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

The Man Who Suffered a Brain Injury – And Helped to Change Medicine

His body rests at Cypress Lawn Cemetery near San Francisco where he died in 1860. His head sits at the Warren Anatomical Museum in Boston. Here, Terry Hamburg tells us about a man who suffered a brain injury and the changes it caused – Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage in the time after his accident.

Phineas Gage is perhaps the most famous neurological patient in modern history, called one of the “great medical curiosities of all time” and a “living part of medical folklore.” Malcolm MacMillan of the University of Melbourne records that two-thirds of introductory psychology textbooks cover Gage and his significance: "He was the first case where you could say fairly definitely that injury to the brain produced some kind of change in personality.” At the time, study of the brain is very rudimentary. Phrenologists, who accessed personalities by calculating protrusions on the skull, are still respected. The famous case of Phineas Gage will become a critical step in modern brain science.

September 1848

The young, robust, gregarious lad is employed as munitions foreman for the Rutland & Burlingame Railroad in Vermont. It is the most dangerous job in the crew. A standard blasting procedure involves boring a hole deep into rock, stuffing it with explosive powder and fuse, then using a tamping iron to pack in sand or clay to contain and direct the blast. Proud of his profession, Gage commissions an especially large custom-made tamping rod: three feet seven inches long, 1.4″ in diameter, and weighing over thirteen pounds.

The most dreaded mishap in munitions is a premature explosion.The tamping rod rockets into the left side of Gage’s face in an upward direction just past the lower jaw angle. Traversing the upper jaw and fracturing the cheekbone, it passes behind the left eye, through the left side of the brain, and flies out the top of his skull.

Gage is catapulted, lands hard on his back, convulses for a time, but is able to speak after a few minutes. He walks with little assistance and sits upright in an oxcart for a bumpy one mile ride to his town lodgings. True to the pioneer macho man legend, Gage shrugs off the injury, announcing he is not “much hurt” and expects to be back at work in a few days. His recovery from this horrific event is one of top medical stories of the era. Doctors worldwide exchange ideas and theories on the details and implications of the accident. For the next generation, it becomes the standard against which other injuries to the brain are judged. Some refuse to believe that anyone could survive such an ordeal – it must be a fabrication or a trick.

Despite his own optimism, Gage’s convalescence is long, difficult, and uneven, which requires further attendance by his physician, John M. Harlow, who garners fame as the doctor who treats the man who should not be. By April 1849, the patient is proclaimed to be in good physical health. Gage has, however, lost vision in his left eye and sustains a large forehead scar and a deep depression on top of his head “beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived,” Dr. Harlow noted. “He has no pain in his head but says it has a queer feeling which he is not able to describe.”

After recovery

For a brief time after recovery, Gage exploits his newfound fame as a one-man traveling exhibit at New England venues, including an event organized by P.T. Barnum, where he is the object of both morbid curiosity and praise. This sort of exposure is soon overexposed, and the still robust Gage continues to work at various jobs as a farmer, stable and coach service owner, and a long-distance stagecoach driver, but he suffers from occasional seizures and then epilepsy, dying in 1860 twelve years after his injury. There are many reports that he underwent dramatic and negative personality changes – becoming a dishonest, ill-tempered, brawling lout. Gage’s steady work history and other contemporary assessments suggest such claims are exaggerated.

Phrenologists contended that destruction of the mental “organs” of Veneration and Benevolence caused Gage’s behavioral changes. Harlow may have believed that the organ of Comparison was damaged as well.

Dr. Harlow requests and receives the patient’s skull. He is bequeathed the most famous tamping rod in history, which Gage carried wherever he went, inscribed: This is the bar that was shot through the head of Mr Phineas P. Gage at Cavendish, Vermont, Sept 14, 1848. He fully recovered from the injury & deposited this bar in the Museum of the Medical College of Harvard University.

These artifacts, along with a plaster cast of Phineas Gage’s head created during an 1850 examination, are the most sought-out items at the Warren Anatomical Museum on the Harvard Medical School campus.

Terry Hamburg is director emeritus of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Heritage Foundation. His recently published book Land of the Dead: How The West Changed Death In America explores how the demands of survival and adaptation in the Gold Rush western migration changed a multitude of American customs, including the way we bury and grieve for our ancestors. California and San Francisco serve as case studies. Visit his author page: https://www.terryhamburgbooks.com.

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis: The Visionary Scientist Who Played a Key Role in World War 2

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, born on Septembe, 26, 1887 in Ripley, Derbyshire, is often remembered for his role in the development of the famous "bouncing bomb" during the Second World War. However, his contributions to science, engineering, and aeronautics extend far beyond this iconic invention. A visionary in the truest sense, Wallis's legacy includes groundbreaking work in airship design, aircraft development, and advanced weaponry, in addition to, shaping the course of 20th-century technology.

Terry Bailey explains.

Barnes Neville Wallis.

Early life and education

Wallis's early life provided the foundation for his eventual career in engineering. His father, Charles Wallis, was a doctor, but young Barnes developed an early fascination with mechanical objects, much to his father's frustration. After attending Christ's Hospital school in Sussex, where he displayed a knack for mathematics and science, Wallis pursued an apprenticeship at Thames Engineering Works. However, he subsequently changed his apprenticeship to J. Samuel White's, the shipbuilder based at Cowes on the Isle of Wight originally training as a marine engineer, he took a degree in engineering via the University of London external program.

Contributions to Airship design

Wallis's early career saw him make significant contributions to the development of airships. In 1913, he joined Vickers, a company heavily involved in aeronautics, where he began working on lighter-than-air vehicles. He played a pivotal role in the design of the R100, a large British airship intended for long-range passenger travel.

The R100 project was part of a competition with the government-sponsored R101, which ultimately ended in disaster with the crash of R101, a craft of a different design to the R100. While the R101's failure effectively ended the British airship program, the R100 itself was a technical success, in large part due to Wallis's innovative structural design, which utilized a geodesic framework. This design became a hallmark of Wallis's work.

The geodesic framework was notable for its strength and lightweight properties. This design not only enhanced the airship's durability but also reduced its overall weight, making it more fuel-efficient. The R100's successful transatlantic flight to Canada in 1930 was a testament to the efficacy of Wallis's design, even though the airship program was ultimately scrapped after the R101 disaster.

Transition to aircraft design

After the decline of airship development, Wallis turned his attention to aircraft design. His expertise in geodesic structures led him to work on the Vickers Wellington bomber, which was used extensively by the Royal Air Force, (RAF) during the Second World War. The Wellington's geodesic structure made it incredibly resilient to damage. Unlike conventional aircraft, the Wellington could sustain considerable battle damage yet continue flying due to its ability to retain structural integrity even after losing large sections of the skin or framework.

This durability made it a valuable asset during the war, particularly during the early bombing campaigns. Wallis's work on the Wellington showcased his ability to apply innovative design principles to aircraft, extending the operational capabilities and survivability of warplanes. The Wellington aircraft became one of the most produced British bombers of the war, with more than 11,000 units built, attesting to the practical success of Wallis's engineering philosophy.

The Bouncing Bomb and the Dam Busters Raid

Wallis is perhaps most famous and remembered for his invention of the bouncing bomb, which was used in the Dam Busters Raid (Operation Chastise) in 1943. This operation targeted key dams in Germany's industrial Ruhr region, aiming to disrupt water supplies and manufacturing processes critical to the Nazi war effort. The bouncing bomb, officially known as "Upkeep," was an ingenious device that skimmed across the surface of the water before striking the dam and sinking to the optimal depth, then detonated when a hydrostatic pistol fired. In addition to, upkeep two smaller versions were also developed, High-ball and Base-ball.

The design of the bomb required not only advanced physics and mathematics but also extensive practical testing. Wallis conducted numerous experiments with scaled-down prototypes to perfect the bomb's trajectory and spin, ensuring it could bypass underwater defenses and inflict maximum damage, before conducting half and full-scale tests of the bomb. The Dam Busters Raid, though not as strategically decisive as hoped, was a major tactical and propaganda victory that demonstrated the effectiveness of precision engineering in warfare. It also solidified Wallis's reputation as one of Britain's foremost wartime inventors, and designers.

Beyond the Bouncing Bomb: The Tallboy and Grand Slam

While the bouncing bomb is Wallis's most well-known design, his development of the "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs was arguably more impactful. These were so-called "earthquake bombs," designed to penetrate deeply into the ground or fortifications before exploding, causing immense structural damage. The Tallboy, weighing 12,000 pounds, was used effectively against hardened targets such as U-boat pens, railway bridges, and even the German battleship Tirpitz, which was sunk by RAF bombers in 1944.

The Grand Slam, a 22,000-pound bomb, was the largest non-nuclear bomb deployed during the war. Its sheer destructive power was unparalleled, and it played a crucial role in the final stages of the conflict, helping to obliterate reinforced German bunkers and infrastructure. Wallis's work on these bombs demonstrated his understanding of the evolving nature of warfare, where the destruction of heavily fortified targets became a priority.

Post-War Contributions: Advancements in supersonic flight

After the war, Wallis continued to push the boundaries of engineering, particularly in the field of supersonic flight. He began working on designs for supersonic aircraft, foreseeing the need for faster travel in both military and civilian aviation. His proposed aircraft designs included the "Swallow" which was a supersonic development of Wild Goose, designed in the mid-1950s and was a tailless aircraft controlled entirely by wing movement with no separate control surfaces.

The design intended to use laminar flow and could have been developed for either military or civil applications, both Wild Goose and Swallow were flight-tested as large (30 ft span) flying scale models. However, despite promising wind tunnel and model work, these designs were not adopted. Government funding for Wild Goose and Swallow was cancelled due to defense cuts.

Although Wallis's supersonic aircraft designs were never fully realized during his lifetime, they laid the groundwork for later advancements in high-speed flight. The variable-sweep wing technology he envisioned was later incorporated into aircraft such as the F-111 Aardvark and concepts of supersonic flight in the iconic Concorde, the world's first supersonic passenger airliner. Wallis's vision of supersonic travel outlined his enduring ability to anticipate technological trends.

Marine engineering and submersible craft

Wallis's inventive spirit was not confined to aeronautics. In the post-war years, he became involved in marine engineering, focusing on the development of submersible craft and weaponry. One of his notable projects was the development of an experimental rocket-propelled torpedo codenamed HEYDAY. It was powered by compressed air and hydrogen peroxide that had an unusual streamlined shape designed to maintain laminar flow over much of its length.

Additionally, Wallis also explored the development of deep-sea submersibles. His work on underwater craft highlighted his interest in new forms of exploration and transportation, aligning with the burgeoning post-war interest in oceanography and underwater research. As part of this exploration of underwater craft, he proposed large cargo and passenger-carrying submarines, that would reduce transportation costs drastically, however, nothing came of these designs which probably would have transformed ocean-going transportation.

Due to Wallis's experience in geodesic engineering, he was engaged to consult on the Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia. Some of the ideas he suggested are the same as or closely related to the final design, including the idea of supporting the dish at its center, the geodetic structure of the dish and the master equatorial control system.

Later life and recognition

Throughout his life, Wallis maintained a strong commitment to education and mentorship. He was an advocate for the advancement of engineering as a discipline and frequently gave lectures to students and professionals alike. Wallis became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1945, was knighted in 1968, and received an Honorary Doctorate from Heriot-Watt University in 1969 in recognition of his outstanding engineering achievements. Additionally, he was awarded the Royal Society's prestigious Rumford Medal in 1971 for his work in aerodynamics.

Even in his later years, Wallis remained active in engineering, particularly in exploring the future potential of space travel. His forward-thinking ideas on rocket propulsion and spacecraft design, though largely theoretical at the time, hinted at the emerging field of space exploration, which would become a global endeavor in the following decades.

Wallis passed away on October, 30, 1979, leaving behind a legacy of innovation that continues to inspire engineers and inventors worldwide. His impact on both military and civilian technologies is a testament to his brilliance and determination to push the boundaries of what he knew was possible but others often did not.

Legacy

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, was a true polymath whose influence extended across multiple disciplines. While he is best known for his wartime contributions, particularly the bouncing bomb, his legacy goes far beyond a single invention.

From the geodesic structures of airships and bombers to supersonic aircraft concepts and deep-sea exploration vehicles, in addition to, his innovative ideas on ocean and space exploration and travel. Wallis's career spanned an astonishing range of technological advancements. His ability to marry theoretical physics with practical engineering solutions made him a giant of 20th-century science and technology.

Wallis's story is not just one of wartime ingenuity but of a lifetime spent striving to solve complex problems with creativity and persistence. His contributions continue to resonate today, reminding us that the spirit of innovation is timeless.

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.

What are the Old Hill Figures Dotted Around Britain?

Britain possesses over sixty hill figures of varying size and design that are carved into her hillsides. They invite both admiration and curiosity. Most are laid out on hillsides that have underlying chalk foundations. These figures are so huge that that they can be viewed from miles around and are especially visually effective on bright summer days. Most of these figures are made up of white horses, but amongst the others there are two giants (one in a naked depiction), a multitude of crosses, various military commemorations, a stag, a lion, a panda, a kiwi, and a kangaroo.

Steve Prout explains.

The Uffington White Horse. Source: World Wind, available here.

The description of this activity has been termed “leucippotomy” for the carving of horses and “gigantotomy” for giants (there are currently four of this kind in Britain). Whether these adopted terms are intended to be applied seriously is debatable since they do not appear in the dictionary. The name usually attached to such figures are geoglyphs. This peculiarity has been a phenomenon that has continued from the 1700s into modern times, one of the latest being a horse that was created in 1999 in Devizes, Wiltshire but there have been subsequent ones. Wiltshire is home to most of Britain’s hill figures but there are others in Scotland, Wales, and the North of England - but their presence is few and far between,  for example only two figures are to be found in Scotland.

Only a handful are considered to have authentically ancient uncertain origins and of the others few pose any mystery and only minor ones if any. Those that were created in the twentieth century are the easiest to explain and can be traced to a specific event. Perhaps these reasons for the more modern examples offer the answer to some of the earlier and unexplained figures. Some created in the 1800s continues to present minor puzzles simply because their creation was unrecorded due to simply being forgotten, confused, or dismissed as frivolous acts - examples of this are the first Westbury Horse and the Rockley Down or the Broad Town Horses.

Wartime Commemorations

The early twentieth century saw a variety of new figures appear on numerous hillsides in Britain to join the plethora of white horses. Many of these hill figures were inspired by the events from the First World War. At the end of the war people needed an outlet to grieve, remember and honor the sacrifices they suffered. It was something that needed to match the gravity and sheer size of the tragedy and sacrifice. Every village in England had lost friends, relatives and loved ones and few families were unaffected from the war. Shoreham, a town in Kent, was one of the villages that between May and September 1920, entrenched a thirty-meter chalk Christian style cross into a nearby hillside for this purpose. As it lays solitary in quiet pastures its presence resonates in that quiet serene countryside hill. Its creator was a Samuel Cheeseman, whose motivation emanated from the tragic loss of his two sons in the First World War. The memorial is also dedicated to a further forty-eight inhabitants of the village who also perished alongside them.

A similar style cross was carved at a village in Lenham for the same reasons. Lenham is in that same county of Kent, twenty-three miles away from its earlier counterpart at Shoreham. It is similar in design and is double the size of the Shoreham Cross. It was created a year later by a certain Mr G H Groom who was the local Headmaster.

In Wiltshire, a variety of military inspired figures appeared across the landscape that was previously dominated by a multitude of white horses until the early twentieth century. The post war period was a frustrating time for soldiers that were awaiting demobilization. The sheer size of the task to administer the demobilization process was a slow and frustrating process for the men waiting and for those who were challenged with making this monumental task happen. Most of these men were not regular soldiers, only conscripted for the duration of the war and they quite understandably wanted to return home quickly now the fighting was over. It led to the problem of finding ways to keep these soldiers occupied.

The soldiers from New Zealand based at Bulford, Wiltshire set about carving a giant Kiwi into the hillside above their camp. They clearly took their inspiration from the Regimental Badges of Fovant Down that were created two years previously. The kiwi was designed in 1918 by a Captain H Clarke who was an engineer. It is quite incongruous compared to some of the other figures present in Wiltshire as the Kiwi is not native to Britain. It is interesting to note that as time passes on, its significance and the one-time presence of its New Zealand creators will be forgotten - and the very existence of a kiwi will puzzle some heads. It covers over four hundred feet or one and a half acres of land. For the present the Bulford Kiwi still serves as a lasting reminder to the presence of the soldiers of New Zealand that fought on the side of Great Britain.

The First World War also inspired the creation of the Regimental badges of Fovant Down, the best and most obvious example. Before the crosses of Shoreham, Lenham and the Bulford Kiwi, various regiments from the Dominions and the British Army gathered in 1916 for the purpose of carving fourteen individual badges onto the hills at Fovant Down, Wiltshire. Again, the main reason was to occupy the soldiers from the horrors that were being reported from the various fronts, alleviate the feeling of homesickness, and provide a release from the relentless grind of military training. Today those badges that remain still serve to remind us of those sacrifices made by those men, but sadly a number have now long overgrown or have been lost beyond any hope of restoration due to a lack of maintenance. The badges included an outline map of Australia, a badge representing the Royal Army Medical Core, City of London Rifles, a rising sun for the Australian Commonwealth Forces, a Kangaroo, the Devon Regiment, Royal Fusiliers, and The Royal Warwickshire Regiment. Others were added after World War Two.

Royal connections

Britain’s incoming Kings and Queens also appear to have inspired the creation of other hill figures. The Hackpen White Horse in Wiltshire and the First White Horse in Littlington, Sussex were carved in 1838 to celebrate the ascent of Queen Victoria to the throne. Other monarchs were also celebrated in similar fashion. The White Horse in Osmington, just outside the coastal resort of Weymouth, is one the largest white horse hill figures in Britain. It is unique in the fact that it is the only figure to feature a rider who represents King George III. From 1789 King George held Weymouth under Royal Patronage and even visited the town on numerous occasions. In 1815 a group of army engineers are believed to have carved this figure into the hillside to occupy their time whilst they waited and prepared for an invasion by Napoleonic forces from the continent. This never materialized and the figure remains today. A different hillside representation to a monarch is the Wye Crown, in the county of Kent. This was carved in 1902 by a local Agricultural College to celebrate the coronation of King Edward VII.

Antique follies and examples of strange indulgences

There were other reasons for such a myriad of hill figures. The southern part of Britain, in particular Wiltshire, are abundant in White Horse hill figures. Only one horse in Uffington is of genuine antiquity and its origins remain unknown. The rest originate from the 1700s and 1800s. Most of these hill figures pose no mystery as to their origins and for those that do, mostly the mysteries are very minor ones. Some hill figures were not inspired by history - some are recorded as being the product of whimsical and frivolous acts on the part their wealthy and indulged landowners. Examples of this are the First and Second Horse at Westbury, one of the most famous and well known of all hill figures of England.

The first Westbury figure is believed, according to investigations in the 1700s, to have been an antique folly. This very bizarre behavior was contagious amongst certain wealthy landowners in the 1700s. These landowners made claim to possess or discover various objects of antiquity on their land. In some cases, a cairn, burial mound or hill figure would suddenly be “discovered” as was the case at Westbury. Many of these claims would at the time go unchallenged since local tenants would not want to upset their wealthy and influential landlords. It may have been for the simple fact that the more rational thinkers of the population saw it for what it was and that it was a frivolous act that occupied much valuable land. An investigation in 1742 with local people put the creation of the first horse around 1700 or as the investigation quoted “wrought within memory of persons still living or recently dead”. The fact was that this “antique horse” 1778 was willingly destroyed in 1778 on the orders of the landowner and was quickly remodeled by a certain Mr Gee. Perhaps this proves that maybe they knew more of the horse’s origin and that its claims to be of an older age were untrue.

The case of the nearby Cherill Horse (alternatively known as the Oldbury Horse due to its proximity to the nearby castle of the same name) in Wiltshire is another example of this strange behavior. It can be seen with the naked eye from the top of the hill above the Westbury Horse. It was designed by a Dr Alsop two years after the restoration of its relation in Westbury. This restoration allegedly gave him his inspiration, most probably combined with puerile jealousy “of that landowner has one got one, then I want one too.”  To sum up the witnesses at the time Alsop was referred to by local townsfolk as “the mad doctor,” due to the unnatural preoccupation of carving a giant white horse on a Wiltshire slope whilst shouting instructions and directions to his workers from a megaphone!

Many more in Wiltshire were to follow, most of which are accompanied by various conflicting accounts. Perhaps the act of turf cutting was becoming tiresome as others were appearing at Pewsey, Alton Barnes and Broad Town, and few people may not have the sense of urgency or importance to produce a correct account of these events. Many perhaps naturally thought that these figures were unlikely to remain permanent features as land after all was a valuable resource. In the latter case they were mistaken because many of these varying models prevail today.

Another example of whimsicality in a completely different location, is the Kilburn Horse of Yorkshire, one of only a few hill figures present in the North of England. It was carved under the whim of a travelling businessperson called Thomas Taylor. He was inspired, after being present and witnessing the festivities during the scouring and maintenance of the Uffington Horse, to carve a White Horse in his own home county and in 1857 he did just this. The horse can still be seen today in Yorkshire in the Hambleton Hills, Thirsk.

There are two modern examples of surprising appearances on our hillsides. One happened in the 1980s and that is the case of the Luzley Horse near Manchester. It is now lost after being allowed to be overgrown by vegetation, but its origins can be easily researched, and its story found in local paper archives. It was carved by a retired railway worker William Rawsthorne. He hid his work as he gradually worked on his figure over a period then surprised the local inhabitants by unveiling it one night to surprise them as a new day greeted them. It received a mixed reaction and it is now lost.

Another example is the case of the Laverstock Panda that has all but disappeared. It appeared in the early hours of January 1969 as part of a student prank known as “rag week” by the undergraduates of North Wales College at Bangor. All kinds of explanations were offered such as this Panda served as a homing device for Soviet Satellites and that it was a celebration of East-West co-operation over the London Panda called Chi-Chi (by the London and Moscow Zoo) who brought the two Pandas together for mating purposes. This is normal in studying the history of hill figures - in the absence of any solid facts the most outlandish explanations appear over time or almost immediately to fill the void, while often dismissing the more prosaic and usually correct explanations.

Conclusion

There is very little mystery about Britain’s hill figures that trouble historians’ or archaeologists’ heads. There are some that do lack any solid explanation; however, does that really create a mystery? Morris Marples, who was the leading authority on the subject, aptly summed up the overarching motive for their origins, their continued existence and creation. While he was discussing the Uffington Horse he stated that “man has always like to commemorate his achievements by the erection of some distinct monument and this is assuredly a very effective monument as later imitators realized.”  This is certainly true of many of the hill side artworks we know about, especially those made in the twentieth century.

Aside from the focus of the English monarchy and the Great War there exist further examples with further motives such as the Dover Castle Aeroplane of 1909 that celebrated Louis Bleriot’s first crossing of the English Channel and the second White Horse in Devises, Wiltshire carved in 1999 that marked the coming of the millennium. Marples was right in that man does enjoy celebrating and always seeks to leave a lasting imprint showing his efforts, sacrifices, and achievements in expressive and grandiose ways - so there is no reason to assume that our ancestors were any different. We just do not have the benefit of history being recorded.

Hill figures are no different in purpose from say a cenotaph, a plaque, a stone cross, monument, or even a specific building being named in honor of a person or event. Therefore, for those few that pose us minor mysteries we can at best only be satisfied with a close approximation of the truth. We should as Marples said accept the “simplest answer as it is usually the correct one.”

The art of hill cutting continues today but less frequently and with a more muted response. Like our ancestors we also have day to day things that pre-occupy us while these activities are undertaken. In Leicester, a procession of galloping white horses is cut into a main roundabout, and in a school in Devises a smaller copy of the town’s famous horse has been cut into the school playing fields. Whatever the motive there is no argument that these figures make the landscape of Britain more intriguing and a pleasure to view. Furthermore, by diligently maintaining them we will continue to remember their significance in our 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.

Sources

Discovering Hill Figures – Kate Bergamar – 1997 – Shire Publications

White Horses and other Hill Figures – Morris Marples – 1981 – Alan Sutton Publishing

Lost Gods of Albion - Paul Newman - 1998 – Sutton Publishing Ltd

The Hill figure Homepage.co.uk – Dr Mark Howes

Family Separations in U.S. Immigration History: A New Issue, or as American as Baseball and Apple Pie?

Candidate Donald Trump thrust immigration issues at the Southern border into the forefront of American politics in the early weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.   But even then, the issue was not new.

Joseph Bauer, author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), explains.

A teacher, Mary R. Hyde, and students at the Carlisle Indian Training School. Source: here and here.

At least two years before 2016, large numbers of Central American families, nearly all from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador began to arrive in walking caravans at the Texas Border.  Well before Donald Trump emerged, the U.S. immigration system at the border was overtaxed.  Ronald Reagan knew it; George W. Bush (fluent in Spanish) knew it; Barack Obama knew it.  All tried to address it, explaining that congressionally authorized resources were simply inadequate to manage the realities permitted by U.S. immigration law, especially the legal right foreign nationals to seek asylum or refugee status under a federal statute essentially unchanged since 1965.

Efforts for change and improvement all died at the altar of partisan self-interest.  Legislators from across the country—not only those with constituents on the border—concluded that any solution would be more problematic to individual political fortunes than continuing the status quo and arguing the positions most favored by the particular local and regional voters they needed to be elected.

Stoked by political rhetoric from both sides, the public worried about large numbers of new citizens entering the country. Legitimate worries included concern about the strain on public health, school resources, and transportation infrastructure in local communities.  Unfounded worries included concerns about crime.  Numerous studies have documented that immigrants, including those entering legally by asylum and even those “undocumented” persons who are in the U.S. without legal status, commit crimes at materially lower rates than American-born citizens.[1]  The other objection, that newcomers cause Americans to lose or find jobs, has also been refuted. Employers hiring large numbers of workers almost unanimously want as many immigrants allowed in as is possible to fill jobs for which they cannot find applicants otherwise.  And increases in the number of immigrants, by adding to the economy and success of businesses, actually increases the wages and employment opportunities of American-born citizens.[2]

2017 and 2018

But in 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration moved, without Congressional authority, to stop the Central American caravans with a new measure:  the broadscale involuntary separation of parents from their children at the Texas border, primarily at El Paso.  The intent of the new policy was deterrence: to discourage asylum seeking families from making their journeys.  If they began to be separated, finding themselves in different countries, it was thought, the seekers would stop seeking.

The program was initially undisclosed by the administration (on the ground that it was merely a “pilot program”) and drew little public or media attention.  It worked as follows.

 A family presented itself to the Border Control agents at the crossing (the recommended pathway for entrance) or on American soil near the border, having managed to reach it by other means (not recommended, but still a legal way to seek asylum under U.S. law).  Following brief interviews, nearly all parents were either detained temporarily in a government facility without their children or summarily deported and sent to the Mexican border, again without their children.  The children, regardless of age, were immediately deemed “unaccompanied minors,” since their parents were no longer present with them, and turned over to the custody of the Homeland Security Refugee Service for temporary housing, often in a church-affiliated respite center, and then ultimately placed in either American foster homes or the home of a qualifying relative somewhere in the U.S., if such a person could be identified.  If a relative could be found at all, the process was often lengthy.

Data on the actual number of children taken from their parents during the Trump Administration are imprecise.  But studies by relief organizations such as the American Council of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service, and the Washington Office on Latin America have documented that at least 2,000 children were removed from parents between February 2017 and the date the policy became public and official in May 2018; another 2,500 were separated in the 50 days thereafter.   Some estimates are as high as nearly 6,000 children and 3,000 families.  The Trump administration ostensibly stopped the practice on June 20, 2018, in response to public furor and condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum.[3]   Anti-immigrant positions might earn votes for some politicians, but taking children from their parents earned votes for nobody.   What it did was provoke the abhorrence of  the vast majority of (but not all) Americans.

Historical context

But was the widescale forced separation of parents and children in 2018 actually new in historical American immigration policy and practice?  Could such a policy have been a reality earlier in the American experiment?  The truth—many would say sad truth—is that it was.  Two prior examples are obvious and known to most Americans.

The first was the long period of legal slavery in the U.S., when millions of African and Caribbean black men and women were forcibly transported to the United States with the approval of the federal and state governments and held here in involuntary servitude.  Those slaves who were able to bring their children with them, or who gave birth to them once here, were routinely sold to new owners, never to see their children or grandchildren again.  There is no denying that slavery in the U.S. was tragically replete with the separation of families.

The second instance was the common practice for decades in the 19th century of removing Native American children from their natural parents and tribes and placing them either in “Indian” boarding schools or the strange Christian homes of white Americans.  (A moving portrait of the practice—and its harmful effects—is depicted in Conrad Richter’s classic novel, The Light in the Forest.)  These involuntary relocations were massive.  Federal and state governments separated as many as 35% of all American indigenous children from their families, according to a 1978 report by the US House of Representatives.[4]

Most of us learned of the above practices in our American educations, if incompletely.  But many may be surprised to learn that family separation in the U.S. occurred at the hands of some state and city governments even into the early 20th century, condoned or overlooked by the federal government.   Prior to 1920, when specific immigration rules were enacted by Congress, state and city governments, motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment, removed an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 children of Irish and Polish immigrants and placed them in Protestant or Anglo-American households, away from their local areas.[5]

We can hope that such interference with the family unit, based on religious hatred, would be unthinkable today.  But it is part of our past.

2015 report

In 2015, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration published a report entitled

Family Immigration Detention, Why the Past Cannot be Prologue.  The report addressed the difficult and sad question of the morality of detaining whole families at the border under the Obama administration.  It preceded the family separation policy that the Trump administration implemented 3 years later, which most Americans believe was even sadder and more immoral.

The authors of the ABA report must be disappointed.  The “past” that it examined—the detention of whole families—did not improve.  Instead, it worsened, with a government policy that, at least temporarily, divided the nuclear family unit itself.

In this instance, we did not advance from the lessons of our past.  But in history, there is always hope.  Maybe we will learn them at last.

Joseph Bauer is the author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), a novel that explores a white widower’s quest to fulfill a promise to his dying wife: to reunite Central American parents with their children separated from them at the Texas Border in 2018.  Mr. Bauer’s previously published novels are The Accidental Patriot (2020), The Patriot’s Angels (2022), and Too True to be Good (2023).  His latest finished manuscript of historical fiction about the lead-up to and conduct of WWII is titled, Arsenal of Secrecy, The FDR Years, A Novel.

[1] See e.g., Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate, University of Wisconsin research study funded by the National Institute of Justice (September 2024).  This and many other studies conclude that undocumented “illegal” immigrants commit about or less than half as many crimes as Americans for the same number of persons.  This is true across all kinds of crimes, including murders, other violent crimes, and drug trafficking.  Admitted asylum seekers and refugees also commit far few crimes than American-born counterparts.

[2] Immigration’s Effect on US Wages and Employment, Caiumi, Alessandro and Peri, Giovanni, National Bureau of Economic Research (August 2024).

[3] Many sources, including an audit by U.S.  have reported that family separations at the Texas border continued in significant numbers well after the Trump Administration announced a halt to them in June 2018.  See e.g., Long, Colleen; Alonso-Zaldiver, Ricardo. “Watchdog: Thousands More Children May Have Been Separated”. U.S. News & World Report, January 18, 2019.

[4]Sinha, Anita. An American History of Separating Families, American Constitution Society, November 2, 2020.

[5]Americans today almost unanimously believe that our Constitution, by its First Amendment, assures inviolate an individual and collective right to freedom of religion and worship.  But that Amendment, until applied to State and local governments much, much later, did not prevent any state from religious discrimination in its own laws.  Catholics were so generally despised in Massachusetts in the early days of our nation that Catholic priests were forbidden by state law from living there and subject to imprisonment and even execution if they did.

Adolf Hitler: When Shame becomes Dictatorship

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.

Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain.

Banknotes awaiting distribution during the 1923 German hyperinflation. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R1215-506 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Early life of Adolf Hitler

A complex history creates the foundation of a man who was able to order the deaths, either directly or indirectly, of over 60 million people. Hitler was a frustrated painter and a vegetarian. His forces occupied 11 countries, some of which he occupied partially, and others completely. Among these countries were Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Whether we like it or not, the man who failed his initial entrance examinations and who was passed over for positions of leadership, still captured the psyche of nations. Hitler changed the course of history.

The leader of Nazi Germany was born in Austria in 1889. He had reason to hate and fear his father, who was violent towards his mother and used to beat them both severely. In 1907 he attempted to join the Academy of Arts in Vienna, but was rejected twice after he failed the entrance exam. After the death of his mother, Klara Pölzl, at the end of the same year, he moved to live in Vienna, one of the most prominent capitals in Europe. At the time, Vienna’s mayor was a known anti-Semite called Karl Lueger. As a young man who had experienced much violence and rejection, his settlement in Vienna contributed to shaping his ideas, both because of the prominence of and Leuger’s feelings towards the Jews.    

World War I broke out in 1914, so at age 28 Hitler volunteered to join thearmy, where he received the Medal of Courage twice during the war. Despite that, he was not promoted. According to his commanders at the time, Hitler did not have the leadership skills necessary. In 1918, the November Revolution took place in Germany, which led to the transformation of Germany from a federal constitutional monarchy to a democratic parliamentary republic.      

End of the war

With the end of the war, Germany surrendered and Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated the throne, and was ordered to be exiled in the Netherlands. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, where Germany was obliged to pay large reparations to the winning side. This was also a new chance, and a new opportunity for Germany. Freed from an authoritarian monarchy, it was now possible for there to be a political opening. German philosophical studies flourished, and new political parties began to spread - and spread their ideas.

The new authorities began to penetrate these new groups and parties. They hoped to use this openness to know more about their ideas and orientations. Hitler, who was still in the army, was one of the informants. In 1919, as an undercover informant he went to a bar where some parties were meeting for discussions, to spy on one of the right-wing parties: the Nazi Workers' Party.

Unlike others in Germany at the time, Hitler did not see this as an opportunity for the nation to grow and form new ideas. The sudden decision to surrender, instead felt like a keen betrayal and only fed the anger inside the young man. After Hitler heard their discussions, he was very impressed by their ideas about the parties' betrayal of the German Army, and their scapegoating of Jews in Germany’s defeat. Rather than informing others of the anger, Hitler instead joined them. In a short time, he became one of the most prominent leaders in that party eventually known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nazi Party

Their goals, plainly, were against Judaism, communism and capitalism. Their arrogance was equally as lofty as they believed that as part of the Aryan race, they were themselves descendants of the inhabitants of the legendary continent of Atlantis. To them, who else should rule the world and return Germany to her proud place with all her former glory, power, and prestige? The Nazi Party carried out propaganda and issued its own newspaper to spread its ideas and beliefs. They attracted the attention of additional officers who were against the surrender decision and the government’s plans to reduce the size of the army.

An early ally of Hitler’s was an officer in the German Imperial Army, Ernst Röhm. Initially a friend and ally of Hitler, Röhm was also the co-founder and leader of the “Storm Troopers,” the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Rather than dispose of the weapons he had taken possession of, Röhm instead armed the militias and party members with them. With a country unstable from a war, and weapons in the hands of angry men who blamed outsiders for their shame and defeat, the party was well positioned to strike for power.

In 1921, Hitler was elected leader of the Nazi Party, and in 1923 the golden opportunity appeared. Because Germany did not have the money to pay its reparations to the Allies, the government decided to print money. The amount of money printed increased without the value increasing in proportion, and the German mark lost its value and collapsed. Prices increased, and a wave of great inflation hit Germany and became known as German hyperinflation.

Continuing instability

In response to the failure to pay reparations imposed by the victorious powers after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr region of Germany. Hitler felt that this was an opportunity to seize power without elections, and staged a coup d’etat. This failed. Hitler      was arrested and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Bavarian Supreme Court pardoned him, however, and Hitler only remained in prison for nine months before he was released.              

In 1928, Hitler decided to participate in the elections, losing by 2.5%, as the Germans once again rejected the Nazi proposal. But when the American stock market collapsed in 1929, it had a major impact on the whole world. As unemployment in Germany reached up to an estimated 6 million, the atmosphere became ripe for radical proposals -fertile ground for right-winger Nazis and left-wing      Communists.

The Nazi Party took advantage of the opportunity to appear as saviors of the German people, for example, by providing aid to the unemployed, which made them the most popular party in Germany. In 1932, the Nazi Party, led by Hitler, became the largest German party, winning 37% of the votes. In 1933, the President of Germany appointed Hitler as chancellor, and Hitler came to power.

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