving for his goals underscores a strength of character that has cemented his place as one of history's most formidable leaders.

Churchill's enduring legacy lies in his ability to combine rhetorical brilliance, courage, intellectual depth, and resilience to lead Britain through its "finest hour." His strengths as a leader extended beyond his achievements during the war, shaping his impact as a statesman, historian, and symbol of determination and hope in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

Winston Churchill's weaknesses

While Winston Churchill is celebrated as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, his legacy is not without controversy. His weaknesses, both personal and political, have often been overshadowed by his wartime heroics, yet they are critical to understanding the full picture of his complex character.

One of Churchill's most notable weaknesses was his often erratic judgment, particularly in military and strategic planning. The disastrous Gallipoli campaign during the First World War, which he fervently championed as First Lord of the Admiralty, is a prime example. The poorly executed operation resulted in massive Allied casualties and is widely regarded as one of the First World War's great failures. This misstep led to his temporary political exile and cast a long shadow over his career.

Churchill's views on empire and race also reveal a more controversial side to his leadership. A staunch imperialist, he resisted movements for independence in colonies like India, often dismissing leaders like Mahatma Gandhi with disdain. His statements and policies, including his handling of the Bengal Famine of 1943, have been criticized as reflective of an outdated and racially prejudiced worldview. This has led to a reevaluation of his legacy in post-colonial contexts, where his policies are often seen as detrimental to millions.

Another weakness was his inability to manage relationships within his political party. Churchill's political career was marked by party-switching from Conservative to Liberal and back again, which earned him a reputation as untrustworthy among colleagues. His return to the Conservative Party was met with skepticism, and his leadership style, which was often domineering and dismissive of dissenting opinions, alienated many potential allies.

Churchill's impulsive and stubborn nature, while an asset in moments of crisis, also created challenges in peacetime governance. His second tenure as Prime Minister (1951–1955) was marred by declining health and a lack of significant achievements. His insistence on maintaining Britain's global influence at a time when its power was waning often appeared out of touch with the realities of the post-war world.

Despite these flaws, Churchill's weaknesses underscore his humanity and add nuance to his towering legacy. They provide a reminder that even history's greatest figures are not immune to misjudgment and controversy, offering valuable lessons for leaders in any era.

Military Service: The Boer War and the First World War

Winston Churchill's military career was driven by a desire to gain firsthand experience of combat and distinguish himself in service. His exploits in early campaigns such as Cuba, India, and Sudan and during the Boer War (1899–1902), in addition to, the First World War (1914–1918) offer glimpses into his courage, resourcefulness, and determination, traits that would later define his leadership as Britain's wartime prime minister.

During the Boer War, Churchill served as a war correspondent for, the Morning Post but soon found himself embroiled in the conflict. In November 1899, while accompanying an armored train patrol, his train was derailed by Boer artillery shelling and at the battle of Chieveley was captured, made a prisoner of war (POW) and interned at a camp in Pretoria. His imprisonment at the State Model School in Pretoria did little to dull his ambitions. In December in a daring and audacious escape, Churchill evaded his captors by scaling a wall and navigating hundreds of miles across enemy territory, eventually reaching safety in Portuguese East Africa (modern-day Mozambique).

The escape transformed him into a national hero, cementing his reputation as a man of extraordinary determination and ingenuity. It also served as a launchpad for his political career, returning to Britain he won his first seat in Parliament in 1900.

Churchill's military involvement resumed during the First World War when, after the Gallipoli campaign debacle, he resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty and sought to redeem his reputation. In 1916, he joined the British Army on the Western Front, first with the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards and then later with the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers taking command of the Battalion. Stationed near Ploegsteert Wood in Belgium, Churchill was no mere figurehead; he immersed himself in the grim realities of trench warfare. Known for his concern for his men's welfare, he led by example, often exposing himself to danger while inspecting front-line positions. His experiences in the trenches profoundly affected him, deepening his understanding of the horrors of war and the challenges of command.

Churchill's time on the battlefield, in early campaigns as well as South Africa and the Western Front, showcased his unyielding courage and drive. These experiences not only enriched his political insight but also shaped the resilient and tenacious leader who would later steer Britain through its darkest and finest hours.

Influences and legacy

Churchill's life and career were shaped by his aristocratic heritage, his military background, and his profound love of history. He was heavily influenced by his father, whose political ambitions he sought to emulate and surpass. His mother's American connections also fostered a lifelong appreciation for Anglo-American relations.

Churchill was a prolific writer and historian, earning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for works such as 'The Second World War and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples'. These writings not only cemented his place as a man of letters but also ensured his version of events would dominate historical narratives.

Winston Churchill's life was a tapestry of triumphs and failures, courage and controversy. His legacy as a wartime leader and a defender of democracy endures, even as historians grapple with the complexities of his character and policies. Churchill's influence on the 20th century remains unparalleled, a testament to his singular determination and vision. His story is not merely one of a statesman but of a man who shaped history and inspired millions in the face of adversity.

In conclusion, Winston Churchill's life encapsulates the duality of human greatness, his extraordinary achievements are inseparable from his profound flaws. As a leader, he rose to the most daunting challenges of his time, rallying a nation and the world with his unyielding resolve and masterful rhetoric. Churchill's legacy as the steadfast architect of Britain's resistance during the Second World War stands as one of the most iconic chapters in modern history. His speeches, decisions, and unrelenting vision for victory became symbols of hope in the face of tyranny, shaping the course of global events.

Yet, Churchill was far from infallible. His career was marked by controversial judgments, unyielding imperialism, and a personality that could alienate allies as easily as it inspired followers. From the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign to his contentious stance on colonial independence, these shortcomings remind us that even the most monumental figures are subject to the limitations of their time and their humanity. They offer a more nuanced understanding of a man who, despite his imperfections, left an indelible mark on the world.

Churchill's enduring influence extends far beyond his wartime leadership. His prolific writing not only chronicled pivotal moments of history but also shaped how those moments are remembered. As a statesman, he embodied a complex blend of courage, intellect, and resilience that continues to inspire leaders and thinkers across generations. His unwavering belief in democracy and the strength of the human spirit resonates as powerfully today as it did in the darkest days of the 20th century.

Ultimately, Winston Churchill was more than a titan of his time; he was an attestation to the power of determination and vision. His story is not simply one of victories and defeats but of a life lived on the grandest stage of history, where he became a beacon of fortitude in a world desperate for leadership. Churchill's legacy serves as a reminder that greatness is not the absence of flaws but the ability to rise above them to achieve extraordinary things.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes on the Gallipoli campaign:

The Gallipoli campaign, undertaken during the First World War remains one of the most notable military disasters of the 20th century. Intended to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front, the campaign aimed to seize control of the Dardanelles Strait and ultimately capture Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). This bold strategy promised to open a new front, supply routes to Russia, and weaken the Ottoman Empire, Germany's ally. However, poor planning, miscommunication, and delays turned the operation into a tragic quagmire.

One of the pivotal failures of the campaign occurred during the disembarkation of Allied troops on the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The initial naval bombardments on Ottoman defenses were moderately effective, producing a brief window of opportunity for a rapid troop landing. However, the navy, overly cautious and indecisive, delayed the disembarkation. This gave Ottoman forces critical time to regroup and fortify their positions. When Allied soldiers finally landed, they faced a well-prepared and entrenched enemy, turning what could have been a swift advance into a grueling stalemate.

The leadership of the campaign was equally fraught with errors. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was a key sponsor of the Gallipoli operation. His vision for using naval power to force a breakthrough was bold but poorly supported by strategic foresight and coordination among military branches. When the campaign faltered, Churchill became an easy scapegoat for the failure. His political career suffered a significant blow, forcing his resignation and temporary retreat from high office. Although the blame was shared by many, Churchill's association with the campaign left an indelible mark on his reputation.

The Gallipoli campaign's failure was not only a strategic blunder but also a human tragedy. Over 500,000 casualties were suffered by both sides, including many from the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), whose sacrifices became a defining moment in their nations' histories. The lack of cohesive leadership, the delayed deployment of forces, and the underestimation of Ottoman resistance sealed the fate of the operation. Gallipoli remains a stark lesson in the consequences of poor planning and inter-service rivalry in military strategy.

The North Siders - Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods: Vincent Drucci

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

If you asked Vincent Drucci what his biggest fear was, it might have taken him awhile to answer. He was reckless and seemingly fearless with a massive disregard for anyone’s personal safety but especially his own. His past times included jumping bridges, riding on the sides of speeding cars, dressing as a priest and stealing his friends’ shoes. And though he wouldn’t admit it to you, it is possible his biggest fear was losing everyone he loved. And by the winter of 1926, that was beginning to seem like a likely reality for him. So, when he took over from Hymie Weiss, he made a decision that was probably not well liked but that he desperately needed.

Erin Finlen continues her series.

Part one is here, and part two is here.

The mausoleum of Vincent Drucci at Mount Carmel Cemetery, Hillside, Illinois. Source: Nick Number, available here.

Early Life and Meeting His Crime Family

Sicilian gangsters of Chicago are most often associated with Cicero and the South Side, but there was also a small community on the north side of the city and that was where John and Rosa D’Ambrosio settled with their family. On April 27, 1899, they welcomed their sixth child of what would eventually be ten children, Ludovico D’Ambrosio, the Latin spelling of Victor. Not much is known about Victor D’Ambrosio as a child. Census records indicate that he went to school and that he learned to read and write. It is most likely that he was supposed to enter the family construction business at some point. However, his temper and need to continuously be moving, paired with a tendency towards dreaminess made him a poor fit.

He joined the Marines when the United States became involved in World War I and ended up shell shocked and with little disregard for life when he came home. None of this served to make him a better employee for the construction business, either the work itself or the customer service part of it and, since his father had passed away in 1916, there was no pressure to stay on in the job he hated and for which he wasn’t well suited. Crime seemed a much better career path for him.

While he started robbing phone boxes he eventually met Dean O’Banion and Hymie Weiss, as well as George Moran. Dean, despite his rumored hatred of Sicilians could speak a little of the language and found in Victor, now calling himself Vincent Drucci, a kindred spirit. Both men were charming, fun loving with violent tempers. Where O’Banion was quick to settle his problems with a gun, Drucci was more likely to create a scenario that was so outlandish and crazy that at times you had to let him do it, if only to see if it would work.

This wild imagination earned him the nickname ‘Schemer.’ His plans did not just revolve around his current life of crime though. At one point he is rumored to have come up with a plan to get himself to the US presidency. It was all illegal, of course, but no one could ever accuse Vincent Drucci of thinking small.

Cinema Style Gangster

When he joined with O’Banion, Weiss, and Moran, it was like he had found four extra brothers. Weiss was his older brother that he could needle and poke but who would always still adore him. O’Banion was the older brother who taught him how to poke Weiss and encouraged him in his mischief making and prank pulling.

His best known prank took place on the busy State Street. Somehow, Drucci came into procession of a priest’s collar and robes. He would regularly stand outside Schofield’s (yes, directly across from a Catholic Church) and yell obscenities at passersby. Once, O’Banion came out to join, pretending to be offended and beating him up.

A driver for the North Side Gang remembers Drucci coming to ask for his keys so he could move his car, without a second thought he handed over the keys. When Drucci returned he simply handed the keys back without a word and walked away. It wasn’t until the man went to his car that he found out why he had been so tightlipped. Drucci had filled the man’s car with freshly shoveled snow from the sidewalk. Dean, while he paid to get it cleaned, couldn’t help finding it to be hilarious. And then, there was the “Shoe” game, which more than likely got Drucci in fights often enough, but the only example we have is from when he pulled it on the serious and temperamental, Weiss.

The Shoe Game involved someone wearing a new pair of shoes. When he spotted the shoes, Drucci yelled the word “shoes,” and tackled the person, stealing them off their feet. Weiss was his victim one day and somehow not only did Drucci get the shoes off but managed to chuck them out the second story window of Schofield’s. Weiss’s head appeared to the pedestrians below, politely asking them to bring up his shoes. The person who brought them up remembered Vincent howling with laughter while Weiss cursed loudly. For a man with a temper that got his brother shot, Weiss was clearly not angry enough with Drucci to really lose his cool and loved him dearly. Not to mention, it was an example of the fearless of Vincent Drucci. But no one doubted that. Not after the bridge jump, something straight out of a movie.

At the end of August in 1922, Drucci was involved in a chase with police, wanted for forfeiting his bond from a safe cracking arrest, when he came to the DuSable bridge on Michigan Avenue and the gates just coming down for the bridge to rise, letting a barge through. A common occurrence in Chicago and one that should have been the end of the chase. Not one to be thwarted by something as trivial as a gap in a bridge, Drucci, put the car in gear, pressed the gas, broke through the barrier and successfully jumped the bridge. Unfortunately, the two police officers did the same and Drucci encountered a traffic jam. It made headlines and has become a legend in the Chicago history.

Violent Temper, Broken Heart

None of this is to say that Vincent Drucci was simply a fun loving guy on the wrong side of the law. He was a violent, dangerous man when crossed or on a bad day. There was a new gun law in Chicago in 1925 staying that it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Drucci was arrested but then walked free, fined $300 by a judge. According to most people who were there, Rose Keefe says in “The Man Who Got Away,” Drucci “seemed amused by the whole thing.” And then a detective chose to make an example of him on the steps of the courthouse, saying he would frisk him every time he saw him.

Drucci did try to avoid carrying a weapon after that but between the feeling of paranoia and gang war he was involved in, he didn’t have much patience left to be tested. When he was denied use of a telephone at a local business, he turned on his heel and went back out to his bodyguard, asking to borrow his gun. He didn’t shoot the man, instead he beat him over the head with gun. The man had to be treated for scalp wounds at a nearby hospital.

The attempt on his life and that of Hymie Weiss outside of the Standard Oil building in August of 1926 was really just par for the course for Drucci by that point. As was attempting to escape on the running boards of another car. And the hit on Capone at the Hawthorne Hotel, despite Weiss being credited as the mastermind behind it, seems to have all the signature pieces of a Vincent Drucci plan. There was nothing subtle or sophisticated, except maybe the firing of blanks. And it wasn’t effective in the way they had hoped for. Since the three men—Weiss, Drucci, and Moran—never declared a true leader, they all had a say in it, but it feels like a Vincent Drucci scheme more than a Hymie Weiss plan. And it’s too thought out to be a George Moran plan.

On October 11, 1926 when he heard of the shooting of his best friend, Hymie Weiss, between Schofield’s and Holy Name Cathedral, he jumped in his car and headed for the scene. Thankfully, someone stopped and gave him the update, Weiss was dead. Drucci turned the car around and going back to his hotel, emptied it of his necessities and went into hiding. He appeared at the funeral but the police avoided him, rightly thinking he would blow his lid if they questioned him there. On October 17th, the police did take him in for questioning while he was sitting at a Cubs game. He refused to say anything, telling the police he had been in New York. An obvious lie, but the police had been through this enough by now and chose not to press it. If a gangster wasn’t going to tell you, he wasn’t going to tell you and nothing would make him.

The loss of Weiss put Drucci in charge, more or less, of the North Side Gang and he agreed to peace terms with Capone. It was the agreement of a man who had lost too many friends already, not to mention his dad and then in 1924, a much younger brother had passed as well. In his family life and criminal life, Drucci had had enough.

A Short Reign

Drucci wasn’t completely done with his prankster ways though and shortly after taking over, he and Moran managed to impersonate police officers and pretend to raid some alcohol…from the police. How he did this is unclear but the police force was very unhappy and embarrassed.

In the biography of Joe Lewis, a comedian of the twenties, called “The Joker is Wild,” Lewis gave insight into how Vincent Drucci had calmed a little after the deaths of his two best friends. He closed a speakeasy called “The Green Mill,” almost every night and would walk back to the hotel that both he and the comedian had rooms in, with Lewis. He was considered a calm and polite and a genuinely friendly guy. At some point over the years, he had gotten married, but far from being a calming influence on him, his wife Cecilia was just as feisty and tough as her husband.

Things all seemed to be going well, until election day, April 4, 1927. The North Siders and the South Siders were working together to get Big Bill Thompson elected as mayor of Chicago again. Drucci was apprehended by police officers for threatening people voting against Thompson.  One of the policeman was Detective Dan Healy, a straight cop with a short fuse who never took bribes and loathed gangsters like Drucci. He had already shot one thief the previous year and almost a second in November.  Drucci and Healy were already on unfriendly terms and it seems Drucci was in a bad mood. Even before they had made it to the car the two were arguing as Drucci had called Healy a name for holding him too tight and Healy had pulled his gun and threatened to shoot him. Inside the car it didn’t improve, Drucci and two of his associates sat in the backseat with Healy and another officer, and two more officers were up in the front seat. As the drive continued Healy and Drucci’s argument grew more intense until Healy shot him three times.

Depending on who you asked the story was a little different. The police officers, Healy, Sergeant Daniel Keough, Sergeant Matthew Cunningham and Lieutenant Liebeck, said that Drucci began by punching wildly at the car’s curtains. After that he jumped at Healy, threatening him and Healy shot him.

The two men who had been arrested with Drucci, Henry Finkelstein and Albert Singel, said that Drucci had been sitting with his hands in his lap when he was shot three times, in the leg, the stomach and the arm. He was taken to a local hospital which said he needed more assistance than they could give him and put him in an ambulance to the county hospital. He didn’t live long enough to make it.

Buried with military honors, Vincent Drucci was laid to rest in the family vault at Mount Caramel Cemetery, near where Hymie Weiss and Dean O’Banion were interred. In an outlandish display of flowers that the man himself surely would have appreciated, one funeral picture shows the letters, “VD” made out of flowers.

George Moran was taking over a gang that had lost two leaders in less than six months. He had his work cut out for him and he still harbored a hatred of Capone that no amount of “peace talks” would quench. Moran’s top men, the Gusenbergs, who had been around since the O’Banion days, became good friends with him. They had often been mistaken for each other, except in the near future, it would be their similar builds and looks that would save Moran’s life.

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

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.