Is this 14th-Century Born Woman the Reason the British Monarchy Exists Today?

On January 13, 1396, the House of Plantagenet was spiraling. A controversial marriage had just taken place in Lincoln Cathedral. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster defied all reason and reputation to marry his long-time mistress, Katherine Swynford. Though most mistresses throughout English history did not exceed their scandalous station, Katherine Swynford did what many could not; she legitimized her children and started a rival line for the throne. Because of her, the British monarchy today exists.

Kristine de Abreu explains.

A depiction of the tombs of Katherine Swynford and her daughter, Joan Beaufort (before they were damaged). Source: available here.

Early Life and First Marriage

Katherine Swynford (born Katherine de Roet) started out in life rather unremarkably. She was neither of noble blood nor a struggling peasant. She was somewhere in between, a member of the gentry. As her father was a knight in the service of King Edward III and his queen Phillipa of Hainaut, Katherine spent the early years of her life at court under the care of the latter. The queen doted on her and her sister Phillipa, resulting in them receiving the same education as the noble and royal children at court. Katherine grew into an exceptionally beautiful, poised, demure and obedient woman whom many respected at court. This included the lords and ladies above her. Eventually, she entered into the service of Blanche of Lancaster, the first wife of John of Gaunt. John was the fourth son of Edward and Phillipa.

Due to her closeness to the royal family, they chose to arrange her marriage. They paired her off with Sir Hugh Swynford of Kettlethorpe, a knight of modest social standing. Though he owned lands and an estate, the mills and small buildings were neglected and the land was infertile. Therefore, the couple had to depend on Hugh’s salary as a knight. Historians determine they had at least four children. Sadly, misfortune struck the Swynfords when Hugh died in 1371 after participating in a military campaign, leaving Katherine a widow. For a poor widow, this was basically a death sentence.

An Affair with John of Gaunt

But Katherine’s good standing with the royal family saved her as John of Gaunt supported her financially and gave her a job in the household of his new wife, Constance of Castile, whom he married after the death of Blanche of Lancaster. Though Katherine’s situation improved substantially with John moving heaven and earth to ensure she received a decent inheritance, it also became way more complicated than she expected. She and the married John of Gaunt fell in love. Historians cannot conclude exactly when the affair began but vote in favor of it being during his marriage to Constance.

This was not a temporary fling of short-lived clandestine meetings at night. Rather, it was a long-term relationship where all the nobles knew of the infidelity, including Constance. Katherine gained unofficial status as John’s mistress and even became the governess of John’s daughters (with Blanche). Whether Constance cared or not is up for debate, as Constance had a better advantage keeping quiet, considering how her union with John would mean reclaiming the Castilian throne. But Katherine had four children with John, all of whom were cared for, educated and raised alongside royalty, despite their status as bastards. He gave them the surname Beaufort, a family who’d play a major role in the War of the Roses decades later. It was an odd state of affairs. Not only did the court not come to Constance’s defense but they seemed to approve of Katherine and John’s love. There was a strange acceptance of the blended families, both legitimate and illegitimate, and life was relatively harmonious among all parties involved. Despite Katherine remaining in good graces with the nobility, the public had a different opinion.

John of Gaunt was not afraid to parade the relationship in front of the masses. A famous incident recorded around 1378 by chronicler Thomas Walsingham described John and Katherine riding side by side while his wife Constance was riding behind them. This was a public display of their affair which elicited outrage and disgust from the common folk. They wanted justice and vengeance for Constance, declaring John’s behavior unholy and labeling Katherine a seductress and witch. The public pressure was too much to handle. Three years later was the Peasants’ Revolt, for which John blamed himself and his indiscretions. The peasants demanded his head for his treachery. So, in a heartbreaking decision driven by guilt, he formally broke from Katherine. He still supported her and their children financially and saw her from time to time. She left court to seek residence in Lincoln.

Despite the public renunciation of the relationship, Katherine and the royal family’s relationship remained solid. King Richard II, John of Gaunt’s nephew, bestowed upon her the Order of the Garter, chivalric award and title. Katherine led a quiet existence in the countryside, working in noble households and enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. It seemed as though this was to be the status quo until Constance died in 1394.

A line secured

Now that Constance was dead, John immediately sprang into action to legitimize his mistress and children. He appealed to the Pope for his approval, which he gave by manner of a Papal Bull. He then married Katherine at Lincoln Cathedral in 1396, thereby making her his third wife and the Duchess of Lancaster of England. Their children, the Beauforts, were now princes and princesses. The marriage was initially met with resistance but the nobles relented and accepted the reality.

John’s long anticipated marriage to Katherine did not last long. He died from a disease (possible STD). Upon his death, Katherine had all her assets temporarily seized but Richard II came to her aid. She stayed out of politics and chose to live her life out of the spotlight in Lincoln once again. When John’s first-born son with Blanche of Lancaster, Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard, Katherine switched sides and supported him, probably in the hopes of not making an enemy of her stepson. This proved the best strategy as Henry continued the family tradition of showing her favor financially. Her children swore fealty to their new king which gave them immense leverage and helped them set up their descendants for success. John and Katherine’s eldest son John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset fathered Joan Beaufort, the wife of James I King of the Scots and John Beaufort, the father of Margaret Beaufort and grandfather of King Henry VII (Tudor). Also a descendent of Katherine and John was Cecily Neville, the mother of Edward IV, Richard III and George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. This made the Beauforts connected to both the House of Lancaster and the House of York. By the time the War of the Roses peaked, the House of Beaufort aligned with Lancaster as pertaining to their lineage by John and Katherine. Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth Fields and sealed their legacy through blood and iron at that fated battlefield.

So, the intense love affair between John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford resulted in the British monarchy’s security with the reigns of the Houses of York, Tudor, Stuart all the way to today’s House of Windsor. John and Katherine’s legacy even made it to the United States with presidents such as George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D Roosevelt and George W Bush being descendants.

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

Works Cited

“Writing medieval women's lives: the case of Katherine Swynford, Lady of Kettlethorpe (and Duchess of Lancaster).” renaissanceissues, 23 December 2016, https://renaissanceissues.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/writing-medieval-womens-lives-the-case-of-katherine-swynford-lady-of-kettlethorpe-and-duchess-of-lancaster/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

“Katherine Swynford: Life And Legacy Of The Scandalous Duchess.” HistoryExtra, 29 November 2021, https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/katherine-swynford-mistress-duchess-john-gaunt/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

“Katherine Swynford (c.1350-1403) – Women's History Network.” Women's History Network, 21 August 2011, https://womenshistorynetwork.org/katherine-swynford-c-1350-1403/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

Adolf Hitler: After He Took Power in 1930s Germany

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

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

Here, Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain how Adolf Hitler took power. Read part 1 on Hitler’s early years here.

Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Reich President Paul V. Hindenburg in March 1933. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S38324 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Taking advantage of Germany’s financial and social instability, Hitler’s party became the largest in the Reichstag in 1932. Later then President of Germany, Paul Von Hindenburg, appointed Hitler Chancellor. Meanwhile, Hitler also hadarmed paramilitary troops known as “Storm Troops” or more commonly known as Brownshirts, because of their brown uniforms. The Storm Troops were under Hitler's command, and the number of soldiers reached in the region of some 400,000 in 1932. The goal of these forces was to control the streets, because; Hitler saw that controlling the streets was the key to controlling the state. Despite his growing military force and political power, Hitler did not yet have theabsolute power, which would enable him to achieve his expansionist dreams. In order to achieve full power, he would need a majority in parliament; the support of the German people; and the support of the German army. Seeing the growing militia power on the streets, however, the military had begun to fear the influence of the Brownshirts.

Taking power

Hitler systematically and strategically overcame these obstacles. The German parliament contained left-wing parties who strongly opposed to the Nazi Party. On February 27, 1933, the opposition became violent when  Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the German parliament in protest against the spread of Nazism. Hitlerrecognized this as an opportunity in his interest, as this was an opportunity to get rid of his opponents in parliament.Combined with his growing power on the streets, this was a brutal stab against democracy. The next day, Hitler issued a decision to suspend civil and political freedoms under the guise of bringing safety and order to the chaos.The result was a successful declaration of emergency law.

On March 5, 1933, the government organized new elections, in which Hitler won 44%, 17 million votes. Because Hitler still did not have a majority,  he proposed and persuaded parliament to vote legislation called The Enabling Act. This legislation allowed Hitler to issue laws without the approval of  parliament. With this power, any known communists in parliament were arrested, beaten and prevented from entering parliament. With legislative and executive power in hand, Hitler issued a decision to dissolve all parties and unions except the Nazi Party. With control over the leadership an electoral body, Hitler's target now became the German army.

1934

In 1934, Hitler’s paramilitary Storm Troops numbered roughly 2 million soldiers, many times more the number of soldiers in the German army. Ernst Röhm, who had socialist political beliefs, was also the commander of the Storm Troops. He demanded that Hitler carry out their original plans to lead a revolution and implement socialism. The original party values had been to support the German workers, and in fact they had been known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler’s goals had changed however, and he knew that in order to achieve control, he would need the support of businessmen. When Ernst Röhm asked Hitler to join the German army with his Storm Troops under his command as one entity, Hitler had a decision to make. He knew that this combined army would carry out the promised Socialist revolution. The army leaders, however, opposed this therefore Hitler had two options: either  take control of the army leaders who might betray him, or give the power of the military to his friend Ernst Röhm. He chose the army over his friend.

Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the Nazi SS, an elite Nazi security force separate from the Storm Troops, informed Hitler that Ernst Röhm was planning a coup against him. In response Hitler ordered the killing of Ernst Röhm and other Storm Troops Leaders without trial. On June 27, in what became known as the Night of the Long Knives, more than 800 people were liquidated in cold blood. This once again showed Hitler to be a bloody and violent ruler. The German president thanked him and told him that he had saved the German nation.

Hitler knew that a massacre of German citizens could have dangerous repercussions. In order to get control of the media and message, he ordered Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda, to spread the word that there was a plot to overthrow him by Ernst Röhm. If he could justify in the minds of the people that what happened was simply law and order, and for their safety, then fewer people would question his actions. In addition, he bribed terrified wives and children of those who were killed that night to keep silent about anything that might harm his image.

Greater power

Shortly after the Night of Long Knives, German President Paul von Hindenburg died, and the position of presidentmerges with that of Chancellor. A referendum was held in August 1934, where the German people voted for Hitler to be the Supreme Leader or "Führer." Then, as the Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels already controlled all film production companies, and newspapers, helping to consolidate power. Another factor for Hitler’s success was the Autobahn - work began in 17 cities at the same time, and would ultimately be a giant highway network linking German cities together. This project was so important to Hitler, that he himself opened the excavation works in his first year in power. This project aimed to eliminate unemployment, giving jobs to at least 600,000 Germans, Promises of employment and spending on a huge project, combined with the propaganda, inevitably increased  his popularity and he won easily.

Scapegoat

The economic improvement did not last long. The Autobahn only employed approximately 125,000 people and old problems such as unemployment and inflation reappeared. Clutching at power, Hitler used a people he considered to be an enemy, a scapegoat on which to hang all the problems.

The Jews, whom Hitler blamed for everything, from economic difficulties to the decision to surrender in the war, were influenced by Hitler's anti-Jewish ideology since he was in Austria, and also the communists who were carrying out strikes that were one of the reasons for the surrender in 1918, most of whom Hitler said were Jews.

In 1935, in a celebration at the Berlin Opera House, Hitler issued a set of laws called the Nuremberg Laws, which divided the German people into: Germans and Jews. They would mean that Jews were stripped of their German citizenship, were forbidden to marry non-Jewish Germans, were barred from entering universities and schools, and were required to wear visible badges that would identify them on the street.

These laws established the legal persecution of Jews before they were systematically exterminated.

This continued until November 1938, when a German Jew living in France, Herschel Grynszpan, shot a German diplomat in France, Ernst Vom Rath, and a major campaign of incitement against the Jews began. On November 9, 1938, this resulted in  the Jews being subjected to a wave of severe violence in which about 100 Jews died, and the synagogue, homes, and shops of Jews were destroyed. This night is known as the Night of Broken Glass, and a collective fine was also imposed on the Jews, and about 30,000 Jews were arrested.

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

The 331 BC Battle of Gaugamela and Alexander the Great

The Battle of Gaugamela (Γαυγάμηλα), or Battle of Arbela (Ἄρβηλα), fought on the October 1, 331 BCE, was a turning point in ancient history, marking Alexander the Great's decisive victory over the Persian Empire and solidifying his place as one of history's greatest military tacticians and strategists.

The confrontation was the culmination of escalating hostilities between the ambitious Macedonian king, Alexander III of Macedon who became known as Alexander the Great, (Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας), and Darius III, the ruler of the vast Persian Empire.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Gaugamela by Jan Brueghel the Elder, 1602.

The lead-up to Gaugamela

Following his father King Philip II's unification of the Greek city-states and establishment of the League of Corinth, Alexander ascended to the Macedonian throne with aspirations of expansion beyond Greece's borders. His campaign against Persia began in 334 BCE, with Alexander's victories in battles such as Granicus, (Μάχη του Γρανικού), 334 BCE and Issus, (Ἱσσὸς Μάχη), 333 BCE setting the stage for a showdown.

These early successes inspired confidence among Alexander's ranks and raised concerns for Darius, who had underestimated Alexander's prowess. In the wake of the Battle of Issus in 333 BCE, where Alexander had struck a significant blow to the Persian forces, Darius offered peace terms, including a generous ransom for his captured family and large territorial concessions.

Alexander, however, saw himself as Darius's equal and declined the offer, seeking to claim the Persian Empire for himself. Politically, Darius now faced mounting pressure from his subjects to protect the empire's core territories, therefore, moved to consolidate his forces near Gaugamela, a strategically chosen location on the Mesopotamian plains, where he could deploy his army's full strength and exploit the open terrain.

Commanders and armies, strategy and tactics

On the Macedonian side, Alexander commanded a seasoned, highly disciplined army composed of approximately 47,000 troops, including phalanx infantry, elite companion cavalry, and specialised units like archers and highly mobile light infantry. Alexander's forces were strategically flexible and accustomed to his aggressive, calculated tactics. Central to Alexander's strategy was a deep understanding of mobility and the use of oblique formations to outflank larger forces.

Darius III, on the other hand, led a considerably larger force, with estimates ranging from 100,000 to as high as 250,000 troops. The Persian army was a diverse coalition, including cavalry, infantry, chariots equipped with scythes, and a small contingent of war elephants. Darius positioned himself at the centre of his forces, with infantry and heavy cavalry on the flanks and chariots prepared for a decisive charge. His strategy relied on overwhelming Alexander's smaller army with sheer numbers, hoping to use the flat plains of Gaugamela to his advantage.

The battle unfolds, tactics and action

As the battle began, Darius attempted to use his numerical superiority by sending waves of cavalry on both flanks to encircle Alexander's troops. However, Alexander the Great's tactics at the Battle of Gaugamela were masterfully adapted to the open, flat terrain, which should have favoured Darius III's much larger Persian forces. Recognising that a direct, head-on confrontation with such a massive army would be risky, Alexander orchestrated a strategy to exploit his troops' agility, discipline, and skill.

Central to this was his innovative integration of cavalry and infantry, forming a highly flexible, responsive battle line that allowed him to neutralise the Persians' numerical advantage and leverage his own army's strengths. Alexander placed his heavy infantry, the Macedonian phalanx, at the centre of his formation, forming a strong, disciplined core that could hold against Persian attacks.

His famed companion cavalry, led personally by Alexander, was positioned on the right flank, along with other light infantry and cavalry units. This flank was the decisive wing of his army, where Alexander intended to deliver a powerful blow. On the left, under the command of General Parmenion, were additional cavalry and light infantry, tasked with holding their ground against Persian attacks. The integration of cavalry and infantry on both flanks gave the Macedonian army flexibility, allowing Alexander to adapt quickly to Persian moves.

Alexander also employed a tactical feigned retreat and oblique advance, pulling his right-wing cavalry gradually to the right. This manoeuvre drew Persian forces away from their solid front line, stretching them and exposing gaps. When Darius ordered his cavalry to pursue Alexander's right flank, Alexander seized the opportunity.

The Persian line thinned, especially near the centre, where Darius was stationed. At the critical moment, Alexander and his companion cavalry swung sharply to the left, charging through the gap in the Persian centre toward Darius himself. Meanwhile, the Macedonian phalanx advanced, keeping the Persian infantry occupied and preventing them from reinforcing their vulnerable centre.

This coordinated use of cavalry and infantry allowed Alexander to drive a wedge into the Persian army, isolating Darius and forcing him to flee. As the Persian king retreated, the morale of his troops broke, leading to a chaotic withdrawal. Alexander's tactical ingenuity in using a mix of direct engagement and flanking manoeuvres on such open terrain proved decisive, showcasing his ability to adapt and exploit the unique conditions of the battlefield.

Aftermath and legacy

The Battle of Gaugamela signalled the collapse of the Persian Empire, opening the doors for Alexander's forces to capture the key cities of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis. This victory marked the effective end of Persian power and the beginning of a new era of Hellenistic influence across the former empire. Alexander's victory at Gaugamela became a testament to his strategic brilliance, shaping his legacy as one of history's most formidable conquerors.

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

Notes:

Ancient Macedonia

Ancient Macedonia (Μακεδονία), known as Macedon was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, which later became the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece.

The kingdom was founded and initially ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, which was followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties. Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centred on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, and bordered by Epirus to the southwest, Illyria to the northwest, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south.

Not to be confused with the Republic of North Macedonia, a landlocked country in Southeast Europe, sharing land borders with Greece to the south, Albania to the west, Bulgaria to the east, Kosovo to the northwest and Serbia to the north.

Alexander the Great's empire

Alexander the Great's empire was one of the largest in the ancient world, stretching from Greece to northwest India.

Extent of the Empire

At its height, Alexander's empire covered approximately 5.2 million square kilometres (2 million square miles), making it the largest empire in the world at the time.

It stretched from Macedonia and Greece in the west, across the Middle East, through Persia (modern-day Iran), and reaching India in the east. The empire also included Egypt and parts of Central Asia.

Key regions and territories conquered

Macedonia and Greece: The empire began here and remained Alexander's cultural and administrative base.

Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey): Alexander moved here after defeating the Persians at the Battle of Granicus, (Μάχη του Γρανικού), 334 BCE.

Persian Empire (modern Iran, Iraq, Syria, and parts of Central Asia): After his decisive victory at the Battle of Gaugamela, (Γαυγάμηλα), in 331 BCE, Alexander claimed the entirety of the Persian Empire, which was the dominant power in the region.

Egypt: He was welcomed in Egypt as a liberator and founded the city of Alexandria.

Mesopotamia and Babylon: These regions became central to his empire after the fall of Persia.

Punjab Region in India: Alexander's easternmost conquests reached the Punjab region, but he did not extend further due to his army's reluctance.

Population and diversity

Alexander's empire was highly diverse, encompassing various cultures, languages, and religions. The empire was home to tens of millions of people, though exact population estimates vary.

Administration and influence

Alexander's conquests helped spread Greek culture, language, and ideas across these regions, influencing them for centuries to come in what became known as the Hellenistic Period. His empire, however, was difficult to govern due to its sheer size, and it began to fragment soon after he died in 323 BCE.

Alexander's empire was significant not only for its size but also for its lasting cultural impact. Greek influence persisted through the Hellenistic kingdoms that succeeded his empire, blending with local cultures across Asia and the Mediterranean.

Phalanx, (φάλαγξ)

One of the most effective and enduring military formations in ancient warfare was that of the Greek phalanx. The age of the phalanx formation may be traced back to Sumeria in the 25th century BCE, through Egypt, and finally appearing in Greek literature through Homer in the 8th century BCE (and since has been generally associated with Greek warfare strategy, the name itself coming from the Greek word for 'finger').

The phalanx formation was a close-rank, dense grouping of soldiers armed with long spears and interlocking shields with the first few ranks of soldiers projecting their spears out over the first rank of shields.

Louis Wigfall: Confederate Politician, Texas Senator

Louis Wigfall serves as a compelling character within the context of political leadership. Often, we associate the origins of our political figures with their achievements in finance and business, which are perceived as essential for a successful political trajectory. However, Louis Trezevant Wigfall, a prominent Senator of the Confederate States of America and a fervent advocate for secession, lacked such conventional qualifications. His ascent to prominence is an intriguing tale reflective of the Old South, and his exercise of power reveals a distinct dimension of that societal framework.

Lloyd W Klein MD explains.

Louis Wigfall.

Origin and Character

Wigfall was born on a plantation in the vicinity of Edgefield, South Carolina, to a prosperous merchant from Charleston, while his mother hailed from French Huguenot lineage. Tragically, his father passed away when Wigfall was merely two years old, and he lost his mother at the age of thirteen. He had an older brother, Hamden, who met his demise in a duel, a significant detail in Wigfall's life narrative, while another brother, Arthur, rose to prominence as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Wigfall pursued his education at what would later be known as the University of South Carolina, where he spent a considerable amount of time in taverns, with the exception of a three-month period during which he participated in the Seminole War.

Afterwards, Wigfall engaged in a lifestyle characterized by excessive drinking and gambling, ultimately depleting his inheritance and accruing substantial debts from friends and even his future spouse. He eventually returned to Edgefield, where he assumed control of his deceased brother's law practice, although he did not find success in this endeavor either. The South Carolina Encyclopedia describes him as “financially irresponsible,” noting that he wasted his moderate inheritance on vices such as gambling, alcohol, and illicit relationships.

However, these shortcomings were not the most alarming aspects of Wigfall's character. He was known for his violent disposition, frequently challenging others to duels despite the tragic fate of his brother. Notably, he was involved in at least two duels prior to the Civil War. His political affiliations led him into a series of altercations, including a fistfight, two duels, and three near-duels over a span of five months, culminating in a charge for homicide, although he was not indicted. In a notable duel with Preston Brooks, who later gained infamy for assaulting Charles Sumner in the Senate, Wigfall sustained gunshot wounds to his thighs.

Political Career

None of this helped his political aspirations, so in 1848, he moved to Texas, joining a law practice. The dynamic and often tumultuous nature of Texas politics proved to be more aligned with his temperament, as he held a seat in the Texas House of Representatives from 1849 to 1850, followed by a tenure in the Texas Senate from 1857 to 1860.

He emerged as a prominent member of a faction known as the "Fire-eaters," which included notable figures such as Edmund Ruffin, Robert Rhett, and William Lowndes Yancey. During a convention in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1850, the Fire-Eaters advocated for southern secession, emphasizing the irreconcilable differences between the North and South, and they intensified regional tensions through their use of propaganda against Northern interests. He became a staunch adversary of Sam Houston, who espoused pro-Union sentiments, and actively campaigned against him during Houston's gubernatorial run in 1857, criticizing his congressional record. In 1859, Wigfall was elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat, serving until his withdrawal on March 23, 1861, and was subsequently expelled on July 11, 1861, due to his support for the rebellion.

Position on Slavery

Wigfall's stance on slavery was characteristic of the traditional Southern viewpoint prevalent during his era. He advocated for a societal structure dominated by the planter class, which was fundamentally reliant on slavery and the principles of the chivalric code. Following the gubernatorial election of 1857, there appeared to be a shift in public sentiment towards the Union, particularly as the Know-Nothing Party began to disband. However, the John Brown Raid reignited the contentious debate surrounding slavery, likely contributing to his electoral success. Upon his entry into the United States Senate in 1859, Wigfall consistently resisted any initiatives aimed at alleviating political discord. He emerged as a prominent figure in the campaign to guarantee the rights of Southern slaveholders to migrate with their slaves into new territories. Additionally, he was a staunch advocate of nullification during his time in South Carolina and fervently supported the expansion of slavery while opposing protective tariffs.

He resorted to threats of violence in his politics as well as in his personal life. Regarding the difference of opinion about slavery that northerners had, he said, “You shall not publish newspapers and pamphlets to excite the non-slaveholders against the slaveholders, or the slaveholders against the non-slaveholders. We will have peace; and if you do not offer it to us, we will quietly, and as we have the right under the constitutional compact to do, withdraw from the Union and establish a government for ourselves; and if you then persist in your aggressions, we will leave it to the ultimo ratio regum (a resort to arms), and the sovereign States will settle that question. And when you laugh at these impotent threats, as you regard them, I tell you that cotton is king.”

Secession

The conflicts between Wigfall and Sam Houston, the Texas governor, were marked by intensity. Houston was a strong proponent of the Southern cause but believed that the best strategy was to stay in  the Union and bring about change from within, not to fight a war over secession. Wigfall labeled Houston as a coward and a traitor to the Southern cause. Wigfall stood out as one of the rare individuals in opposition to Houston who could match him in oratory skills, and he received considerable recognition for contributing to Houston's loss in the gubernatorial race of 1857.

Wigfall's role in the Democratic Convention of 1860 was of significant consequence. As a leading fire-eater, he advocated for the Democratic party's platform to explicitly demand that the Federal government ensure the protection of slavery within the territories. His efforts were instrumental in the fracturing of the Democratic party, which ultimately facilitated the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. In January 1865, he expressed his views on social hierarchy by stating, “Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal.” His support for secession was rooted in the belief that it would provide a lasting solution to the sectional tensions of the time.

Following Lincoln's election, Wigfall played a pivotal role in drafting the "Southern Manifesto," which proclaimed that any prospects for reconciliation within the Union had vanished. He argued that the dignity and autonomy of the South necessitated the formation of a Southern Confederacy. Despite this strong stance, Wigfall did not resign from the United States Senate until he had successfully undermined all compromise efforts proposed in early 1861, demonstrating his commitment to the cause he championed.

Wigfall maintained his Senate seat even after Texas seceded on February 1, 1861, passionately advocating for the Southern cause while criticizing his Northern counterparts both in the Senate chamber and in various Capitol Hill establishments. Unlike other senators, such as Jefferson Davis, who chose to resign following their states' secession, Wigfall opted to remain in office for a period. It is widely believed that he leveraged his position to gather intelligence on military activities and procure arms for the Confederate forces.

Following secession, Wigfall's influence grew significantly, rooted in his ideological beliefs and support from his Texas constituency. He was inducted into the Provisional Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, where he contributed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Additionally, he represented Texas in the Provisional Confederate Congress, which established the Confederacy's provisional government and appointed Jefferson Davis as its president. During his tenure in Washington, Wigfall engaged in espionage against Federal military preparations, arranged for the transport of weapons to the South, and, after being expelled by his Senate colleagues, traveled to Baltimore, Maryland, to enlist soldiers for the Confederacy before making his way to Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital.

And then, he travelled to Charleston to do what he could to start a war.

Fort Sumter

Wigfall advocated an attack on Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens with the intention of encouraging Virginia and other upper southern slave states to align with the Confederacy. He recognized that the Border States and those still undecided would likely choose to secede once an armed conflict targeting the South commenced. His fervent advocacy was directed towards both the media and his political associates. Upon his arrival in Charleston, South Carolina, during the onset of the siege of Fort Sumter, diarist Mary Chestnut identified him as the only individual who appeared “thoroughly happy”. His presence during the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter from Morris Island was seen as a reckless provocation.

While acting as an aide to General Beauregard amid the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Wigfall took it upon himself to approach the fort without prior authorization. He rowed a small boat to the island and demanded the surrender of Major Robert Anderson. Acting independently, he commandeered a rowboat on Morris Island, accompanied by Private Gourdin Young of the Palmetto Guard and two enslaved individuals, to reach Fort Sumter. Upon his arrival, he sought an audience with Major Anderson and entered the fort through an open embrasure. Wigfall informed the Federals, “Your flag is down, you are on fire, and you are not firing your guns. General Beauregard wants to stop this.” His intervention successfully halted the hostilities and he offered favorable terms for surrender.

His actions received significant media attention, enhancing Wigfall's public profile; however, the reports omitted the crucial fact that he had not communicated with Beauregard for two days prior to his actions. When the official representatives eventually arrived at the fort, they were taken aback to discover that Wigfall had extended terms to Anderson that had already been rejected by Beauregard. This misalignment between Wigfall's unilateral decision and the command structure of the Confederate forces highlighted the complexities and tensions within the leadership during this critical moment in the conflict.

Military Service

Following his pivotal involvement in orchestrating the surrender of Fort Sumter, he attained a level of public recognition that had previously eluded him. Drawing from his combative history, he opted to enlist in military service as a means to enhance his public image. On August 28, 1861, he was appointed as colonel of the First Texas Infantry, and subsequently, on November 21, Davis nominated him for the rank of brigadier general in the Provisional Army, a nomination that was later ratified by the Confederate Congress. Wigfall took command of the Texas Brigade within the Army of Northern Virginia.  2. During the winter of 1861–1862, he established his residence in a tavern located near his troops in Dumfries, Virginia, where he often summoned his men to arms at midnight, driven by fears of a Federal invasion. His anxiety was attributed to his excessive consumption of whiskey and hard cider. As a result, Wigfall's effectiveness as a brigadier general diminished, and he frequently appeared intoxicated, both on and off duty, in front of his soldiers.

Confederate Congress

So, finding military life a bit too regimented, he resigned on February 20, 1862 and took a seat in the First Confederate Congress and served throughout the war. He sat on the committees on Foreign Affairs; Military Affairs; Territories; and Flag and Seal. John Bell Hood replaced him in  brigade command, and became known as Hood’s brigade, which he personally led at Antietam.

He had started as a close friend of Jefferson Davis. Initially he served as a military aide to Davis. An arrogant man, Wigfall soon came into conflict with President Davis. After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room. Although a friend and supporter of the Confederate military, he was also an obstructionist in opposing Davis’ nominations.

What could a fire-eater like Wigfall find objectionable about Davis, the ultimate states rights advocate? Davis began to recognize that to survive, the new nation needed a powerful executive with powers that superseded state governors. Inflation, recruitment of soldiers, the building of a navy and acquiring war resources necessitated a strong central government. Davis’ nationalized the salt industry, for example, and regulated salt production, a responsibility more similar to socialism than capitalism or states rights. Meanwhile, Wigfall as senator blocked the creation of a Confederate Supreme Court and openly questioned many of Davis’ military decisions.

Wigfall proposed the first conscription law ever enacted in American history. His main legislative successes were initiating Conscription and then extending its age requirements and funding much needed railroad construction.

During the last two years of the Confederacy Wigfall carried on public and conspiratorial campaigns to strip Davis of all influence. His continuing conflict with Davis and his support of military men and strategies that Davis did not like led to his loss of influence in the final years of the war. He did very little constructive work for the people of Texas.

As the war increasingly turned against the CSA, Wigfall became the predominant critic of the Davis war effort, including his choice of commanders.

After Appomattox, Wigfall’s belligerence remained unabated. He escaped back to Texas. He spent six years in self-imposed exile in London before returning briefly to Baltimore, and later to Galveston, Texas. He never adjusted to defeat and never admitted to losing.

Wigfall was very close to Joseph E Johnston, who of course was not one of Davis’s favorites. He also early on suggested promoting Robert E Lee to commander of all Confederate armies, a post Davis would never create.

After Gettysburg and western defeats, Wigfall attacked Robert E. Lee, John Pemberton and Braxton Bragg. In January 1865 his successor as head of the Texas Brigade, John Bell Hood, is relieved of command after a loss at Franklin. The influential Wigfall announced that Davis’ “pig-headedness and perverseness” were destroying the South.

After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room.

He opposed the arming of slaves and was willing to lose the war rather than admit that Blacks were worthy of being soldiers. He stated that he didn’t want to “make a Santo Domingo of his country.” His racial prejudices remained unchanged from his youth.

He tried to foment war between Britain and the United States, hoping to give the South an opportunity to rise again. 

Famous Quotes

“We want no manufacturers, we are a nation of proud farmers who want to preserve our lifestyle'.

December 11, 1860, on the floor of the Senate; "I said that one of the causes, and the one that has created more excitement and dissatisfaction than any other, is, that the Government will not hereafter, and when it is necessary, interpose to protect slaves as property in the Territories; and I asked the Senator if he would abandon his squatter-sovereignty notions and agree to protect slaves as all other property?" [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 58.]

Regarding the Homestead Act: "It provides land for the land-less, homes for the home-less, but no slaves for the slave-less." (he actually used the N-word, which I am changing here for obvious reasons).

I realize that it is painful to read these words in their raw, unfiltered original form. The point is that when confronted with what was actually said, we see meanings that were in fact intended that otherwise gets lost in the translation, which then gets twisted into: “Slavery wasn’t all that bad.” But this is what the intent was.

Wigfall was a confederate politician from the State of Texas. He is regarded as one of the most conservative politicians of his time and place, which is really radical, who wanted to carve out a unique identify and future for Texas. He wanted to build Texas on the model of old European aristocratic systems where the few owned all of the land. But he went further: they would also own all of the people who worked on their land. He supported the use of slaves and believed that they were integral in order to preserve a system of order. Essentially, he was advocating a hereditary, aristocratic serf system that was racially based.

Although it is well recognized that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone” was slavery and racism, it is sobering to recognize that their thought leaders went way beyond that. Their dream was a class and economic system that benefitted the very few at the expense of the many, a return to medieval feudalism before the Magna Carta. And the underlying rationale was white supremacy mixed in with a superiority of heredity. It is breathtaking to think that this was only 160-170 years ago in America.

And to accomplish that, they were willing to forego industrial and manufacturing progress to keep their society in line. The hubris of thinking that they could keep technological advances out of their culture is mind blowing, and not unlike that seen in certain Middle East sheikdoms, which has also had to be modified in light of modern progress. This is the foundation of why illiteracy and poor education was the real cornerstone of the Confederacy. I believe this subject has not been addressed in the historical record to any great extent.

Summary

Wigfall's reputation for oratory and hard drinking, along with a combative nature and high-minded sense of personal honor, made him one of the more imposing political figures of his time.  It is interesting that his overarching interests became military strategy, personnel and recruitment. His advocacy of the preservation and expansion of an aristocratic agricultural society based on slave labor was his main domestic position. He was a belligerent drunkard who was happy to fight anyone physically. But he actually had a cogent, albeit outrageous and unethical, economic blueprint for what he wanted to see his country and state become. He had a vision of America that modern Americans would not recognize.

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

Further reading

Louis Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater by A. L. King. Men of Secession by James Abrahamson.

King, Alvy L. Louis T. Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Lord, C. W. “Young Louis Wigfall: South Carolina Politician and Duelist.” South Carolina Historical Magazine 59 (April 1958): 96–112.

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant

https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant/ 

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.nps.gov/people/louis-wigfall.htm

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

Airborne Hope: The Balloon Post of the 1870-71 Siege of Paris

During the Franco-Prussian War, Paris was under siege, cut off from communication, and facing dwindling supplies. In a daring move, Parisians took to the skies with gas-filled balloons to carry mail, people, and news across enemy lines. These flights, though dangerous and often unpredictable, became a vital lifeline and stand as one of the most innovative uses of aviation in wartime. This article delves into the bold balloon post operation and its significance during the Siege of Paris.

Richard Clements explains.

The Louis Blanc, piloted by Eugène Farcot. Part of the Balloon Post.

Historical Context: The Franco-Prussian War and the Siege of Paris

The Franco-Prussian War began in 1870, with Prussian forces quickly overwhelming French defenses. By September, Paris was completely encircled by Prussian troops, cutting off communication with the rest of the country. The Government of National Defense, formed by republican deputies in Paris, desperately needed to maintain contact with unoccupied France and the French government-in-exile in Tours. To address this, the Parisians turned to an ingenious solution: balloon post.

The Birth of the Balloon Post

With telegraph lines cut and roads blocked, the idea of using balloons to carry mail and messages out of Paris arose out of sheer necessity. The first balloon was launched on September 23, 1870, by Jules Duruof, a professional balloonist. His flight carried critical dispatches, and the success of this mission led to the establishment of regular balloon services. Eyewitness accounts from Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (known as Nadar) describe the public’s awe and anticipation as they watched the first balloons ascend, hoping for safe passage.

Balloon Construction and Design

Most of the balloons used during the siege were gas-filled, typically with hydrogen, which was produced by decomposing zinc and sulfuric acid. These balloons were usually made from silk or rubber and measured 26 to 33 feet in diameter, capable of carrying between 440 and 1,100 pounds of cargo, including mail, newspapers, and sometimes passengers.

While hot air balloons (dirigibles) were experimented with during this period, they were less reliable than their gas-filled counterparts and mainly used for shorter flights. The hydrogen-filled balloons, on the other hand, were much more buoyant and suited for long-distance travel.

Operational Details: Launch Sites and Flight Paths

Balloon flights were launched from various locations within Paris, such as the Gare d'Orléans. Pilots relied on wind direction to steer their balloons, as navigation tools were rudimentary. The unpredictability of balloon flight meant pilots often found themselves landing far from their intended destinations.

For instance, Le Jacquard was famously blown off course and landed in Norway, an event that caused quite a stir given the distance. Similarly, L'Archimède, piloted by naval officer Jules Buffet, flew north and crossed over Belgian and Dutch territory, eventually landing near the Belgian-Dutch border. Buffet later recounted the exhilarating flight, describing how Paris slowly disappeared from view as they rose to 6,500 feet at night, while fires and landmarks lit their way.

Cargo and Passengers

The main purpose of the balloon post was to carry mail, and by the end of the siege, more than two million letters had been sent out of Paris. In addition to mail, government dispatches, newspapers, and even homing pigeons were transported via these balloons. Some balloons also carried passengers, including government officials who needed to escape Paris.

The most famous passenger was Léon Gambetta, the French Minister of the Interior, who escaped Paris by balloon in October 1870. Gambetta’s flight was crucial, as it allowed him to coordinate resistance efforts from outside the besieged city, boosting the morale of the French population.

Successes and Failures

While many balloon flights were successful, some faced dire consequences. Of the 67 balloons launched during the siege, several failed to reach their intended destinations. Some were intercepted by Prussian forces, while others were lost to bad weather or navigational issues. For example, one balloon that tried to land near Mechelen in Belgium was startled by celebratory gunfire, causing the pilot to abort the landing, fearing it was enemy fire.

Despite these challenges, the operation was a tremendous success overall, both in terms of communication and morale. The sight of a balloon rising above the city brought hope to the people of Paris, symbolizing that they were still connected to the outside world.

Retrieving Balloons and Cargo

Once the balloons landed in friendly territory, their cargo of letters and dispatches had to be retrieved, often by locals. For example, after L'Archimède landed in Belgium, local peasants helped Jules Buffet deflate the balloon and recover the letters. The letters and dispatches were then forwarded through regular postal services, ensuring their delivery to recipients across unoccupied France.

The retrieval process wasn’t without risk. In one instance, a balloon’s descent was complicated by local villagers smoking pipes near the hydrogen-filled balloon. Such incidents highlight the unpredictability of balloon landings and the challenges of safely recovering valuable cargo.

The Impact on the Siege

The balloon post played a vital role in maintaining the morale of Parisians during the siege. Knowing their letters and dispatches were reaching the outside world reassured them that they hadn’t been forgotten. Additionally, the balloon post allowed the French government to coordinate military efforts from outside Paris, although communication was one-way, as nothing could be sent back into the city.

Legacy and Historical Significance

The use of balloons during the Siege of Paris marked a key moment in the history of aviation and military communication. The success of gas-filled balloon flights demonstrated the potential of air transport for carrying messages during times of conflict. The balloon post of the siege became a cultural symbol of French resilience and ingenuity, inspiring numerous depictions in newspapers, paintings, and books.

Conclusion

The balloon post of the Siege of Paris stands as a remarkable achievement of innovation and perseverance during a time of extreme hardship. While most of the balloons were gas-filled and expertly crafted for long-distance travel, the occasional use of hot air balloons showed the broad range of experimentation at play. Each flight, whether successful or facing challenges, carried with it the hopes of a city under siege, forever cementing its place in aviation history.

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

References

Aubry, Octave. The Siege of Paris: 1870-1871. Macmillan, 1933.

Boyle, Andrew. Flights of Fancy: The Balloon Post During the Franco-Prussian War. Military History Press, 1971.

Lachouque, Henry. The French Army and the Franco-Prussian War. Praeger, 1968.

Marsden, William. "Balloon Post: A Pioneering Aviation Feat." History Today, vol. 22, no. 4, 1972.

Nadar, Gaspard-Félix. My Life in the Air. Oxford University Press, 1899.

Rickards, Colin. Aviation Before the Airplane: Paris Balloons of 1870. Oxford University Press, 1980.

Schwartz, Paul. "Balloons over Paris: The Role of Aviation in the Franco-Prussian War." Journal of Military History, vol. 53, no. 3, 1989.

Watson, Charles. The Balloons of Paris: A Forgotten History of Siege Warfare. HarperCollins, 1995.

Famous Roman Battles: The 53BC Battle of Carrhae

The Battle of Carrhae, fought in 53 BCE between the Roman Republic and the Parthian Empire, unfolded on the plains near the town of Carrhae (modern-day Harran in Turkey) with catastrophic results for Rome.

Terry Bailey explains.

This bust was found in the Licinian Tomb in Rome. It is thought to be Crassus, although this is disputed. Source: Sergey Sosnovskiy, available here.

Led by Crassus, one of Rome's wealthiest men and a member of the First Triumvirate, the Roman forces had embarked on a campaign against the Parthians, expecting to expand Rome's eastern territories. However, Crassus underestimated both the Parthian military's capabilities and the effectiveness of their tactics on open terrain.

The Roman forces primarily consisted of heavy infantry in traditional Roman legions which struggled against the Parthians' nimble cavalry, particularly the heavily armored cataphracts and the swift, highly skilled horse archers. As the Roman army advanced, the Parthians deployed a classic strategy that capitalized on their cavalry's mobility.

The Parthian General Surena, who was leading the smaller Parthian force, arranged his troops to exploit the flat, open landscape perfectly suited for mounted warfare. First, he sent in waves of horse archers who rained down arrows on the densely packed Roman legions. The Parthian archers used composite bows, which had greater range and penetrative power than the Romans' standard javelins and pila, making it nearly impossible for the Roman soldiers to effectively counterattack.

Crassus ordered his men to form a defensive testudo or tortoise formation, interlocking their shields to create a barrier. However, the relentless Parthian archers simply circled and continued to attack from a distance, inflicting heavy casualties without engaging in close combat.

Surena then deployed his cataphracts to charge the Roman lines whenever they showed signs of weakness. These heavily armored cavalry units were devastating in close combat, using lances to break through the Roman ranks and further demoralize the already exhausted troops.

The Romans, trained for direct engagements and close-quarter fighting, however, the Romans were ill-prepared to handle this two-pronged mounted approach. Attempts by the Roman infantry to break out of their defensive formations and advance were met with swift, punishing counterattacks from the cataphracts, who would quickly withdraw and allow the horse archers to resume their barrage.

As the day wore on and the Romans' numbers dwindled, Crassus found himself without viable tactical options. The heat, continuous losses, and dwindling morale took a toll on his troops, who were cut off from retreat and nearly surrounded. Crassus attempted to negotiate with Surena but was ultimately betrayed and killed, leaving the Roman forces leaderless. The battle ended in a devastating defeat for Rome, with tens of thousands of soldiers killed or captured, marking a significant blow to Roman prestige and effectively halting their eastern expansion for years.

Although the details of its political background, strategies, and tactics offer fascinating context, the broader implications of this battle are equally significant, revealing insight into the ancient world's shifting power dynamics, technological disparities, and the far-reaching effects of Rome's defeat.

The Parthian superiority and Roman struggle

The Parthian army's victory over a much larger Roman force marked an important moment for the Parthian Empire, underscoring its position as a dominant regional power and successfully resisting Roman expansion into the East.

As indicated the Parthians' battlefield success came in part due to their mastery of cavalry-based warfare, utilizing highly mobile horse archers equipped with powerful recurve bows that offered them greater range and power than the equipment of their Roman adversaries.

The use of armored, cataphract-style cavalry in combination with the horse archers proved to be the decisive factor in the battle, as these heavily armored horsemen were afforded protection against the Roman spears and arrows, enhancing Parthian resilience.

The Roman legions, while formidable in close combat, however, unable to close with the enemy were at a distinct disadvantage against the mobility and ranged tactics of the Parthians. Trained for engagements in which their heavy infantry could close with the enemy, the Romans were poorly equipped to handle sustained arrow fire from a distance or to pursue an agile cavalry force across open terrain.

Psychological and logistical impact on Rome

The outcome of Carrhae resonated deeply within Roman society. Military defeats were not foreign to Rome, but the loss at Carrhae shattered a sense of invincibility that had accompanied Roman expansion across the Mediterranean and west into Gaul. Romans were stunned by the devastating news and the psychological blow led to shifts in military doctrine, with generals and tacticians re-evaluating how to handle encounters with cavalry-based armies.

This battle underscored the logistical limitations of Roman supply lines, particularly in regions where they could not establish adequate resupply points or secure reliable lines of communication. The defeat highlighted the need for careful planning when advancing into territories with harsh and unfamiliar conditions, influencing future Roman campaigns into Persia and beyond.

The consequences of the Roman scene

The scale of the loss had profound implications for Rome's internal politics, contributing to a rebalancing of power among Rome's leading figures and factions. As the Roman Republic was already experiencing tensions between key leaders, the defeat was one of the contributing factors that led to the eventual fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire under Augustus, due to political instability at the time.

The loss at Carrhae became a cautionary example of the dangers inherent in overextension and the potential costs of expansionist policies, especially when they are driven more by personal ambition than by strategic necessity.

Parthian influence and prestige

For the Parthians, victory at Carrhae bolstered their reputation and secured their influence over a contested region. This triumph also sent a clear signal to neighboring states that the Parthians were capable of challenging even the might of Rome, attracting allegiances from smaller states that sought to remain independent from Roman control. Parthia's strategic success at Carrhae allowed it to consolidate its control over trade routes between the East and the West, including the lucrative Silk Road, strengthening its economy and increasing its cultural exchange with both Eastern and Western civilizations.

The legacy of Carrhae

Carrhae's influence can still be felt in the way it reshaped the relationship between Eastern and Western empires. The Romans' defeat demonstrated that the power balance was not unilaterally in Rome's favor and set a precedent for interactions between the Mediterranean powers and the Parthian—and later Sassanian—Persian empires.

The limits exposed by Carrhae had a lasting effect on how Rome approached the East, prompting diplomatic efforts as much as military ventures in future engagements with Parthian and Persian powers.

In retrospect, Carrhae remains an enduring reminder of the limitations of military might when met by technological innovation and a deep understanding of local geography and tactics. As a case study, it highlights the consequences of underestimating opponents and overextending resources, themes that resonate across military history and are as relevant today as they were in the ancient world.

Point of interest:

The term "parting shot" originates from the phrase "Parthian shot," which refers to the military tactic used by the Parthian horse archers. The skill of the Parthians mounted archers used an effective maneuver: while retreating on horseback, they would turn around and fire arrows at their pursuing enemies.

This tactic allowed them to inflict damage even as they withdrew, often catching their opponents off guard.

Over time, the "Parthian shot" evolved linguistically into a "parting shot" in English.

Today, it's commonly used to describe a final remark or criticism delivered as someone is leaving or ending a conversation, echoing the Parthians' strategic last blow as they departed.

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

Was this 1975 Indian Agreement a Betrayal of Naga Sovereignty?

By late 1975, in the quiet hill station of Shillong, many high ranking officials from the Indian government gathered to sign a document that was meant to end one of the longest-running insurgencies in Asia. This Accord, however, simply meant as a ceasefire agreement between the Government of India and the Naga National Council (NNC), and is indeed celebrated by some as the first step toward lasting peace in the turbulent Naga Hills on the border of India and Myanmar. But for many others, particularly the more radical factions within the Naga leadership, it was a treacherous deal that betrayed the very core of Naga aspirations—sovereignty.

Asena Imchen and Luke Rimmo Lego explain.

Naga tribesmen, circa 1905.

The agreement reached in 1975 became a flashpoint for division and militarization within the Naga National Movement. Key leaders rejected the Accord outright, arguing that accepting the Indian Constitution and laying down arms amounted to surrendering Naga independence- anyone who did sign this meant he or she was a traitor. This fallout from the Accord was almost immediate, culminating in the rise of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), a faction that would go on to spearhead a renewed armed struggle for Naga self-determination. So how did this Accord deepen the fractures within Naga society, leading to decades of conflict and reshaping Naga demands in ways that continue to influence the region’s political landscape today?

I. The Road to Shillong: Pre-Accord Context and Negotiations

The origins of the Naga National Movement can be traced back to the formation of the Naga National Council (NNC) in the early 1940s, which then emerged as a significant political body advocating for the distinct identity and rights of the Naga people. By 1947, under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC had already declared Naga independence from British India, just a day before India’s own independence. This bold proclamation thus inadvertently set the stage for decades of insurgency that eventually led to a fallout in the entire Wesean (Western South-East Asian region). This conflict escalated through the 1950s and 1960s, with the Indian government deploying military forces to suppress the Naga rebellion, leading to widespread violence and human rights abuses in the Naga Hills. Initial attempts at ceasefires and negotiations, such as the 1964 ceasefire, offered brief respites but eventually failed to produce a lasting solution. Additionally, the Indian military's targeting and abuse of “Naga children” fueled deep resentment and mistrust towards India among ordinary Nagas, leaving the conflict unresolved.

By the mid-1970s, the Indian government, facing growing unrest in the Wesean region and mounting international pressure to stabilize the conflict, saw an opportunity to push for peace with the Nagas. After several decades of conflict, the Indian state was motivated by the desire to restore stability and integrate Nagaland more firmly within the Indian Union. The NNC, weakened by internal divisions and exhausted from years of war, also saw the potential for peace, particularly among its moderate factions. Key Naga leaders such as Phizo's deputy, Kevi Yalie, were involved in the push for dialogue, believing that a negotiated settlement was the best path forward to avoid further bloodshed. Shillong, the capital of the erstwhile Northeastern Presidency under British India, was chosen as the site for these negotiations due to its strategic and symbolic importance—it was a neutral location yet close enough to the Naga heartland to facilitate talks. The Indian government had to frame the upcoming accord as a significant concession, a step toward bringing Nagaland into the constitutional fold while preserving some degree of Naga autonomy.

The Accord, signed in November 1975, outlined a series of conditions aimed at ending hostilities. The most critical clause was the requirement for the Naga rebel groups to accept the Indian Constitution, effectively renouncing their claim to sovereignty. Additionally, the Accord mandated the surrender of arms by insurgent groups, symbolizing the cessation of the armed struggle. In return the Indian state was to give the Nagas the state of Nagaland- which however further fractured Naga identity, as the Nagas were now separated into 4 administrative divisions within India and into 2 countries (Myanmar and India). From the Indian government’s perspective, this was a major victory—a diplomatic success that would finally integrate Nagas and end years of insurgency. There was no doubt that for India, it was a decisive step toward peace, for it would bring the region into the national mainstream and resolve the long-standing demand for sovereignty. However, as subsequent developments would show, this optimism was short-lived as many factions within the Naga leadership, especially the radical elements, perceived the Accord as a betrayal, setting the stage for further conflict- beyond just the Nagas.

II. Reception of the Shillong Accord: Compromise or Betrayal? Initial Reception Among Naga Leaders

The Accord was met with mixed reactions among Naga leaders, sharply dividing opinions. For some, particularly the moderates within the NNC, the Accord represented a necessary compromise after decades of armed struggle, loss of life, and unrelenting hardship. These leaders, many in their 50s, exhausted by the unending conflict and the toll it had taken on their people, saw the acceptance of the Indian Constitution as a step toward achieving a measure of peace and regional autonomy. While full sovereignty remained their ultimate goal, they believed that concessions at this juncture could lead to greater opportunities for dialogue with India and possibly more autonomy in the future. They thus viewed the Accord as a strategic pause, a chance to regroup and rebuild the Naga political movement under less hostile circumstances.

However, for the radical factions, particularly the younger leaders of the NNC, this was nothing short of a betrayal. Personalities like Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu, who would go on to play crucial roles in the insurgency, saw the Accord as a complete sellout to the Indian state. To them, the agreement represented the Naga leadership’s capitulation to Indian hegemony, undermining the very foundation of their struggle for independence. The acceptance of the Indian Constitution was thus viewed as a fatal compromise that negated the Naga people’s right to self-determination. Most of these youngsters refused to recognize any agreement that did not affirm full sovereignty, and they quickly rejected the Accord, marking a decisive break with the NNC’s leadership.

This rejection culminated in the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980. With Muivah and Swu at the helm, the NSCN became the torchbearer of a more radicalized insurgency, driven by a pan-Naga agenda that sought to unite all Nagas under one sovereign entity, including those residing outside the boundaries of Nagaland. The NSCN’s establishment signaled the beginning of a new chapter in the Naga insurgency—one characterized by a more militant and uncompromising stance. The faction's formation also laid bare the deep divisions within the Naga nationalist movement, with the NSCN openly condemning the moderate leaders of the NNC for having surrendered the cause of independence.

The Shillong Accord’s fallout eventually did lead to significant political and military consequences for both the Naga movement and the Indian government. The NSCN's emergence reinvigorated the insurgency, with the group launching a series of militant operations to resist what they viewed as the ongoing Indian occupation. The intensity of their actions, combined with their more expansive vision of Naga sovereignty, escalated the conflict beyond the boundaries of Nagaland, drawing in other Naga-dominated areas in the Northeast and Myanmar.

III. Long-Term Impact of the Shillong Accord on Naga Nationalism Reshaping of Naga Political Demands

This accord had fundamentally reshaped Naga political aspirations, polarizing the movement between moderates who sought greater autonomy within India and radicals, like the NSCN, who pursued full sovereignty and the unification of all Naga-inhabited areas across India and Myanmar. While the NNC, having signed the Accord, leaned toward negotiating for regional autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework, it lost credibility among the younger generation of Nagas who saw the agreement as a betrayal. The NSCN, in contrast, gained prominence by championing a vision of Nagalim, a sovereign Naga homeland, appealing to the more radicalized segments of Naga society.

The Accord also later came to intensify internal divisions within Naga society, not just between the NNC and the NSCN but also within the NSCN itself, which eventually splintered into factions such as NSCN-IM and NSCN-K. This factionalism fractured the Naga movement, complicating the struggle for sovereignty as different groups pursued varying objectives and approaches. The splintering weakened the movement's unity but did not diminish its underlying goal of independence.

The failure of the Shillong Accord also marked a significant setback for the Indian government’s attempts at pacifying the Naga movement through political compromise. Instead, the government’s militarized response, aimed at suppressing the NSCN, exacerbated the situation, deepening the alienation of the Naga people and escalating the cycle of violence. This hardline approach failed to address the fundamental political demand for sovereignty, which had been at the heart of the Naga struggle, reigniting the conflict and emboldening other ethnic groups in the Northeast to also pursue autonomy. Thereby, it inadvertently broadened the insurgency into a wider struggle. Inspired by the Naga resistance, other ethnic groups across the Wesean region began to assert their own demands for autonomy and sovereignty, coalescing around the broader concept of an independent "Wesea."

Thus despite divisions, the NSCN—particularly the NSCN-IM—sustained the armed struggle well into the 1990s and beyond, keeping the demand for Naga and later “Wesean” sovereignty at the center of its agenda. Although the Indian government attempted to broker new peace deals, the sovereignty question remained unresolved.

IV. Contemporary Perspectives on the Shillong Accord Revisiting the Accord in Light of Modern Peace Talks

In contemporary times, the accord continues to cast a long shadow over modern peace talks between the Indian government and the NSCN-IM. The 2015 Framework Agreement, viewed by the Government of India as an evolved effort to integrate Nagaland while respecting Naga autonomy, drew heavily from the lessons of Shillong. However, for the NSCN-IM, the Accord remains a symbol of betrayal, a moment when Naga sovereignty was compromised, shaping their ongoing insistence on full rights and territorial integration. This historical distrust has made the current talks more delicate, with the NSCN-IM remaining wary of repeating the mistakes of 1975.

Within Naga society too, opinions on the Shillong Accord remain divided. Some moderates now see the Accord as a missed opportunity for peace, arguing that rejecting it led to further conflict. However, for many Nagas, particularly the younger generation and those aligned with more radical factions, the sense of betrayal still lingers. The Accord in many parts, especially in Naga regions outside Nagaland, is still remembered as a moment when Naga aspirations were undermined.

Naga civil society, including churches and youth groups, has played a key role in shaping views on the Accord’s legacy. The Church calls for reconciliation, while youth organizations often reflect a deep skepticism of any agreement that resembles Shillong. The Accord’s legacy has shaped ongoing peace efforts, with both sides trying to navigate the challenge of securing a just peace without repeating the perceived capitulations of 1975.

V. Concluding Remarks

The rise of a regional movement encompassing multiple ethnicities was a direct result of the state’s inability to acknowledge the region’s unique identity and political aspirations. It also highlighted the complexity of the Northeast’s insurgencies: they were not merely about independence but about identity, autonomy, and the recognition of the region’s distinctiveness within the Indian political fabric. The Shillong Accord, was thus far from resolving the conflict, underscored the limits of imposing peace without genuine political reconciliation.

Has the Naga struggle for sovereignty been irreparably fractured by this agreement, or can a more inclusive peace be forged in its aftermath? As ongoing peace talks attempt to navigate these historical wounds, the lessons of the Shillong Accord remain critical. Avoiding the mistakes of the past—acknowledging the unique identity and aspirations of the Naga people—will be essential if the future is to hold the lasting peace that the Shillong Accord ultimately failed to achieve.

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

Suggested Reading

●      Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press, 2005.

●      Hazarika, Sanjoy. Strangers of the Mist: Tales of War and Peace from India's Northeast. Penguin Books, 1994.

●      Kikon, Dolly. Living with Oil and Coal: Resource Politics and Militarization in Northeast India. University of Washington Press, 2019.

●      Horam, M. Naga Insurgency: The Last Thirty Years. Cosmo Publications, 1988.

●      Baruah, Sanjib. India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

●      Haksar, Nandita. Nagaland File: A Question of Human Rights. Lancer International, 1984.

●      Iralu, Kaka D. The Naga Saga. Published by the author, 2000.

●      Mizoram University, Department of Political Science. Naga Peace Process and the Shillong Accord. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2014.

Revealing the Legend of Robin Hood

Ever since watching Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, starring Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman, the author loved the tales surrounding Robin Hood. While exaggerated, stories like these derive from historical events revealing a great deal about the people who wrote and enjoyed them. It tells us their heroes, what they viewed as just and what was evil.

Here, Jeb Smith tells us about Robin Hood.

Robin Hood with Sir Guy. From Bold Robin Hood and His Outlaw Band: Their Famous Exploits in Sherwood Forest by Louis Rhead.

The tales of Robin Hood demonstrate many stories adapted to their time period. As the culture changes so do their heroes. For example, the later tales written during the Reformation included a corrupt Church and local bishop, as reformers held the view that money had corrupted the Catholic Church. Later still, in the Prince of Thieves, we receive a far more secular Robin and the addition of the beloved Muslim character Azeem, played brilliantly by Morgan Freeman. Yet, despite his prayers towards Mecca and his abstinence from alcohol, his character is far more Christian than Muslim.

While the oldest manuscripts date from a couple of centuries later, the tales of Robin Hood seem to originate in England shortly after the Norman Conquest. The historical setting is usually between the 12th and 13th centuries, often during the Third Crusade. Some authors searching for the historical Robin Hood place the historical source between 1205-1282.[1] This period seems to fit the tales as successive kings following the Norman Conquest introduced hunting restrictions on the peasantry and reduced many peasants to serfs. Under the former Anglos-Saxon law, anyone could hunt in the forest for food, but William the Conqueror declared all forests property of the king.[2]Also, before the Norman conquest, the Sheriff of Nottingham was appointed by the king as a close vassal and friend, but after the conquest, bureaucracy took over and all the corruption came along with it. We see this reflected even in the fully developed modern Robin Hood where the sheriff is at odds with the king and raises taxation on the people. In addition, the bow was used by English outlaws in guerilla warfare against the superior Norman cavalry of the conquerors.

Origins

Robin was likely from nobility with oath-bound loyal followers under him.[3] It appears he was an aristocratic lord rebelling against foreign tyrant rulers. Thor Ewing wrote, "Robin commits rightful crimes against wrongful authority."[4]Robin Hood takes back what is rightfully the people's from the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. Even though the sheriff is "the government," he is acting unlawfully by confiscating the people's money, so Robin and his followers are morally justified in resisting, and Robin is a hero for bravely doing so. Jesse Harasta wrote that originally Robin Hood was "a symbol of the strength of Saxon commoners to overcome their oppressors."[5] The original ballads also portray Robin as resisting a foreign occupier. Unlike our modern, more socialist Robin Hood, the medieval Robin Hood was reactionary, desiring a return to older customs. He is fighting to return things to how they were before the Norman Conquest.[6] "Steal from the rich, give to the poor" was not only not in the original ballads, but it also did not come into play until the 16th century. But even here, as in later editions, the "rich" was the corrupt government, and the "poor" were the unjustly taxed citizenry.

Roger Green presents us with a modern and "fully developed" Robin Hood, also placing the events after the Norman invasion.[7] However, even here, Robin and his men have sworn fealty to Richard the Lionheart, and they put into action "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God," resisting Prince John and the Sheriff, who both are tyrannical rulers. Green wrote, "The new Norman earls and barons… treated the Saxons as mere slaves…serfs with no rights of their own."[8]

Resistance

The original problem was that Prince John was a cruel man who "needed money" and "the easiest way of getting it was to accuse some wealthy man of treason or lawbreaking. Make him an outlaw and seize his house or castle and all his goods."[9] The corrupt Prince John would target the old Saxon families and wealthy lord's lands, such as those of Robert of Locksley (Robin). Prince John would then distribute land, titles, and money to his faithful followers. In other words, the government stole private property and used it for political gain. In addition, he confiscated forests and forced serfs to starve without access to food supplies.

For resisting, Robin and his men were declared "traitors" who also drank to and toasted the rightful king Richard rather than the upstart prince John.[10] Robin and his men stayed true to their feudal oaths to Richard rather than blindly obey whoever was currently in power while the king was away. Robin was the wealthy lord of Locksley – a just feudal lord who protected his people from the oppressive actions of a ruler by resisting those actions. To the faithful lord Robin, prince John was not acting lawfully and assumed authority over the people he did not have. Robin would resist those Norman knights and barons who he declared "break both the king's law and the law of God in their cruelties and oppression."[11] Robin is a defender of old Anglo-Saxon law, tradition, and God's law, and he vowed to be an outlaw until "King Richard comes home from the crusade and there is justice once more in all this fair England." In one instance three youths were to be hung for violating the new hunting limits imposed on the people, and Robin says, "this is…but a cruel unlawful wickedness…are you free Englishmen?" Robin believed they were duty bound to stop tyranny and he stirred the crowds into condemning "all Normans."[12]

After Prince John took the "rebellious" Robin of Locksley's land, the aristocratic feudal lord Robin was elected king, and Maid Marian became "queen of Sherwood."[13] After being selected as King, Robin declared, "our first care is for justice and mercy and the love of God. And in this I hold that we commit no treason; when Richard comes home from the crusade, this reign of terror and of evil against which I fight will end. Cruel lawless John will oppress us no longer."[14] Will Scarlet said, "speak not of revenge, it is for justice that we fight."[15] Rather than a modern post-Marx hero, Robin seems to be a hero of his age, a defender of the people who faced a foreign ruler.

Conclusion

Robin did not rob from the rich but from corrupt rulers. He said he and his men were "outlaws, but not robbers" and "we declare war upon all of those thieves, robbers, extortioners…the false sheriff of Nottingham who so wickedly abuses his power.""[16] They took from the corrupt Norman barons, the true thieves, and gave their wealth back to the people who had it illegally taken from them. They especially sought out the "poor, the needy, the widow and the orphan, and all those who have suffered or are suffering wrong."[17]

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

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

References

-Armstrong, Dorsey. n.d. "The Medieval World." The Medieval World the great courses.com. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/medieval-world.

-Ewing, Thor, ed. 2020. The Original Robin Hood: Traditional Ballads and Plays, Including All Medieval Sources. Translated by Thor Ewing. N.p.: Welkin Books.

-Green, Roger L. 2010. The Adventures of Robin Hood. N.p.: Penguin Adult.

-Harasta, Jesse. 2013. Robin Hood The History And Folklore Of The English Legend. N.p.: Charles River Editors.

[1] (Ewing 2020)

[2] (Armstrong, n.d. The Medieval World Part One)

[3] (Ewing 2020, 36)

[4] (Ewing 2020, 40)

[5] (Harasta 2013)

[6] (Harasta 2013)

[7] (Green 2010, 12-17)

[8] (Green 2010, 1-2)

[9] (Green 2010, 8)

[10] (Green 2010, 17-19)

[11] (Green 2010, 23)

[12] (Green 2010,40)

[13] (Green 2010, 182 )

[14] (Green 2010,36-37)

[15] (Green 2010,16)

[16] (Green 2010,40)

[17] (Green 2010,40)

The Scientist who Outsmarted the Luftwaffe

Reginald Victor Jones, known as R.V. Jones, was one of Britain's most brilliant scientific minds during the Second World War. His unparalleled contributions to intelligence, particularly in countering the Luftwaffe's technological advancements, earned him a prominent place in the history of science and warfare.

Terry Bailey explains.

R.V. Jones (left), DCI James Woolsey, and Jeanne de Clarens.

Early life and education

R.V. Jones was born on September 29, 1911, in Herne Hill, London, to a family of modest means. From an early age, he exhibited an intense curiosity for how things worked, which led him to pursue studies in physics. Jones attended Alleyn's School in London before securing a scholarship to Wadham College, Oxford. At Oxford, Jones studied physics under some of the most distinguished scientists of the time, including Frederick Lindemann, later known as Lord Cherwell, who became a key advisor to Winston Churchill during the war.

Jones graduated with a first-class degree and remained at Oxford to conduct research in atmospheric physics. His deep interest in scientific instrumentation and precision led him to become an expert in high-frequency measurements. In 1936, he completed his Doctorate focusing on spectroscopic measurements, which laid the groundwork for the skills he would later apply to military intelligence and post contributions.

Joining the British Air Ministry

In 1939, as tensions in Europe escalated into war, Jones was recruited by the British Air Ministry, eventually working in scientific intelligence. He joined a small but elite team of scientists tasked with monitoring and analyzing German technological developments. His role quickly evolved into one of the most crucial during the war, becoming responsible for understanding and countering German advancements in radar, electronic warfare, and guided weapons.

R.V. Jones's most significant work came under the Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, where he reported directly to Churchill's scientific advisor, Frederick Alexander Lindemann, (1st Viscount Cherwell). Jones' task was to stay ahead of German technology, which meant intercepting, analyzing, and neutralizing it before it could be deployed effectively against the Allies.

The Battle of the Beams

One of Jones' earliest and most celebrated contributions was in the Battle of the Beams, a critical episode in the air war between Britain and Germany. Early in the war, the Luftwaffe began using radio navigation systems to guide their bombers over long distances during nighttime raids. These systems, such as the Knickebein, Lorenz, and X-Gerät, relied on a series of radio beams transmitted from the German-occupied continent, which the bombers would follow to reach their targets in Britain.

Jones, recognizing the threat posed by these beams, set to work analyzing how they functioned. Using a combination of intercepted German communications, captured equipment from down enemy aircraft and scientific reasoning, he discovered that the beams were highly directional and precise. The German bombers would fly along these invisible paths and drop their bombs when they intersected at pre-arranged points over British cities.

Jones proposed a series of countermeasures that were both simple and effective. His team developed techniques to jam or distort the beams, leading German pilots astray. Additionally, he arranged for false signals to be transmitted, causing the Luftwaffe to drop their bombs over empty fields instead of their intended targets. This deception was so successful that German crews often believed their bombs had hit home, while British cities remained relatively unscathed.

Operation Biting and countering German radar

The Germans were developing their advanced radar system at the same time as the British. As a scientific intelligence officer attached to the Air Ministry, Jones was able to untangle the clues which led to understanding Germany's radar capabilities, notably the highly effective Würzburg radar.

Jones was instrumental in instigating Operation Biting, the daring raid designed to obtain a working model of the German Würzburg radar. By 1941, the British were aware that the German radar systems were highly effective at detecting Allied aircraft, especially during bombing missions over occupied Europe. However, the precise nature of how the operational capabilities of these radars remained unclear. Jones, based on intelligence reports and radio intercepts, not only confirmed the existence of the radar but was also convinced that obtaining physical components from a German radar installation would provide the necessary insight for the British to develop effective countermeasures.

The opportunity arose when a Würzburg radar was located near Bruneval, on the French coast. Jones was instrumental in convincing the British high command to authorize a raid to capture the radar system. Operation Biting took place in February 1942, with British paratroopers seizing and dismantling key parts of the Würzburg radar. The successful retrieval of these components allowed Jones and his team to analyze the technology, leading to the development of electronic countermeasures that disrupted German radar accuracy. This not only improved the effectiveness of British bombing campaigns but also laid the foundation for further technological advances in electronic warfare.

His broader efforts to understand and neutralize German radar formed a key component of Britain's overall defense strategy, allowing the Allies to maintain the upper hand in the battle for air superiority. His contributions were critical in reducing the threat posed by German air defenses, in addition to paving the way for aspects of Operation Bodyguard.

The Intelligence war and operation bodyguard

Beyond the Battle of the Beams and radar countermeasures, Jones was instrumental in a wide array of intelligence efforts that significantly altered the course of the war. Perhaps one of his most vital contributions was the small part he and his department played in Operation Bodyguard, the extensive deception campaign that misled the German high command about the location of the D-Day landings.

The role R. V. Jones played in this operation though small was extremely significant, by monitoring German radar systems and electronic communication his input was crucial to its success.

Operation Bodyguard fed false information to German intelligence through a combination of radio broadcasts and fake infrastructure—such as the famous "ghost" army under General Patton, in addition to the double cross program that turned German agents to transmit false information.

Jones' knowledge of German technologies helped steer a number of the aspects of the deception that ensured the Germans believed the main invasion force would land at Calais rather than Normandy.

However, his efforts in the intelligence war extended to the development of countermeasures against German V-weapons. As early as 1943, British intelligence began receiving reports of a secret German weapon capable of causing massive destruction from long range. This was the V-1 flying bomb, soon followed by the more advanced V-2 rocket.

Countering the V-Weapons

Jones became part of the team that unraveled the mystery of the V-weapons and devised defenses against weapons. The V-1, often referred to as the "buzz bomb," was essentially a pilotless aircraft powered by a pulse jet engine. It could travel at high speeds and deliver a significant explosive payload over a reasonable distance. After analyzing intelligence reports, aerial reconnaissance, and even fragments of crashed V-1 bombs. Jones concluded that the weapon was likely to be used against London in a terror campaign.

Jones and his team helped devise several countermeasures, including anti-aircraft defenses, night-fighter tactics, and even attempts to jam the gyroscopic guidance system of the V-1 bombs. Although the V-1 caused significant destruction, Jones' contributions in reducing its effectiveness and helping target the launch sites minimized its overall impact.

The V-2 rocket, which came later, posed an even greater threat. Travelling faster than the speed of sound, the V-2 was impossible to intercept once launched. Jones, however, worked tirelessly to pinpoint the locations of the V-2 launch sites and relay this information to the Allied bomber command. His work in this area, while less publicized than his earlier contributions, played a significant role in limiting the V-2's potential for devastation.

Achievements and Recognition

Jones' achievements during the war were numerous, and he became one of the most trusted figures in British military scientific intelligence. His scientific acumen and ability to outthink the enemy's engineers earned him a reputation as a genius in the field of electronic warfare. In 1946, he was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) for his contributions to the war effort.

Perhaps Jones' greatest legacy was his influence on the emerging field of electronic warfare. His work laid the foundation for many of the technologies and strategies used in subsequent conflicts, including the Cold War. His relentless focus on precision and understanding the enemy's technological capabilities set the standard for scientific intelligence work for decades to come.

Following the war, Jones returned to academic life. He became the Chair of Natural Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, where he inspired a new generation of scientists. He also wrote extensively about his wartime experiences, most notably in his autobiography, 'Most Secret War' which remains one of the most important accounts of scientific intelligence during the Second World War.

In addition to his contributions to military science, Jones was involved in a variety of scientific projects throughout his career, including work on spectroscopy, astronomy, and atmospheric physics. His broad scientific interests and ability to apply his knowledge to practical problems ensured that his impact extended far beyond the battlefield.

Legacy

R.V. Jones passed away on December 17, 1997, but his legacy as one of Britain's most important wartime scientists endures. His work in scientific intelligence fundamentally changed the way wars were fought, demonstrating the power of knowledge and technological understanding in shaping military outcomes.

Jones is remembered not just for his wartime achievements but also for his lifelong dedication to science. His ability to blend theoretical knowledge with practical application was key to many of his successes, and he remained a firm advocate for the importance of science in both national defense and civil progress.

As the world continues to advance in the fields of electronics, intelligence, and warfare, the principles that R.V. Jones championed remain as relevant as ever. His life serves as a reminder that, even in the darkest times, the human capacity for innovation and intellect can serve as a powerful weapon against those who seek to harm.

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

The Political War Over Tennessee Prohibition

It seems accepted that today’s political atmosphere is more divisive, caustic, and contentious than any since the Civil War. But from research for the author’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company (Amazon US | Amazon UK), at least in Tennessee, the late 1880s through 1920 were even more contentious and volatile over the issue of prohibition.

Clay Shwab explains.

A 1915 advert for Cascade Whisky from the Rock Island Argus.

Nashville

From the 1890s through the tumultuous years leading to Prohibition, the city of Nashville was very much like the wild west—a bustling, exciting, changing, and dangerous place. Political debates and rallies were frequently held in the downtown streets with hordes in attendance. Legal fun may have been hard to find in pre-Music City Nashville. Gunfire was frequent. In 1908, a senator and editor of the Nashville Tennessean, Edward Carmack, was shot and killed on Union Avenue after he attempted to shoot a one-time friend and editor of the Nashville American, Duncan Cooper. Their dispute related to prohibition.

From 1890 through 1920, Tennessee was a political war zone between the Wets and the Drys, the anti-prohibitionists and the prohibitionists, with entrepreneur and owner of the George Dickel whisky company, V. E. “Manny”  Shwab, as the chief strategist and field general for the Wets. Shwab owned the state’s most valuable distillery producing the “famous” Cascade Whisky, “Mellow as Moonlight”–at the time, a far more popular and well-known whiskey than Jack Daniel’s. The wet and dry battle blew Tennessee politics apart to the point that the Republican and Democrat parties split in half and reformed along prohibition position lines. The anti-liquor proponents were  known as “Fusionists”.

Cascade Hollow Seizure

Senator Carmack’s shooting provided the Drys the martyr they needed. In 1909, shortly  after the shooting, Tennessee passed  Bill #11 banning the  manufacture of alcohol. Malcolm Patterson, Tennessee governor and Shwab ally, vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto. Five days later, in what was the largest federal seizure of any kind, Shwab’s Cascade Hollow Distillery was shut down. Nine thousand barrels of Cascade whisky were seized along with the distillery’s six buildings and 600 acres. The whiskey alone was values at over $30 million in today’s dollars.

Newspapers were unabashedly biased, giving wildly differing “factual” accounts of events. According to reports, Shwab was either “the debaucherer of more young men than any other man in Tennessee” because of his whiskey company and many saloons, or a “one man Tammany Hall”, or “Nashville’s richest citizen” and a philanthropic, consensus building visionary, dragging Tennessee into the 20th century while elevating Tennessee whiskey to a stellar reputation. Newspapers throughout the country and Canada covered the seizure with headlines such as: “Big Still Taken by U.S.”, Chicago Tribune;  “Raid on Whiskey”, Vicksburg, Mississippi; “The Cascade distillery is the most valuable property of the kind in the state”, Nashville Banner; “Chattanoogans Think it Was Prompted by Politics”, Chattanooga. To emphasize the importance of the distillery to the state, the Nashville American stated that from 1905-1908, Manny’s Dickel company that distributed Cascade paid one fourth of the taxes paid by all distilleries in middle and west Tennessee combined, including Jack Daniel’s.

Tennessee Prohibition was not to go into effect until January of the next year, 1910. The alleged violation was tax evasion due to the common practice known as “equalization of wantage”. During the process of aging whiskey in wooden barrels, evaporation occurs. The government required payment of tax on a minimum of  40 gallons per each 50 gallon barrel, even if there were only 35 gallons remaining after evaporation. To avoid paying tax on non-existent whiskey, distillers would take whiskey from barrels holding more than 40 gallons and add it to barrels containing less. The seizure occurred on Thursday, April 1. Through Manny’s connection with the U.S. Attorney General and some powerful Tennessee allies, the distillery was back in Shwab’s hands the following Monday after posting a bond of $275,000 ($8.4 million today).

Bill #11 did not stop the fight. In 1911, thirty four Republican legislators retreated to Decatur Alabama to deny a quorum to vote on legislation—referred to by them as “the liquor election bill”—that would lead to the reversal of Tennessee’s prohibition on distilling. Shwab had assured the bill’s successful passage allegedly by bribing six Republicans. The April 12, 1911 Nashville Banner headline exclaimed “High-Handed Corruption Alleged in Election Bill Fight…Member or Members Have Been Fixed—Money Furnished by Well Known Liquor Dealer.” The allegation was that the Shwabs had furnished over $20,000 ($660,000 today) to “fix” votes. With the legislative process ground to a halt, the April 14, 1911 Memphis Commercial Appeal  opined that “the whole public machinery of the state would be clogged so long as the present situation exists.”

And the “present situation” persisted. The May 4th  Tennessean deemed Prohibitionist legislators who were supporting the bill, “arrant hypocrite and… mutton-headed ignoramuses” who have “…an inherited affliction which cannot be cured and for which [they] should be pitied, and not censured.” So much for objective journalism. By June 26, the three-month stand-off must have finally subsided as the legislature had a quorum to pass resolution #57 calling for an investigation into the slush-fund allegations as well as new allegations against several legislators. In July, Governor Ben Hooper vetoed the joint resolution. The fight persisted.

Boss Crump and Liquor by the Drink

In October 1913, Governor Hooper called a special and highly contentious legislative session of both houses. The issues were the shipping of liquor into Tennessee from other states and the “Nuisance Bill”. The bill would “declare a saloon, gambling den, bawdy house, or any other business the conduct of which is a violation of the law, a  public nuisance.” Similar to modern day anti-abortion bills considered by some states, any five qualified voters could shut a business down in an effort to get around public officials who were seen as ignoring the activity. For example, Shwab was consistently accused of using his influence to avoid raids  on his saloons as well as influencing legislation and dictating nominees for office.

Thirty-nine year old mayor of Memphis, E.H. “Boss” Crump, went to Nashville to fight and alter the legislation and to secure Manny’s support. Crump would be a major figure in Tennessee politics for the next twenty years, very much following in Shwab’s footsteps. He wanted to manipulate the language of the law so eleven of his wards could sell liquor by the drink. Manny was all for it, as it would allow liquor to be sold in the major cities. Papers referred to the issue as a “battle royal”. According to the Knoxville Journal:

Backing up mayor Crump and his henchmen was V. E. Shwab the wealthiest whiskey man in Tennessee the owner of Cascade, and the Gibraltar of the whiskey interests in Tennessee.…He was seen to talk with various members of the house and senate on the floor of the Maxwell (hotel) lobby this morning…Some little excitement went the round in whispers this morning when it got started that the whiskey interests are threatening the weak-kneed fellows.

Indicative of the atmosphere in Nashville, the Bristol Courier declared “The Tennessee Legislature has been in session and nobody has been killed, not even Boss Crump”. The lobbyists were accused of “threatening dire consequences to those who have accepted courtesies from them.” But the Crump and Shwab forces were unsuccessful. On October 14, 1913, the Tennessean exuberantly announced “John Barleycorn Knocked Out in Second Round”, declaring “Nashville Arid”. Shwab moved operations to Louisville to continue distilling and selling his renowned Cascade internationally until federal prohibition in 1920.

Clay Shwab’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK