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Europe, the Crimean War developed into more than a mere clash of empires, it was a crucible of change, where outdated military doctrines met the brutal efficiency of modern warfare.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Though his experience was undeniable, his leadership was marked by outdated tactics, a reluctance to adapt, and infamous miscommunication, most notably, the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade.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Outdated tactics, poor logistical planning, and an over-reliance on aristocratic leadership created inefficiencies that often clashed with the harsh realities of war.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.

The U.S. Presidential Election of 1864

President Lincoln understood that his chances of reelection in November hinged on military success in a war now in its fourth year. By the summer of 1864, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant had settled in for a prolonged siege against the Confederates near Petersburg, Va., and Gen. William T. Sherman was making slow progress toward Atlanta. Confederate Gen. Jubal A. Early, meanwhile, had led his troops to the very gates of Washington, D.C. in July, and had attacked a fort guarding the capital city. The war effort seemed to have stalled for the Union, and the public blamed President Lincoln.

Even getting re-nominated was not a given. We may today think of Lincoln as a god, but in 1864, he appeared to be just another failed politician. We want to think of him as this brilliant man and the best president ever, and he was, but in spring 1864, that is not even how his own party viewed him.

The biggest problem was the Radical Republicans, a hardline faction within the Republican party that held the belief that Lincoln was incompetent and therefore could not be re-elected. They had already formed a party called the Radical Democracy Party, for which a few hundred delegates had convened in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 31, 1864. They had even nominated a presidential candidate in the hope that it would drive the main party to nominate someone else.

In modern politics, we tend to think of a two-term president as standard. But in 1864, the last president to have been re-elected was Andrew Jackson in 1832; after him had been 8 one- term (or less) presidents. And before Jackson, the previous 2-term president was James Monroe, who ran unopposed.  So the odds on that basis alone were stacked against him.

Lloyd W. Klein considers the U.S. presidential election  of 1864.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson 1864 campaign poster.

The Republican Party Convention

The Republican Convention was held the first week of June, and the delegates who were loyal to Lincoln were so certain that they could not win election that they made a couple of major decisions about their platform and alliances. Moreover, they witnessed one of Lincoln’s cabinet who tried to get the nomination for himself.

The Republican fringe group demanding a stronger position against slavery split off to form the “Radical Democracy” party and nominated John C. Frémont as their candidate. Frémont supported combat without compromise, believed that Congress should strictly control Southern reconstruction efforts, and urged the confiscation of Confederate property. Fremont had been the first Republican nominee in 1856, just before Lincoln, who had to remove him for incompetence if not corruption early in the war.

Republicans loyal to Lincoln created a new name for their party at the convention in order to accommodate the War Democrats who supported the war and wished to separate themselves from the Copperheads, or Peace Democrats. The convention dropped then-Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, a Radical Republican from the ticket, and chose War Democrat Andrew Johnson as Lincoln's running mate. The National Unionists hoped that the new party and the Lincoln–Johnson ticket would stress the national character of the war. In a modern sense, they went after the “swing vote”.

Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, tried to use his connections within the Radical Republican group to get the nomination. In early 1864 he began a surreptitious campaign for the nomination but hastily ended it after pamphlets intended for private distribution were leaked to the press. He had threatened to resign 3 times during the 4 years of the first term in an effort to embarrass Lincoln. After the convention, he threatened a fourth time and this time Lincoln accepted the resignation.

President Lincoln ran for a second term but replaced Vice President Hamlin on the ticket with Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat. This critical segment of the Democratic Party supported the war effort and the Republicans sought to gain their support in the 1864 election. Lincoln and his running mate supported a quick end to the war, the abolition of slavery and reconstruction of the southern states following the end of hostilities. Lincoln’s opponent, General George McClellan, ran as the nominee for the Democratic Party, which wanted to end the war and accommodate the Confederacy.

The Blind Memorandum

In August 1864, President Lincoln believed he was facing defeat in the upcoming presidential election.  There were no polls as we have today; politicians had to sense what was happening and talk with local men to understand what was going on. And what Lincoln heard must have been disturbing.

Republican insider Thurlow Weed told Lincoln in mid-August 1864 that “his re-election was an impossibility.” Republican party chairman Henry J. Raymond expressed much the same sentiment to Lincoln on Aug. 22, urging him to consider sending a commission to meet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis to offer peace terms “on the sole condition of acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution,” leaving the question of slavery to be resolved later.

These are signatures of Lincoln’s cabinet members on the reverse of the “Blind Memorandum” dated August 23,1864.  Abraham Lincoln Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

It was in this context that Abraham Lincoln wrote the following memorandum on Aug. 23, 1864:

“This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.  — A. Lincoln”

Lincoln folded the memorandum and pasted it closed, so that the text inside could not be read. He took it to a cabinet meeting and instructed his cabinet members to sign the outside of the memo, sight unseen, which they did. Historians now refer to this document variously as the “Blind Memo” or “Blind Memorandum” because the cabinet signed it “blind.” In so doing the Lincoln administration pledged itself to accept the verdict of the people in November and to help save the Union should Lincoln not be re-elected.

It would be hard to imagine a more profound document in American history, and the fact that this could be so obscure astounds me, and makes me start to compare our contemporary climate. As much as we today think our upcoming election has significant implications, its hard to even compare it to what Lincoln was experiencing.

The Democratic Party Opposition

The Democratic Party still was a strong political force in the North. In August 1864 there were a lot of northerners who were tired of the war and its inconclusive results. The idea of fighting to end slavery, today taken for granted, wasn’t as popular as we might think.  The Emancipation Proclamation and the recruitment of black troops had changed the country, and not everyone liked it. The Democratic Party was generally unified in its opposition to emancipation.

Many civil war histories suggest that the victories at Atlanta and the Overland Campaign changed public opinion from the summer of 1864, and surely they did. But a good part of the reason Lincoln was re-elected was that the Democratic Party self-destructed in the campaign.

Had the Democrats a unified message the soldiers could support, Lincoln might have had serious trouble. But the Democrats were divided. The war democrats wanted to continue the war but seek peace soon while the peace democrats wanted to stop fighting immediately.  Ending slavery wasn’t a priority. Ending the war was.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had not yet met to make its nomination. This conflict was resolved by nominating a war democrat McClellan with a peace position plank. The Democratic platform declared the war a failure and urged that “immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities,” which McClellan could not fully support. Moreover, once the Democrats nominated George B. McClellan for president on August 30 they saddled him with a “Copperhead” peace Democrat.

There were two factions that existed among the Peace Democrats. For much of the war the Copperheads, led by Clement Vallandigham, had dominated them. The Copperheads declared the war to be a failure and favored an immediate end to hostilities without securing Union victory, either via re-admitting all the Confederate states with slavery intact and legally protected, or by formally recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign nation and attempting to re-establish peaceful relationships.

But then the Democratic Party blundered. The convention adopted proposals by Copperheads like Vallandigham and Wood calling for a cease fire and a negotiated settlement to the war; but then they selected George McClellan as their candidate.

In 1863, the Peace Democrats started to splinter between the Copperheads and their more moderate members. Moderate Peace Democrats such as Horatio Seymour proposed a negotiated peace that would secure Union victory. They believed this was the best course of action because an armistice could finish the war without destroying the South. The Copperheads continued to advocate allowing the Confederate states to rejoin with slavery intact, however, believing that to do otherwise would merely lead to another Civil War sooner or later.

Its often said that politics is the art of compromise, and at this moment, that was what was tried, but it didn’t work out at all. McClellan was the front runner, so a compromise was struck On the first day of the convention, a peace platform was adopted. McClellan was personally opposed to a peace platform. McClellan supported the continuation of the war and restoration of the Union, but the party platform, written by Vallandigham, was opposed to this position. He inserted a plank calling for immediate peace negotiations.

This was the essential problem at the convention. General McClellan remained very popular and was the obvious choice for the role. But the Copperheads were against it. They tried to induce Horatio Seymour, the Governor of Ne York, to run. But the day before the convention, Seymour announced he would not run. Vallandigham knew he was too divisive. Several men were sounded out for the role, including former President Pierce, all of whom declined. Thomas Seymour of Connecticut received the most votes in opposition.

Representative George H. Pendleton, was the vice presidential candidate. He ran against 7 others, and won on the second ballot. Pendleton, a congressman from Cincinnati,  was closely associated with Vallandigham. He was known to oppose the 13th Amendment and the concept that a state could be compelled to stay in the Union.

The Candidate McClellan

McClellan ran against Abraham Lincoln, a sitting president, our greatest president, as the war was being won; and garnered 45% of the popular vote. Not only isn’t that pretty under the circumstances of voting against a sitting president in a war (the US has NEVER done this), but the Democratic Party of the 19th century was a fundamentally Southern party.  In other words, McClellan got 9/20 votes in a Northern population, running on a platform of stopping the war and reversing emancipation.

Lincoln thought if elected McClellan would be forced by the Copperheads into an early truce. Once he was nominated McClellan repudiated the Democratic Party platform. As a result, whatever message intended to be sent to separate their views from Lincoln was garbled. McClellan’s campaign flailed as his repudiation of the peace plank in the Democratic platform provoked further tensions within his party.

McClellan had different views about race and southern aristocracy then are accepted in modern society and that Lincoln had then: but he was not a traitor, and he did want to win the war, not lose it. McClellan emphasized the fact that he previously led the Union military effort in the War and that he was and remained committed to "the restoration of the Union in all its integrity" and that the massive sacrifices that the Union endured should not be in vain. His central argument was that he could win the war sooner and with fewer casualties than Lincoln & Grant.

The Campaign

By the summer of 1864, the Civil War had gone on for over three years. Over 250,000 Union soldiers had been killed, with many more injured permanently. Victory was not yet in sight. Democrats knew that many of the policies of Lincoln were not popular, including many of those we take today as the reason for the conflict, such as emancipation, the military draft, the use of black troops, and violations of civil liberties. Democrats further suggested that the Republicans were advocating in favor of miscegenation and trying to destroy the traditional race relations. They believed they could win, and Lincoln thought that too.

As if on cue, Lincoln’s fortunes began to change. General Sherman scored a tremendous victory when Atlanta fell to the Union on September 2. McClellan therefore had an ambiguous message against an articulate potus who suddenly was winning battles.

Had the battlefield events gone against the Union, the election would have been much closer. The capture of Atlanta and Hood's burning of military facilities as he evacuated showed that a successful conclusion of the war was in sight, weakening support for a truce. Without the fall of Atlanta early in September, it’s easy to see how the voters might not have flocked to Lincoln.

Finally northern opinion had come around to freeing the slaves and winning a war that had produced so much destruction so that there needed to be a definitive conclusion and a new beginning. In essence, this is what Lincoln was calling for in his Gettysburg Address, which we today take as almost a divine document, but in its essence, was realistically the start of the 1864 presidential campaign.

As late as August 23, Lincoln considered it “exceedingly probable” that he would not be reelected. He thought the copperheads would force McClellan into accepting a negotiated settlement, so he made his Cabinet secretly promise to cooperate with McClellan if he won the election to win the war by the time that McClellan will be inaugurated.

Election Results

History books gloss over the closeness of the popular vote. They cite that Lincoln received over

90% of the total electoral votes (212 versus 21 for McClellan). But a 10% margin is relatively close under the circumstances. McClellan won 48% of the total vote in a bloc of states stretching from Connecticut to Illinois (Lincoln's home state); Lincoln underperformed in 1864 relative to 1860 in several crucial U.S. states (such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Indiana); and that the Republicans lost the Governorship in his (McClellan's) home state of New Jersey. We might well ask if any fool could have come that close. Which makes me wonder, if he wasn’t that stupid, are the accounts of him as a poor general really accurate?

As it is, the popular vote was split 55%-45%, a good but not landslide victory. President Lincoln defeated General McClellan in the election winning twenty-two states to McClellan’s three. Lincoln easily carried the popular vote and won the greatest share of the electoral vote since James Monroe won re-election unopposed in 1820. Lincoln's win made him the first president to win re-election since Andrew Jackson, and the first two-term President unaffiliated with the Democratic-Republican Party or the Democratic Party since John Adams. The National Union ticket was the first and only winning ticket composed of members of two separate parties.

Had McClellan and the Democrats had a plausible, unified peace position that didn’t appear to be total capitulation, they might have had a better shot. He only lost by 10%, which isn’t really a landslide.

Senators Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson from Massachusetts wanted the Republican Party to advocate constitutional amendments to prohibit slavery and guarantee racial equality before the law. Initially, not all northern Republicans supported such measures. Eventually, these would be passed, but at the time, they were considered radical. The problems Andrew Johnson would face as president were starting in 1864.

Fremont might have been a serious third-party “spoiler”, had the newspaper New York World chosen to champion his candidacy (think: FOX News). But then. Frémont was appalled at the Democratic platform, which he described as a "union with slavery". After three weeks of discussions, Frémont withdrew from the race in September 1864. In his statement, Frémont declared that winning the Civil War was too important to divide the Republican vote. He then struck a bargain with Lincoln to remove Montgomery Blair as postmaster general, so he withdrew from the race. Blair had very conservative views on race and slavery.

The 1864 presidential campaign was bitter. More than for just a candidate, voters cast their ballots to determine questions underpinning the broader fate of the Union: Should the war be continued, or should a peace settlement be negotiated? How would the outcome of the war define the role of blacks in a post-war society?

The bloody conflict between North and South loomed over every aspect of American life. The electorate was so divided that some argued the election should be postponed until the war was over. The fact that there was an election in the midst of a civil war is one of the great achievements our country has ever had. Our commitment to fair and free elections, and that the people decide, is our greatest ideal.

Because of the Democrats’ peace platform, the election became a referendum on the war itself. The election tide turned with Union victories during the autumn of 1864 and the masses of soldiers who cast their ballots for Lincoln. The entire concept of soldiers, in the field, voting for who their leader would be, and even if the should be continued, was entirely revolutionary at the time.

Lincoln was highly popular with soldiers and they in turn recommended him to their families back home. The following states allowed soldiers to cast ballots: California, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Out of the 40,247 army votes cast, Lincoln received 30,503 (75.8%) and McClellan 9,201 (22.9%), with the rest (543 votes) scattering (1.3%). Only soldiers from Kentucky gave McClellan a majority of their votes, and he carried the army vote in the state by a vote of 2,823 (70.3%) to 1,194 (29.7%).

Suppose McClellan had Won?

Had McClellan won the election, there is lots of speculation as to whether the war would have continued. The traditional argument is that Lincoln would have remained president until the inauguration, and that by March 1865 the war was all but over. McClellan would have had a victory within 4-6 weeks. He was a soldier and would not have let victory elude him.

But just as plausible is that if Lincoln had been defeated it would have been a huge shock. The Confederates would have declared victory. Would Union soldiers continue to die for a cause that would never happen?

McClellan was in an awkward position. He wrote that he was for restoring the Union. But that was after the war with 20-20 hindsight. However, his party's platform called for the cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement (meaning that the CSA would continue as a separate country). His VP was a peace candidate. His speeches at the time say he would negotiate an end to the war not fight it.

If elected, would he repudiate his party and continue the war as vigorously as Lincoln? As president, he could have done so. But the price would have been alienating many or most Democrats. Had he gone the route of disregarding Democrats, he'd have been forced to cooperate closely with the Republicans (almost becoming a Republican himself in all but name).

Alternatively, he could have decided to side with his party and stopped (or slowed down) the war effort --presumably during peace negotiations. The result being the CSA would win its independence.

Moreover, for McClellan to have won, Sherman must fail in Atlanta and Grant must have met some disaster. In hypothetical situations, you can’t just drop McClellan into Lincoln’s shoes in March 1865. You have to account for his being there.

So as with most hypotheticals, it’s too complicated to know for sure. I think the traditional view is much too simplistic. I think McClellan would have negotiated with Davis within weeks of an electoral victory.

Reports of conspiracies between Peace Democrats and the Confederate government to manipulate the election abounded—including a plan, financed with a half-million Confederate dollars, to raise an insurrection among Copperheads in the West with an aim toward creating a western confederacy.

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.

Theodore Roosevelt: A Life of Unyielding Determination and Vision

Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) was a dynamic force in American history, renowned for his larger-than-life personality, progressive policies, and relentless energy. Born into a wealthy New York family on the 27th of October, 1858, Roosevelt overcame severe health challenges as a child to become one of the most influential figures in American politics. His career spanned a remarkable array of roles: war hero, conservationist, reformer, writer, and the 26th President of the United States.

Terry Bailey explains.

Theodore Roosevelt - presidential portrait. By John Singer Sargent

Early life and formative years

Roosevelt's early life was shaped by a contrast of privilege and adversity. His father, Theodore Roosevelt Sr., was a philanthropist and businessman who deeply influenced young Theodore's sense of duty and morality. However, Roosevelt's childhood was marked by debilitating asthma that left him frail and often housebound. Determined to overcome his physical limitations, he embarked on a rigorous regimen of exercise, boxing, and outdoor activities.

A voracious reader and curious intellect, Roosevelt attended Harvard College, where he excelled in academics, particularly history and biology, although he struggled in Greek and Latin. His interest in natural science would later inform his conservation efforts. After Harvard, he briefly attended Columbia Law School but left to pursue a career in public service and writing.

Political ambitions

Roosevelt's political career began in earnest when he was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1881 at the age of 23. A staunch reformer, he gained a reputation for fighting corruption, earning him the enmity of political bosses but the respect of reform-minded voters.

A series of personal tragedies in 1884—losing both his mother and wife on the same day, his mother, Mittie Roosevelt died of typhoid fever in the early hours of the morning of the 14th of February, 1884, aged 48. In the afternoon and in the same house, Theodore's first wife, Alice Lee Roosevelt, unexpectedly died of Bright's disease. This led him to retreat to the Dakota Territory, where he immersed himself in ranching and frontier life. This interlude strengthened his resolve and shaped his rugged, self-reliant persona.

Returning to politics, he served as New York City Police Commissioner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and then as the leader of the Rough Riders, a volunteer cavalry regiment that gained fame during the Spanish-American War. Roosevelt's battlefield heroics catapulted him to national fame and a seat as Governor of New York in 1898. His progressive reforms as governor positioned him as a rising star in the Republican Party, leading to his nomination as Vice President under William McKinley in 1900.

Presidency and progressive reform

McKinley's assassination on the 14th of September, 1901 thrust Roosevelt into the presidency at the age of 42, making him the youngest person to hold the office. Roosevelt's presidency marked a dramatic departure from the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors. Known as the "trust buster," Roosevelt sought to curb the power of monopolies through antitrust lawsuits and regulation. He championed the rights of workers, as seen in his intervention during the 1902 coal strike, and pushed for sweeping reforms under his "Square Deal" policy, which aimed at fairness for workers, consumers, and businesses.

Roosevelt's influence extended beyond domestic policy. He played a pivotal role in expanding America's influence on the global stage, adhering to his famous maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He oversaw the construction of the Panama Canal, brokered peace in the Russo-Japanese War, earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, the first American to win a Nobel Prize, reinforcing the United States' status as a burgeoning world power.

Conservation Legacy

Roosevelt's passion for nature and the outdoors translated into a groundbreaking conservation agenda. He established the United States Forest Service, created five national parks, and protected approximately 230 million acres of public land through national monuments, forests, and wildlife refuges. His vision laid the groundwork for modern environmental preservation efforts.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

Theodore Roosevelt was a paragon of dynamic leadership and unyielding tenacity. His larger-than-life personality, boundless energy, and progressive vision helped to define an era of transformation in America. Roosevelt's strength lay not only in his robust physical presence but also in his intellectual vigor, reformist zeal, and commitment to public service. A man of action and ideas, he combined these traits to leave an indelible mark on the nation.

One of Roosevelt's greatest strengths was his unwavering determination. From an early age, as indicated he battled debilitating asthma, which he overcame through sheer willpower and a regimen of rigorous physical activity. This same resolve carried into his political career, where he faced challenges with unrelenting fortitude. Whether it was breaking up corporate monopolies, championing conservation, or navigating international diplomacy, Roosevelt approached every issue with a boldness that inspired both admiration and action.

Another hallmark of Roosevelt's character was his intellectual curiosity and progressive vision. A voracious reader and prolific writer, he was deeply informed on a wide range of topics, from history to natural sciences. This intellectual foundation enabled him to craft policies that balanced innovation with pragmatism.

Roosevelt's charisma and ability to connect with the American people were unparalleled. His infectious enthusiasm and relatable demeanor resonated across social and economic divides. Whether charging up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War or delivering fiery speeches advocating for the common man, Roosevelt embodied the ideals of courage and resilience. He understood the power of symbolism and used his persona to inspire a nation to strive for greatness.

In the realm of international relations, Roosevelt's strength as a diplomat and strategist came to the forefront. His efforts to mediate the end of the Russo-Japanese War was the act that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, a testament to his skill in fostering dialogue and compromise. At the same time, his "big stick" foreign policy underscored his belief in America's role as a global power, combining negotiation with a readiness to act decisively when necessary. In every arena he entered, Theodore Roosevelt exemplified leadership rooted in action, intellect, and a profound sense of duty.

Weaknesses

Although Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, is often celebrated for his robust personality, dynamic leadership, and progressive policies, like any historical figure, he was not without his weaknesses. These vulnerabilities provide a more nuanced understanding of a man who, while towering in the public imagination, was deeply human.

One of Roosevelt's most prominent weaknesses was his impulsiveness. While his decisiveness was often an asset, it occasionally led to hasty decisions that lacked thorough consideration. For instance, his initial enthusiasm for U.S. intervention in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War evolved into a prolonged and controversial conflict. Roosevelt's tendency to act swiftly sometimes overshadowed a more measured approach that could have mitigated long-term challenges.

Another weakness was his combative nature, particularly in dealing with political adversaries.

Roosevelt relished a fight, whether in the political arena or the wilderness, and his aggressive tactics sometimes alienated allies and opponents alike. His disdain for those he deemed unprincipled or overly cautious often translated into strained relationships, as seen during his fractious split with William Howard Taft, his handpicked successor. This division not only fractured the Republican Party but also contributed to the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

Roosevelt's rigid worldview also presented challenges. He was deeply committed to the ideals of rugged individualism and the moral superiority of the United States, but this sometimes manifested as an inflexible approach to complex international and domestic issues. His belief in the "civilizing" mission of American expansionism led to policies that disregarded the sovereignty and cultures of other nations, particularly in Latin America. His push for the construction of the Panama Canal, while a remarkable engineering feat, was steeped in controversial diplomatic maneuvers that critics argue undermined U.S.-Panama relations.

Finally, Roosevelt's relentless drive for personal and national achievement took a toll on his health and relationships. His larger-than-life persona often masked the physical and emotional strain of his pursuits. By the time he sought a return to the presidency in 1912, his once-boundless energy was noticeably diminished. His need to constantly prove himself, whether through daring exploits or political battles, sometimes hindered his ability to step back and reflect.

These weaknesses, while significant, are a testament to the complexity of Roosevelt's character. They provide a reminder that even the most celebrated leaders are marked by flaws that shape their legacies in profound ways.

Later years and legacy

After leaving the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt remained politically active, dissatisfied with the direction of his successor, William Howard Taft. In 1912, he ran as a third-party candidate for the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party, splitting the Republican vote and inadvertently aiding Woodrow Wilson's victory.

Roosevelt's final years were marked by declining health but continued engagement in public life. He was a vocal critic of President Wilson's neutrality during the First World War and advocated for greater U.S. involvement. Despite his declining health, Roosevelt remained active until his death in the early hours of the 6th of January, 1919, at the age of 60.

In conclusion, Theodore Roosevelt's life and career embody a relentless pursuit of excellence, reform, and progress. He transcended the limitations of his childhood frailty to become one of America's most vigorous and influential leaders. From his tireless efforts to combat corruption and monopoly power to his enduring contributions to conservation and global diplomacy, Roosevelt reshaped the role of the presidency and left an indelible mark on the nation's trajectory.

Roosevelt's vision for America was one of fairness, opportunity, and strength, an ethos encapsulated in his "Square Deal." His emphasis on balancing the interests of labor, business, and government reflected a commitment to equity that resonates even in contemporary political discourse.

His work as a conservationist remains one of his most celebrated legacies, inspiring generations to value and protect the natural world.

While Roosevelt's assertive policies and imperialistic tendencies invite critique, they also underscore the complexities of his character, a man whose ambitions and ideals often mirrored the contradictions of his era. His larger-than-life persona, unyielding determination, and innovative leadership made him a figure of profound influence, one whose impact continues to shape the United States and its global role.

Theodore Roosevelt's legacy endures not merely in the policies he championed or the lands he preserved but in the spirit of resilience, reform, and vision he exemplified. He remains a towering figure in American history, reminding us of the transformative power of courage, intellect, and action.

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:

Bright's disease

Bright's disease is a historical classification of kidney diseases that are described in modern medicine as acute or chronic nephritis. It was characterized by swelling and the presence of albumin in the urine, and was frequently accompanied by high blood pressure and heart disease.