Four of the Most Eccentric Scottish Dukes of Hamilton

The Dukedom of Hamilton, one of the most important peerages in Scotland, was created in 1643, and as of 2021, we are on the 16th Duke of Hamilton. Here, Ilana Barnett looks at the lives of four of the most eccentric dukes.

Hamilton Palace around 1880.

The Dukedom of Hamilton is one of the highest peerages of Scotland, second only to the Duke of Rothesay, a title held by the eldest son of the Sovereign. As the Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse (the seat of the Scottish Parliament) and the Hereditary Bearer of the Crown of Scotland, they fulfill important national and ceremonial roles. 

As with all powerful and prominent families, many of its members led what you could call colorful lives. None more so than the 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th dukes who more than contributed to the reputation and notoriety of one of the premier families of Scotland.

The Dueling Duke

The 4th Duke of Hamilton, James, had a way of courting bad press. He was described as perpetually drunk, selfish, arrogant, a disaster and a wastrel. He was a leader of the Scottish National Party and a vocal opponent of Scotland’s union with England. In November 1712, he was killed in a duel, which shocked polite society - and then the law was changed. 

Hamilton’s adversary was Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, with whom he had been embroiled for 11 years in a bitter legal dispute. Both men had married nieces of the Earl of Macclesfield but on his deathbed, it was reported that the Earl named Mohun as his sole heir. Hamilton disputed the validity of the confession and the credibility of one of the witnesses. Hamilton might have had good reason to doubt Mohun’s word. Mohan was no saint, having already stood trial three times for murder. Finally, emotions became so heated that they decided a duel was needed to settle the matter for once and for all. 

They met in Hyde Park along with their Seconds, George MacCartney and Colonel John Hamilton. In the event Hamilton killed Mohun, who in turn severely wounded Hamilton.  Furious, MacCartney lunged at Hamilton, running him through with his sword. It is very likely that Colonel Hamilton in retaliation fought MacCartney as both men fled to the continent in fear of arrest. The duel had been so bloody that the government was persuaded to ban duels using swords in favor of pistols, which inflicted less horrific injuries. The incident was immortalized by Thackeray in his novel The History of Henry Esmond.

A Curtain Ring Wedding

The 6th Duke of Hamilton’s (another James) claim to notoriety was very different. He enters the history books as a womanizer and debaucher. On February 14, 1752, he finally found a woman he could not have his wicked way with, in the form of the society beauty, Elizabeth Gunning. Elizabeth was penniless but stuck to her principles and saved herself and her reputation from ruin. Her price – marriage. That same night at 12.30, the desperate and lustful James plucked a parson out of bed to perform the marriage, using a bed curtain ring as a wedding ring. Presumably at around 2am, he finally got the girl and she got her duke.

The Hamilton House Dance

Following in family tradition, Douglas, the 8th Duke of Hamilton, was famous for his looks, which he used to good effect as a womanizer. He inherited the title on his brother’s death in 1769. In April 1778, he married Elizabeth Anne Burrell, a match his family disapproved of as unequal. They had no children and were divorced after sixteen years, possibly due to the duke’s numerous affairs (although the duchess was also rumored to bed hop on occasion). Affairs were pretty much the norm amongst the upper classes but there were unwritten codes of conduct, discretion being one. Hamilton, on the other hand, didn’t bother with any pretense of propriety, a trait one of his favorite mistresses, Frances Twysden, wife of the Earl of Eglinton, seemed to share. On one occasion, she brazenly asked her husband’s servant to admit the Duke of Hamilton into her bedchamber. Loyally the servant refused. The dance the “Hamilton House” was named after the duke and duchess with the steps and numerous changes of partners symbolizing their infidelities.

The Proudest Man in England

If you visit the town of Hamilton in South Lanarkshire, make sure you take time to see the Hamilton Mausoleum. The mausoleum, all that remains of the once magnificent palace, which existed on the site, is considered to be one of the finest and most remarkable private tombs in the world. 

The visionary behind its construction was Alexander Douglas Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton. As well as being a Knight of the Garter, Grandmaster of the Freemasons and a British ambassador, he was also a famous dandy. Lord Lemington in his book In The Days of the Dandies wrote “Never was such a magnifico as the 10th Duke”. Extremely proud of his ancestry, he was convinced he was heir to the Scottish crown. His inflated sense of his own importance resulted in him hiring a hermit to adorn the grounds of Hamilton Palace. Increasingly eccentric as he grew older, he was affectionately called ‘El Magnifico’ by the locals as he wandered around the town of Hamilton wearing the Douglas tartan. 

Hamilton died at the age of 84 in London on August 18, 1852, his body mummified and placed in a sarcophagus (the only receptacle he considered worthy of him) and then transported to the mausoleum. He had come by the sarcophagus whilst acting as a buyer for the British Museum in Egypt. The British Museum, uninterested in the purchase of a sarcophagus of a non-royal, allowed Hamilton to keep it. It is not known how they managed to fit his body in the sarcophagus as the duke was eight inches taller than the original occupant - it has been suggested that his legs were rearranged with a sledgehammer and bent under him. Unfortunately, as the mausoleum had no roof, the duke had the ignominy of lying in state with building work going on around him. Probably not the grand exit the duke had envisaged for himself. Eventually his sarcophagus was placed on a black marble slab, resting in a manner as befitted “El Magnifico”.

What do you think of the Dukes of Hamilton? Let us know below.

Ilana writes at The Haunted Palace Blog here.

Four Times a European Queen Married Two Different Kings

Historically kings have been the formal heads of state in Europe, with their queens losing their position on death as a new king was installed. However, queens did not always stop being queens. Here, Samantha Arrowsmith tells us about four times that European queens married a king for a second time – specifically, their first husband’s successor.

Anne of Brittany, Queen of France, receiving a manuscript praising famous women from from Antoine Dufour.

Introduction

Royal women were raised to be matrimonial ambassadors representing their family’s interests at a foreign court. Their power lay through the men that they knew as a daughter, wife and mother and, excluded from the explicit power that a king could wield, an ambitious woman’s opportunity lay in the intimate power she had with her husband.

But what happened when that marriage ended through the death of their husband?

Second marriages were not always guaranteed and royal woman were just as likely to be sent to a nunnery, as they were to be of use to their family for a second time. For some, however, not only did they remarry, but they married their husband’s successor, often at the ostracization of their sons, the derision of their subjects and the condemnation of historians to come.

Here we will look at four women in particular.

Judith of Flanders, Queen of Wessex (c. 844-c870) was the daughter of Charles the Bald and married Æthelwulf in 856 followed by his son Æthelbald in 858. Carolingian princesses were raised with a close affinity to a life in the church and very few of them ever married a foreign king[i].

Emma of Normandy, Queen of England (c. 984-1052) was the sister of Richard II of Normandy and came to England in 1002 as the second wife of Æthelred II. On his death in 1016 she married his successor, the Viking invader Cnut. She was a powerful and influential queen, commissioning a biography (The Encomium Emmae Reginae) and appearing in contemporary portraits. She was the mother of two kings.

Anne of Brittany, Queen of France (1477-1514) was the Duchess of Brittany in her own right, having inherited the strategically vital duchy from her father in 1488. It instantly made her one of the most coveted heiresses in Europe, and after having her marriage to Maximillian I of Austria annulled, she married Charles VIII of France in 1491. On his death in 1499, she married his cousin and successor, Louis XII, with whom she had two daughters.

Catherine of Aragon, Princess of Wales (1485-1536) was the daughter of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. She was married to Arthur, Prince of Wales in 1501 at the age of fifteen and was widowed less than five months later. His successor as both the Welsh prince and English heir was his younger brother, Prince Henry, the future Henry VIII, who she eventually married in 1509. She had one living child, a daughter, Mary I of England.

So why did these women marry the man who succeeded their husbands?

Did they really have a choice?

The first question often asked when considering the fortunes of royal women is whether they really had any choices. The natural assumption is to see them as powerless and tools of the men around them.

Royal women of any era suffered from a lack of free-will, particularly when it came to marriage. Even after having performed their duty for their first marriage, very few had the freedom to choose for themselves when it came to their second husband. However, that is not the same as saying that they were all completely powerless.

Of our royal women, two, Catherine of Aragon and Emma of Normandy, were possibly prisoners between the death of their husbands and their second marriages. Catherine almost certainly was, remaining trapped in England whilst her father refused to pay the second half of the dowry she had brought with her on her marriage to Arthur. It was a sum he became increasingly unable to afford, especially after the death of her mother, Isabella, in 1504 when he lost access to the rich lands of Castile, now inherited by his eldest daughter, Joanna. However, as we will discuss further, Catherine was not altogether reluctant to stay, and she avoided several opportunities to return home.

Emma was probably in London at the time of her husband’s death (although the Encomium Emmae Reginae claims that she was in Normandy[ii]), unable or unwilling to leave. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle certainly seems to show that she was brought to Cnut on his instruction:

‘And then, before the Kalends of August, the king commanded the relict of king Æthelred, Richard's daughter, to be fetched for his wife; that was Ælfgive in English, Emma in French.’[iii]

However, the Encomium showed Emma as having a more inclusive role in the decision, being an equal part of the protracted discussions between the two, which decided her future[iv]. Historians have also cast doubt on the theory that she was trapped, instead theorizing that it was her choice to stay in England whilst her sons fled[v].

For Anne of Brittany the decision was even more clear cut; her marriage contract with her first husband Charles VIII of France had specifically stipulated that should he die before her without a male heir she was to marry his successor. The clause ensured that France would retain control of her duchy, intending that it would eventually be annexed permanently once a male French heir was born.

Of the four of them only Judith of Flanders seems to have had a modicum of choice. Both of her Wessex husbands predeceased her, and on the death of her second husband, Æthelbald, Judith quickly sold her English lands and returned to Flanders. The fact that she chose, and was able, to do this suggests that it may have been possible for her to have done the same on Æthelwulf’s death two years earlier. Staying in Wessex to marry his son may have been a conscious choice rather than something forced upon her.

To avoid a life in religious obsoletion 

Finding themselves retired to a religious house was a fate that awaited many royal women and for some it was a preferable option to what might otherwise await, including death. Choosing to bow out gracefully could help ensure that they had some input into where and how they went, especially as retiring to a nunnery didn’t necessarily mean taking the veil and leaving behind a life of luxury. Yet for others the idea of being pensioned off at a young age was something they were determined to resist.

For Judith, returning home to Flanders after Æthelwulf’s death would have almost certainly guaranteed her a life in a religious house, even though she was only fourteen years old. Her job of binding Wessex and Flanders together in a peace treaty against the Vikings was over and her father, Charles the Bald, was inclined to return to the country’s tradition of associating its royal woman with religious foundations. Æthelbald would have been keen to see the alliance continue, plus marrying an anointed queen would have bolstered his claim to the throne. Both would get something from the marriage, but if marrying her stepson was her way to avoid such a fate it certainly proved scandalous, even to some of her contemporaries who were used to marriages between widows and successors. The chronicler Asser reported:

‘Once King Æthelwulf was dead, Æthelbald, his son, against God's prohibition and Christian dignity, and also contrary to the practice of all pagans, took over his father's marriage-bed and married Judith, daughter of Charles, king of the Franks, incurring great disgrace from all who heard of it.’[vi]

She had been right, however, about her fate: when Æthelbald died and she went home, her father housed her in the monastery at Senlis under episcopal guardianship; she only escaped when she eloped with her third husband.

Catherine of Aragon’s chances of being sent to a nunnery were equally assured after the death of her first husband, Arthur, Prince of Wales in 1502. Although often portrayed as a pious and religious queen, Catherine would spend the next seven years fighting to secure a marriage that would keep her in England and out of a nunnery. Initially, she was offered the chance to wed the present king, Henry VII, her father-in-law, but she fiercely opposed the suggestion, persuading her mother, the formidable Isabella of Castile, to her cause:

‘[his proposal] would be an evil thing, the mere mention of which offends the ears, and we would not for anything in the world that it should take place.’[vii]

They both knew that, with Henry not having long to live, any marriage between the two would quickly see Catherine a widow again, only now with no hope of another marriage. Instead, she pinned her future on her ten-year-old brother-in-law, telling her father that she would rather die in England than return to Spain rejected[viii]. By 1503 her fortunes seemed to have rallied when a new marriage treaty was arranged and she was betrothed to the new Prince of Wales, but the date for the wedding came and went and as the years passed her value to her family began to diminish.  Her father still refused to pay the dowry and her mother’s death a year later saw his power shrink on the international stage, destroying her worth as a bride. Henry VII began to look towards more important European houses for a bride for his son and Prince Henry was forced to repudiate his previous betrothal vows. Catherine’s chances seemed over and a return to Aragon was suggested right up until 1509, but she resisted at least until March that year; as the Dowager Princess of Wales with an impoverished father with domestic issues, even she had accepted that going home to a religious life was the best she had to look forward to. It was only Henry VII’s death a few months later and the chivalric determination of Henry VIII to marry her that saved her from such a fate. 

Protecting the life of her sons

Marriage was the measure of a royal woman’s purpose and the birth of a son the pinnacle of her achievements, yet of our four queens only Emma had sons, both with her first husband Æthelred II (Edward and Alfred) and her second, his successor, Cnut (Harthacnut).

Emma’s motives for marrying Cnut are complex, and historians have sought to condemn and excuse her actions in equal measure. The portrayal of her actions in a positive light is evidenced by the explanation that her marriage protected her sons from certain death. Undoubtedly Cnut would have been threatened by Edward and Alfred, especially as they had taken refuge at the court of their uncle in Normandy. Sons of a previous king were dangerous if left unchecked and though both boys had an elder brother by their father’s first wife, the rule of primogeniture had still not fully developed at this time, leaving the throne open to whoever proved the strongest.

By marrying Cnut, Emma hoped to give him assurances that she would not support their claim and deter her brother from acting on behalf of his nephews, thus negating Cnut’s need to be rid of them. Yet Emma’s own record of her marriage to Cnut in the Encomium seems to show that her thoughts on marrying him were not for Alfred or Edward, but rather for the sons they might have together:

‘But she refused ever to become the bride of Knutr, unless he would affirm to her by oath, that he would never set up the son of any wife other than herself to rule after him, if it happened that God should give her a son by him.’[ix]

Similarly, if she had married him only to protect the claims of her and Æthelred’s sons, she had certainly had a change of heart by the time Cnut died in 1035. Emma chose to support the claim of his child, Harthacnut, over that of her last surviving son with Æthelred, Edward, retaining much of the power she had had as Queen Consort. Edward did not forget it. Even more shocking is the possibility that she was responsible for encouraging her boys to leave the comparable safety of Normandy in 1036, resulting in Alfred’s horrific blinding and death; the fact that the Encomium works hard to clear her name shows how seriously the idea was taken at the time.

To protect her own inheritance

Though Anne had no children at the time of the death of her first husband, Charles VIII, her marriage to his successor, Louis XII, did, in many ways, aim to protect the rights of any future children she might have.

The year after her marriage to Charles VIII in 1491, Anne was described by the Venetian ambassador as a highly determined woman:

‘Her wit is remarkable for her age and once she has set her mind on doing something, she makes sure she succeeds, by all means necessary and at any price.’[x]

As duchess in her own right, she was fiercely protective of Brittany’s independence from France and although Charles VIII contracted her to marry the next king (despite him already having a wife, her sister-in-law, Joan of France), she was shrewd enough to protect her own interests in the process. Alongside the ruling that she must marry Louis, was also the caveat that should she outlive Charles then she would retain her possession of Brittany as its Duchess. Accordingly, she often toured her homeland as its ruler and protector and arranged that the heir to the duchy would be her daughter Claude, rather than it passing with the French crown to the next male heir (her husband’s cousin, Francis I)[xi].

Retaining power

The power that came with queenship varied from woman to woman, location to location and century to century. What one woman could obtain in ninth-century Wessex was not the same as another in fifteenth-century France. Yet, having known power and influence with one husband may well have driven a widow of any era to seek the same with their next, and who better than the successor to that power.

This was, of course, very much dependent on the nature of the women and the time that they were given to find their place. As Princess of Wales, fifteen-year-old Catherine never had the opportunity to do much and, equally, although the two years of Judith’s marriage to the elderly Æthelwulf saw the teenage queen holding a special status when he ‘conferred on her the title of queen: something not customary before then to him or his people'[xii], she had little other power. Yet both saw what they could have and chose to stay in England and Wessex respectively, in order to achieve it.

For Anne, also only around twelve at the time of her marriage to Charles VIII, the power that she sought to protect was not that which she had found in France, but rather the power she already exercised in her own homeland. She had already annulled one marriage in order to claim the security of a connection with France and marrying Louis allowed her to retain and enjoy her freedoms as duchess for the rest of her life.

Of our four women, it was Emma who wielded the most power as a queen consort, though it may be premature to say that she married Cnut in order to keep what she had had with Æthelred. He had accorded her some influence, as her witnessing of royal charters shows, and yet she did not have the influence needed to ensure the succession of her son. For any queen, being the mother of the next king was what safeguarded her control, and when England fell into war between Æthelred’s, eldest son, Edmund, and the Viking invaders, neither of Emma’s sons were in a position to challenge him. Cnut’s victory gave her an alternative.

Having considered the positive interpretation of Emma’s actions (that of securing her sons’ safety), we should now consider the possible negative motive. Did she cut her losses with her children and accept marriage to the new king in order to protect her own position? Edward certainly never had a close bond with her, and their relationship remained strained after he became king in 1042, with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggesting that:

‘she had formerly been very hard to the king, her son, in that she did less for him than he wished both before he became king and afterwards as well.'[xiii]

Whatever her reason, it certainly proved a prudent and clever move and she developed her role with Cnut beyond what she had had with Æthelred, She become Queen of Denmark and Norway when Cnut inherited the thrones from his elder brother and was probably made regent during his subsequent absences from England. She was a formidable patron of the church and sources describe her almost as Cnut’s partner, appearing alongside him on the frontispiece of the New Minster Liber Vitae. On his death she was powerful enough to take hold of the royal treasury at Winchester, and for a time she was the richest woman in England.

Conclusion

Once a woman was sent to her new husband her work as an intercessor between him and her family had only just begun. They were the link that bound two nations to peace, trade and prosperity and whose offspring would continue that connection for centuries to come. But when death intervened and that role was no longer possible it was not always the case that her family would need or want her back.

It is easy to judge royal women as either pawns in men’s games or as scheming mercenaries ready to forget their husbands almost as soon as they were dead. Neither is wholly accurate. Power was a complex and dangerous thing for women and they were forced to make difficult choices in order to retain their freedom, dignity and status. Marriage was a political game and women proved that they could play it just as well as a man when fate allowed. Marrying their husband’s successor was neither a betrayal or callous. It was a way to survive a difficult and political world.

What do you think about these four queens?

Now, read Samantha’s article of James VI/James I, the king whose lovers were men – here.

[i] MacLean, S. Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe, p11-12; Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: the King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages, p47.

[ii] The Encomium Emmae Reginae, Book 2:16. Simon Keynes believes that this ‘add[s] to the evidence that [the Encomium] …took considerable liberties with the truth’. Keynes, Simon Emma [Ælfgifu].

[iii] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A1017, trans J A Giles, p107.

[iv] The Encomium Emmae Reginae, Book 2:17.

[v] Keynes, Emma [Ælfgifu]

[vi] From Asser’s Life of Alfred, Chapter 17, quoted in Nelson, Janet. Æthelwulf

[vii] Isabella, Queen of Castile, quoted in Williams, Neville. The Life and Times of Henry VII, p194.

[viii]  Scarisbrick, JJ. Henry VIII, p11.

[ix] The Encomium Emmae Reginae, Book 2:16.

[x] Ambassador Zaccaria Contarini, 1492 quoted in Representations of Anne of Brittany

[xi] Nevertheless, Claude was married to Francis (against Anne’s wishes) binding the duchy to France.

[xii] Annals of St Bertin, s.a. 856 quoted in Nelson, Æthelwulf

[xiii] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A 1043, p115

Bibliography

Davis, CSL and Edwards, John. Katherine [Catalina, Catherine, Katherine of Aragon] in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2011

Firth, Matt. Queenship and Power: the political life of Emma of Normandy

Keynes, Simon Emma [Ælfgifu] in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004

MacLean, S. Queenship, Nunneries and Royal Widowhood in Carolingian Europe. Past & Present, (178), 3-38, 2003

Nelson, Janet. Æthelwulf in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004

Parsons, John Carmi. ‘Mothers, Daughters, Marriage, Power: some Plantagenet evidence, 1150-1500’ in Medieval Queenship ed John Carmi Parsons, Sutton, 1993

Scarisbrick, JJ. Henry VIII, Methuen, London, 1983

Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: the King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester University Press,1998

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle trans, J A Giles, London, 1914

The Encomium Emmae Reginae trans, Alistair Campbell (1949), published at Internet Medieval Source Book, Fordham University, 2019

Williams, Neville. The Life and Times of Henry VII, Book Club Associates, London, 1983

The Story of the Medieval European Jewish State – The Khazar Khaganate

The Khazar Khaganate was a state based around modern day Ukraine from the 7th to 10th centuries AD. The state was formed from a Turkic tribe, but it had one very unique aspect – it adopted Judaism. Here, David Matsievich tells us the background to the Khazars, how the European Jewish state came into being, and how it ended.

Khazar "Moses coin" found in the Spillings Hoard. The coin is dated from circa 800 AD. Source: W.Carter, available here.

The Khazars were a telling and powerful yet very unsung Turkic tribe in modern Ukraine, originating from Asia. Their notoriety stems from their capability at thwarting Islamic groups from extending their reach past the Northern Caucasus, acting as a mediator of goods between the Silk Road and Europe, and as a counterbalance between the Byzantium and the Islamic empires. But perhaps there is one thing in particular that attracts and holds others rapt about this tribe: its state religion — Judaism.

Khazar Origins

Once there existed a Turkic tribe that, at their height in the beginning of the medieval period, controlled a huge chunk of southern Russia, all the way from Astrakhan to western Ukraine. Their presence carved a significant mark in history, being the mediator of goods between Europe and the Silk Road, and possessing a military so strong that their power was tantamount to that of the Byzantine and Islamic empires. Their strong forces stopped the Muslims from expanding their influence further north of the Caucasus, just as the Franks had done in northern Spain, so preventing the expansion of Islam into Europe. But above all, what marks this group out from all other nations is their alarming and almost unbelievable conversion to Judaism. They are known as the Khazars.

The Khazars’ origin is debated and very complicated: it’s unknown what specific Turkic group they had previously come from; even the Khazarian language is a mystery, as what is left of it is mostly names and titles that don’t exactly pinpoint what type of Turkic tongue was spoken. Upon becoming a polity, it was very diverse, composed of Turks, Slavs, Iranians, Finno-Ugrians, and a myriad of other ethnicities.

It is believed that the Khazars came to be from a varied constellation of Turkic tribes, perhaps originating from Central Asia, the Urals, or even the northern Caucasus. They were indeed very ethnically disparate, retaining different skin tones and physiognomy, which would be evident throughout Khazar history.

Khazaria was under the occupation of the Western Turkic Empire, an empire stretching from Astrakhan to contemporary East Turkestan, until it was reinstated by the son of Tong Yagbhu in the 630s. Yagbhu was a Buddhist Khagan of the Western Turkic Empire and was usurped and killed by his uncle in an insurgency against his rule. This led to a civil war that collapsed and dissolved the Western Turkic Empire, spewing out Khazaria as one of its breakaway lands in the chaos. This was probably the first time Khazaria was recreated as a polity rather than a semi-organized tribal chiefdom. 

Khazarian Life, Culture, and Trade

The khaganate had a unique way of coronating their khagan, the ruler of the Khazars: the nobles of the realm would tie a silk cord around the soon-to-be khagan’s throat, choking him, and would ask him how long he expected to rule. Since the khagancouldn’t make out a clear message, the nobles had to interpret what he was choking out. Once they thought they understood how many years the khagan uttered through his strangled neck, that would be the maximum duration the khagan could rule until he either had to abdicate to his heir or risk being murdered by his own nobles.

However, an Arab scholar at the time avers that the Khazars had already a predefined set of time — 40 years — that the khagan was permitted to rule for. After this set amount of time, the khagan was no longer considered fit to reign because of old age, so he had to be quickly removed and replaced with a younger khagan for the good of the khaganate. This odd tradition came from the Western Turks, Khazaria’s former occupier.

Khazaria was located at the crossroads between the rich Asian lands of the Silk Road, and the resource-filled lands of the steppes. This made it a very important player in Euro-Asian trade. A Jewish merchant company, controlled by the Radanites, had a big role in the trade between Asia and Europe, going through Khazaria on their way to the Silk Road to deliver raw material and agricultural goods. Reportedly, the Khazars took 10 percent of the goods of merchants travelling through their lands, in return for protection of the vulnerable traders.

They procured prominence among the steppe people from their remarkable resistance against a series of Muslim military incursions in the Caucasus, seemingly gaining the Khazars respect of their neighboring tribes, which offered to become their tributaries for protection and periodical gifts. One historian estimated there to be between 25 to 28 tributaries of the khagan. He allegedly had 25 to 28 wives, each the daughter of a respective tributary. But other historians think that the 25, or 28, “wives” refer to the diverse plurality of the ethnicities of the Khazar khaganate, not to literal married women.

Although this is all fairly mundane and nothing extraordinary of a kingdom, or khaganate, at the time, what is unique and uncharacteristic about this tribe is their unprecedented proselytization to Judaism.

Emergence of the Jewish Khazars

Some authors fancifully speculate that the Jewish Khazars were actually part of one of the twelve lost tribes of Israel, however far-fetched that conclusion might be. Evidence of the first Khazarian Jews can be traced in early medieval legends: it’s possible that in medieval German stories about the “Red Jews” (Jews with ginger hair), were in fact referring to the Khazars. However, this has been met with shakiness from historian Hakon Stang. Still, into the later years, Khazaria was a major destination for Jews who wished to escape their prosecutors in Byzantium and the Islamic caliphate. Yet it wasn’t only Jews who fled to Khazaria; undesirable Christian sects, mainly the iconodules, in the Byzantium Empire also hurried into the Khazar lands for safe harbor. As a result of the Jewish emigration, the Jews expanded their influence onto Khazaria.

The khagan was obligated to choose from the three Abrahamic religions that populated the area — Christianity, Islam, and Judaism — owing to the fact that the native Khazar religion of Tengri had become a tiny minority in their empire. Kingdoms and empires who settled in Europe, the Middle East, or northern Africa tended to adopt one of the dominant religions of the area to enable flexible diplomacy, relations, royal marriages, trade, and above all to choose who was an ally and who was an enemy. So anyway, how did a western steppe tribe make its decision to accept this belief over Islam and Christianity, which were the dominant beliefs of the land near where the Khazars settled?

One of the khagan’s “wise” predecessors had organized a congregation between religious figures of the three Abrahamic faiths in order to choose one of them to become the official religion of Khazaria. This meeting was held at Atil, the capital and largest city of the Khazars (the location of this great trading city is unknown to this day, but it is proven to have been situated somewhere along the Volga river). The three envoys argued, debated, and preached each of their theological views. Even the historically venerated Cyril, creator of the Cyrillic alphabet, was sent as a delegate to Khazaria by Byzantium in the hope of evangelizing them to the Christian faith. On his way there, he “stopped… to spend the winter learning Hebrew and familiarizing himself with the Torah in order to debate with Jewish scholars also heading to the khagan’s court” (Francopan P., p. 107). Despite Cyril’s brilliance and words that no doubt appealed to the khagan, the latter did not espouse Christianity, as we already know. But why?

In a letter sent by the khagan to Hasdai b. Shaprut, an Andalusian scholar and personal physician of a Spanish caliph, he describes the determining incentive for such an unprecedented choice: a wise inquiry. Once the khagan had listened to the three groups, he organized all the facts and decided on validating them. He had an idea. He asked the Christians whether they considered Judaism or Islam more tolerable than the other; the Christians, who hated the Muslims, evidently said the Jews were the lesser despicable infidels of the two. When he asked the Muslims, who despised the Christians, whether Christianity or Judaism were preferable, they replied that Judaism was the better of the two heathen beliefs. And so, hearing that both preferred Judaism over the other, he declared his conversion to Judaism and encouraged his people to follow suit.

Despite this interesting and endearing story, it’s also plausible to believe that this strange conversion to Judaism was mainly to avoid kneeling down politically to the Byzantine emperor, the leader of the Christian world, or to the Islamic caliphate, the guardian of the Islamic world. State religions were not chosen by interesting stories, inspirational ethics and achievements, or genuine and passionate belief, but rather by which could reward and benefit the state with riches and protection.

News of this unique turn of events astonished Jews all over Europe and Asia; many couldn’t bring themselves to believe that this wasn’t blatant hearsay. Hasdai b. Shaprut himself refused to take this miracle seriously until much later.

From now on to become a khagan, one must profess the Jewish faith and it only. Nobles of the court consequently also adopted Judaism. Although the religions of the Khazarian peoples remained very diverse, a significant number of Khazars did indeed subsequently also embrace this new belief.

Fall of the Jewish Khazars

Khazaria retained a worthy degree of sovereignty until the khaganate’s destruction by the Kievan Rus’ in the year 965 with the sacking and utter demolition of Atil. Although it didn’t immediately cease to exist, the khaganate was pillaged to the very brim. One observer reported, “not a grape, not a raisin remains [in the Khazar khaganate]” (Frankopan P., p. 120). The mighty Khazars were defeated on the battlefield by Svyatoslav of the Rus’. Although the Khazars were famed for their performance on land, a combination of a lack of naval power, lack of natural geographical defenses, and lack of self-dependency on resources countered what the Khazars could benefit from.

They never recovered from this defeat, and some time after the war, the khagan was forced to adopt Islam in exchange for support from Khwarizm, a Muslim kingdom. Khwarezmian soldiers subsequently occupied Khazar cities and villages where their Jewish populaces refused to convert to Islam. Georgius Tzul, allegedly a Christian and the last Khazaraian khagan, collapsed along with his khaganate to the knees of a combined Byzantine and Rus’ian force in January 1016. Some scholars may claim that Khazaria survived in small remnants for two more centuries, but either way the khaganate had fallen and there was no return to the days of the unique and powerful Jewish nation of the steppes.    

What happened to the Jews?

For the Jews this was a disaster: no longer was there a Jewish nation that they could call home — and be protected by — until the establishment of Israel almost a millennia later in 1948. Many fled to different lands: to Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, the Kievan Rus’, the Caucasus, Egypt, Bulgaria, Spain, and the Byzantine Empire. As a matter of fact, the Schechter Letter, a manuscript that includes a considerable amount of useful and invaluable information about the Khazars, was written by an unknown author in the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, a.k.a modern-day Istanbul.

These Jewish refugees espoused the cultures of their new homes and became integrated with their respective societies. Some stuck with chiefly Jewish communities while others mingled in with Christian and Muslim populations. Khazarian culture soon died out.

Today some hypothesize that a considerable proportion of Jews are descended from the Khazars, and others even believe the Ashkenazi Jews to be mainly descendent from them, but these claims are widely dismissed and retorted by modern historians and scholars.

Nonetheless, Khazaria continues to bear the epitaph of the last and only Jewish state in Europe, once a beacon of hope and elatedness to the Jews that God had truly not abandoned them. Seldom do we see such an event occurring. It’s unlikely we’ll ever again witness such a peculiar and extraordinary event where a kingdom willingly — and without precedent — embraces Judaism as its true faith in a world where doing so was once considered to be impossible except in whimsical tales and dreams.

What do you think of the Jewish Khazars? Let us know below.

Now, read about the man who proposed a Jewish state in the 19th century here.

References

Peter Frankopan. The Silk Roads: A New History of the World. Vintage Books, 2015.

Brook, Kevin Alan. The Jews of Khazaria. Second ed., Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. 

Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 227-232

Wernher von Braun – Dangerous Nazi or Hero of the Space Race? Part 1 – von Braun’s Life

Wernher von Braun came to America from Germany after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip. He went on to play a major role in the Cold War’s Space Race with his expertise of rockets. However, views of von Braun are being reassessed as the terrible role he played in Nazi Germany has come to the fore in recent years. Victor Gamma explains.

Wernher von Braun, with his arm in a cast, shortly after surrendering to US forces in World War II on May 3, 1945.

Icon of a New Age

A visitor to the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian will see on display a slide rule that belonged to famed rocket scientist Wernher von Braun. To those familiar with the heady years of the Space Race, the visit is akin to paying homage to a sacred relic, the tangible remains of the heroic new age that dared venture beyond earth. It would indeed be difficult to overestimate von Braun’s importance during the exciting early years of the Space Age. General Samuel C. Phillips, who directed the NASA Apollo Project, and who should know better than anyone how important von Braun’s role was, stated that the moon landing simply would not have been possible without the German-born rocketeer. Yet controversy has swirled around the gifted engineer almost from the moment he became a public figure. To some he is something of a folk hero; a Cold Warrior who kept the free world one step ahead of the Soviet nemesis and a uniquely gifted engineer who got us to the moon. He is at least partly responsible for a phrase heard almost daily regarding the exaggerated difficulty level of a concept, that the subject at hand “is not rocket science.”  To others he was a war criminal at worst, at best a willing servant of the devil if it would advance his career; an amoral scientist indifferent to human suffering with a cavalier attitude about Nazi atrocities. But historical controversies, like people in general, are rarely so black and white. As we shall see, the answers are not easy to come by.    

The roots of the von Braun debate arose from the ashes of World War II. The Allied nations had known for some time that the Germans had raced far ahead of them in certain technologies, including rocketry. As the victorious side closed in on the Third Reich they naturally wanted to obtain this knowledge for themselves. In a desperate effort to keep ahead of the Soviet Union, the Americans had prepared a special operation to scoop up as much German brainpower and material as possible while it was still available. So successful was the operation, the famous/infamous Operation Paperclip, that within weeks of VE day a large number of highly-skilled German technicians were already laboring in the United States, working with captured V-2 rockets and mountains of rescued blueprints. Having served one of the worst regimes in history, the appropriateness of employing Nazi technicians like von Braun was so questionable that for some time, these engineers, once in the United States, did not officially exist.

Space Crusader

For some time the German ‘wonder team’ worked in relative anonymity and under tight security. As wartime emotions subsided, they were given more freedom and attained a measure of acceptance into American society. One member of the team was not content with mere acceptance. Their leader, von Braun, was a man on a mission, like Magellan before him, and would stop at nothing to achieve the ancient dream of space flight. A natural promoter, he understood the need to garner public support for the very expensive goal of space flight. Dreams of landing on the moon had seized the space-obsessed engineer as a child and he was determined to fulfill those dreams. He began to make a name for himself in the early 1950s as a champion of space exploration. His first breakthrough was a series of articles for the popular Collier's Magazine, which appeared in the early 1950s. He next appeared in a 1955 Walt Disney TV series on space exploration in which he explained the intricacies of space travel. The earnest Braun became a teacher to millions of television viewers about the workings of space flight. Much to his delight, the series was a great success. But it was with the launch of Explorer 1 on January 31, 1958 that the transplanted rocket genius truly rose to national prominence. This, America’s first satellite, marked the launch of America’s ‘Space Age’ and the free world’s answer to the Soviet Sputnik. As such, it was a matter of great national pride. Next month the proud ‘missile man’ was featured on the cover of Time magazine. By the following year such comments in published articles could be found such as this appearing in American Scientist, “Dr Wernhner von Braun, whose name is beginning to replace Einstein’s as a household word…”

But along with the glare of publicity came questions about his past. Thus far his employers, the US Army, with no little help from their star missile expert himself, had managed to keep his Nazi past under wraps. Von Braun, especially once he became head of the Marshall Space Flight Center under NASA, had a genuine concern that too much attention to the sordid details of his war-time work under Hitler might damage the prestige of NASA and hinder this Second Great Age of Exploration. But despite his best efforts, a pushback was perhaps inevitable as the public learned more about this intriguing leader of America’s space effort and what lay behind that German accent.  

The compelling von Braun story was soon brought to a popular audience through various media including the big screen. In the 1960 feature I Aim for the Stars the rocketeer, played by Kurt Juergens, is given a largely sympathetic portrayal. This biographical film, which covers the life of von Braun from his early youth up to his work at NASA, is not simply a whitewash, though. A theme throughout the film is the main character’s drive to build space rockets, regardless of the cost. In one scene set during the V-2 launches against London, his apparent indifference to the damage his rockets are causing leads his fiancée to declare, “I love you but you frighten me!”  Secondly, after his surrender to the Americans, there is the intermittent hounding he receives from one of the characters; the vengeful and impassioned U.S. Army major William Taggert. Taggert, who had loved ones killed in London due to V-2 attacks, cannot allow the creator of the “Vengeance Weapon” to go unpunished. He accuses von Braun flat out of war crimes. The charges don’t stick, of course, because the German engineer is far too valuable to American interests. He is hastily recruited by the Army to continue working on rockets on behalf of the United States. Many years of proud accomplishments follow, despite Taggert’s harassment until the end of the film. 

From Satire to Scholarship

The von Braun controversy even found its way into popular music culture. In 1965, satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer sang:

Gather 'round while I sing to you of Wernher von Braun

A man whose allegiance

Is ruled by expedience

Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown

"Nazi, Schmazi!" says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical

Say rather that he's apolitical

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.

The album featuring this track peaked at #18 on the Billboard Top 100 in early 1966. Lehrer went on to say in a 2003 interview: "The idea that Wernher von Braun was a hero didn't make me angry so much as, well, it was just so silly. It was one thing to hire him, OK, but to make him a hero, which a lot of people did ... he may have helped us land on the moon a few years earlier than we did, but who cares?" These voices, though, were but the buzz of an annoying mosquito compared to the general ovation von Braun received. The general public and the grade-school population were given no reason to mistrust America’s leading missile expert. A far-less critical view appeared in the year following Lehrer's album, 1967. A flattering book titled simply Werhner von Braun, part of a school-book biography series on great personalities in history, was published on the rocketeer which compared him to such luminaries as Sir Francis Drake, Columbus, Pizarro, and Da Gama. In this book the precocious rocket engineer is given a ‘clean’ war record. He is depicted as being a distant and reluctant participant of the Hitler regime, more often at odds with it as not. Von Braun and his entire team is described as only focusing on rockets as weapons because they were forced to, when they would much rather have been concentrating on space exploration. Atrocities inflicted on the laborers who built the rockets are absent. This book found its way into Middle and High Schools all over the country. During von Braun’s heyday with NASA and afterwards, honors from a grateful nation continued to be showered on him, which did not end after his premature death in 1977. Posthumous recognition continued, the von Braun name came to adorn civic centers, schools and even a moon crater.

The first serious effort to ‘expose’ von Braun originated in East Germany in the 1960s. This met little acceptance in the West as an obvious attempt to undermine American’s threat to win the Space Race and tarnish the West’s reputation. Indeed, it was only years after von Braun’s death in 1977 that the storm broke and the full story of the links between slave labor and rocket production, as well as von Braun’s relations to it, surfaced. In the 1980s the Justice Department began to investigate the past careers of many German technicians who had worked on the space program. By the 1990s, with the patriotic fervor of the Space Race and the Cold War fading, a reassessment of the rocket genius gathered force. One fruit of this new scholarship was the work of premier von Braun scholar Michael J. Neufeld’s 2007 book, Wernher von Braun, Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War. Neufeld’s portrait cast the hero of the Moon landing in a more balanced light with an honest assessment, giving credit where due but also leveling criticism where deserved. By that time the flood tide of revisionism had led to such comments as this: “Now the question is whether NASA — as well as the Smithsonian Institution, which sponsors an annual von Braun lecture — should continue to perpetuate the myth that Wernher was in effect a jolly fellow, well met, who was interested only in his singular dedication and contribution to space flight, politics be damned. Or should they act responsibly, bite the bullet, revise von Braun's biography, rename the lecture and concede that the pioneering space flight genius committed monstrous sins?” Such thinking had led at least one school in Germany named after the famed leader of the Apollo Project to change its name.

Voices of Protest

David Salz, survivor of both Auschwitz and Mittelbau-Dora concentration camps, traveled to Friedberg, Germany in 2012 to persuade the Gymnasium to “do all we can to make his name disappear from the school.” Mr. Salz shared a horrific account of the suffering endured by those at the camp. “A word from Braun would have been enough to improve the conditions,” claimed Salz. “What he did was not human, he wanted to build the miracle weapon for the final victory.” Despite reducing some of his audience to tears, the school board narrowly decided to keep the name - until 2014 - with the condition that “a differentiated discussion” take place regarding the eponymous rocket pioneer. The Bavarian Ministry of Culture stated: “Although he served the inhuman war aims of the Third Reich,” he was also “an outstanding scientist” who worked in the USA and helped to realize the dream of landing on the moon.” Not content with this set back, those determined to change the name resorted to political pressure. After further votes and discussion from stakeholders, “In order to avert damage to the school and district” as seen in the “incomprehension and injury” among victims of the Nazis, the Wernher von Braun Gymnasium in Friedburg, named after the rocket pioneer in 1979, reverted back to its original name, Staatliches Gymnasium Friedberg in 2014. 

There were even some residents of Huntsville, Alabama, the headquarters of the Marshall Space Flight Center and von Braun’s home for many years, who felt compelled to speak on the matter. Normally Alabamians swell with pride at their famous former resident, but some do not share the feeling: "I think it is shameful that a man who created powerful bombs for the Nazis which were used to kill innocent civilians is idolized in our small Alabama town. Certainly he was a brilliant man who totally changed the trajectory of the American space industry. But, when we as a society choose to focus solely on the good things he achieved we do a disservice to the enslaved Jews who built the rockets he designed, and the innocent men, women and children of England who felt the wrath of those weapons," said one.

Now, read part 2 on the evidence on whether von Braun was a dangerous Nazi here.

Nazi Germany’s ‘Wonder Weapons’ – And Their Many Flaws

In their attempt to win World War II, Nazi Germany produced a range of ‘Wonder Weapons’. While initially seemingly impressive, in reality they all had their flaws. Here Daniel Boustead returns and tells us about the V-1 flying bomb, the v-3 artillery gun, the XXI submarine, and the Fritz X guided bomb.

A German crew rolling out a V-1 flying bomb. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1973-029A-24A / Lysiak / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

In World War II, Nazi Germany built and designed various “Wonder Weapons”. Some of these weapons were of the “Vengeance Weapons” series. The “V- Weapons” had some important success but did have some fatal flaws. Another group of these weapons were not of the “V-Weapons” designation. Although these other weapons achieved some successes, they had defects. This analysis will prove that these weapons were truly not “Wonder Weapons”.

V-1 Flying Bomb

The first of these  “Wonder Weapons” is the  “V-1 Flying Bomb” which many military historians call the world’s first cruise missile. The V-1 Flying Bomb’s official technical designation was the FI 103 A-1 and it was equipped with a 1,832 pounds warhead ([1]). The weapon had a cruising speed of up to 400 miles per hour (2). The guidance system was controlled by gyroscopic auto pilot, Askania, anemometer, air log device measurer, gyroscopic compass, and tails controlled by two compressed air bottles and a 30 Volt Battery (1). The weapon also had a small windmill in the nose of the V-1, which powered an air log. This air log measured the distance travelled, and at a predetermined distance, cut off fuel to the engine. The air log also commanded the weapon to dive and gave erratic and imprecise measurements - it was accurate enough to hit a target the size of London (2). The V-1 Flying bomb was often launched from a catapult wall that was pointed towards London and that was adjacent to “ski” type buildings (3).

The V-1 “Flying Bomb” had achieved some important success during its operation. From June 12, 1944 to September 1, 1944 more than 8,500 V-1 “Buzz Bombs” were launched from their sites in France (6). The V-1 Flying Bomb would continue to be used even after September 1944.  The V-1 launch sites were moved to the Netherlands and Germany from autumn to winter 1944 after V-1 bases in France were captured by the Allies (8). The last V-1 “Flying Bomb” to hit London was on March 28, 1945 (7). The total number of V-1 “Flying Bombs” launched during the war was 23,172 (11). In total, the V-1 attacks had killed about 5,000 people and wounded 16,000 people in England, as well as causing substantial damage (7).  However, despite the numerous success of the V-1 “Flying Bomb” the weapon began to show its terrible faults. 

The V-1 Flying Bomb’s speed of 400 miles per hour made it vulnerable to late model Spitfires, Mustangs, Tempests, and the new Meteor Jet Fighters. These weapons shot down 1,847 V-1 Flying Bombs (2). Also, the V-1 was frequently destroyed by barrage balloons, and anti-aircraft guns (6). In addition, just under half of the V-1s crossing the English coast were destroyed by aircraft and anti-aircraft fire, and many went astray, exploding in open country (9). Some V-1’s were destroyed by Allied Fighter planes flying up to the weapon and tipping it off its course and equilibrium, causing the weapon to fall to the ground (10).

V-3 Artillery Gun

The next “Wonder Weapon” was the V-3 Artillery Gun which was located in Mimoyecques, France (4). The V-3 Artillery gun had 50 barrels (4). This gave it a potential range of 100 miles, which was achieved by sending the 300-pound projectile through a series of ignitions of explosive charges along the intervals of each barrel (4). The V-3 Artillery Gun was a 150 centimeters/5-feet caliber gun - it was 127 meters or 415 feet long (5). 

The fact that the V-3 Artillery Gun was stationary at Mimoyecques France proved itself very vulnerable to air attack. This was brutally demonstrated on July 6, 1944 when Royal Air Force bombers carrying the 6-ton “Tall Boy” bomb attacked the site (12). One “Tallboy” directly impacted the concrete slab on top of the complex, collapsing Drift IV of the weapons site. The other “Tallboy” bombs penetrated the tunnel system below, creating extensive damage The Germans tried to clean up the debris from the raid but they realized that all hope was lost. The Mimoyecques V-3 site was officially overrun and captured by the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division on September 5, 1944 (12). The surviving V-3 gun weapon was moved to Lampaden, Germany where from December 30,1944 to February 22, 1945 it shelled Luxembourg City, Luxembourg killing 10 people (13).

XXI U-Boat

The German XXI U-Boat or submarine was another one of the Nazi “Wonder Weapons”. The Type XXI Submarine had a revolutionary cross section that was a “figure of eight’ that made a smaller target for sonar (14). It also had increased battery capacity, which allowed it to remain submerged longer. The Type XXI Submarine was also equipped with a schnorchl which allowed it to recharge it batteries underwater and thus avoid being attacked by Allied aircraft. Furthermore the XXI Submarine had a rapid reloading system, which allowed it to fire three six-torpedo salvos in 20 minutes, thus increasing the number of targets it could attack per convoy (14). The Type XXI Submarine had a top underwater speed of 17.2 knots, while its surface speed was only 15.65 knots thus allowing it to avoid Allied anti-submarine units (15). This combination allowed the Type XXI Submarine to run fast underwater attack against Allied convoys and go away virtually undetected (20).

There were significant flaws with the Type XXI Submarine, which delayed its introduction. In production and development the Type XXI submarine had problems with batteries, which led to minor explosions (16). A particular problem arose when it was discovered that the main electrical lead supplying the DC current from the battery to the electrical motors ran down one side of the boat and returned along the other. This was a neat solution from a production point of view, but was potentially disastrous at sea, since it set up a magnetic field, which could easily trigger a mine. Again, boats had to be returned to the yards for the cabling to be rerouted (16). These wasted needless hours of work thus delayed the weapon’s introduction into combat. Also the standard torpedo the Type XXI Submarine carried was the G7a and G7e, which had warheads of either 617 pounds or 604 pounds respectively (17). In contrast the Japanese Kaiten Type 1 Suicide Torpedo had a 3,400-pound warhead and was powered by a fuel mixture of kerosene and oxygen (18). The fact oxygen was used in the Kaiten Type 1 Suicide Torpedo, and the Type Model 93 “Long Lance” torpedo produced the result that it left no telltale wake of water behind it (19).  In the end only two of the Type XXI U-Boats saw service (U-2511 and U-3008) and neither fired a shot in anger (20). 

Fritz X Guided Bomb

A further Nazi “Wonder Weapon” was the Fritz X Guided Bomb. The Fritz X Guided bomb had a warhead which weighed 3,100 pounds (21). The Fritz X was launched from a bomber aircraft and was guided to its target by the bombardier who used a joystick inside the bomber aircraft (22). The radio command system of the Fritz X was codenamed E30 Kelhl- Strasbourg (22). 

On September 9, 1943 the Fritz X Guided bomb successfully attacked the surrendering Italian Battleship RM Roma. The attack also killed most of the crew (21). This led to RM Roma to be sunk, scuttled and written off (23). This was the most successful of any German anti-ship missile attack of World War II. 

In spite of this great success the Fritz X and the HS-293 would suffer a fatal setback later in 1943. The Allies found an intact HS-293 guided missile on an Anzio beach with an undamaged Kehl-Strasbourg radio receiver (24). The Fritz X used the same radio receiver equipment as the HS-293. This allowed the Allies to not only to determine the operating bands but also how the signals actually guided the missile. This meant that in the future, the Allies could not only jam the frequencies, but also spoof the guidance channel with false commands (24). The net result of the jammer counter-measures was that through January 1944, German successful anti-ship missile launch claims averaged 20% to 30% of missiles that did not malfunction (25).  By February 1944, when a greater number of jammers were available to the fleet off Anzio, the successful Anti-ship missile launch claims that did not malfunction fell to about 10 percent. Further Allied progress resulted in the number of successful anti-ship missiles that did not malfunction to fall to less than 5 percent by the summer of 1944. The combination of deteriorating Luftwaffe crew experience, Allied fighter defense, and the greater presence of sophisticated shipboard jammers spelled the end of the German anti-ship missile threat (25).

Conclusion

The Nazis produced many advanced weapons during WW II. These weapons had success during their time in combat. However, these weapons had fatal flaws. The “Wonder Weapons” were not only “too little and too late”, but also superfluous, wasteful, and technologically ineffective during the course of the war. 

What do you think of these Nazi weapons? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

[1] Mercado, P. and Miranda, J. Secret Weapons of the Third Reich: German Missiles 1934-1945. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 1996. 36. 

2 Bishop  Chris  and Warner , Adam, eds. German Weapons of World War II. Edison, New Jersey: Chartwell Books, Inc. 2001. 114.

3 Zaloga, Steven J. German V-Weapon Sites 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 27 to 28. 

6 Bishop, Chris and Warner, Adam, eds. German Weapons of World War II. Edison, New Jersey: Chartwell Books, Inc. 2001. 113. 

8 Zaloga, Steven J. German V-Weapons Sites 1943-45. Long Island City:  New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 49. 

7 Zaloga, Steven J. German V-Weapons Sites 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 51. 

11 Zaloga, Steven J. German V-Weapons Sites 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 58. 

9 Bishop, Chris and Warner, Adam, eds. German Weapons of World War II. Edison, New Jersey: Chartwell Books, Inc. 2001. 113 to 114. 

10 Engelmann, Joachim. V1: The Flying Bomb.  Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 35. 

4 Bailey, Ronald H. The Air War in Europe. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life Books Inc. 1979. 179 to 180. 

5 Zaloga, Steven J. German V- Weapon Sites 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 14. 

12 Zaloga, Steven J. German V-Weapons Sites 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 14. 

13 Zaloga, Steven J. German V-Weapons Sties 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008. 57 to 58. 

14 Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of the Raiders of the Deep. Washington: District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000. 61. 

15 Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of the Raiders of the Deep. Washington: District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000. 60-61. 

16 Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of Raiders of the Deep.  Washington: District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000. 68. 

17 Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of the Raiders of the Deep. Washington: District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000. 68. 

18 Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 39. 

19 Wheeler, Keith. War Under the Pacific. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books Inc. 1980. 98. 

20 Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of the Raiders of the Deep. Washington; District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000.68 to 69. 

21 Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz-X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 12. 

22 Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz-X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 6. 

23 Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 19. 

24 Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 16. 

25Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 18. 

Bibliography

Bailey, Ronald H.  The Air War in Europe. Alexandria: Virginia; Time Life Books Inc. 1979. 

Bishop, Chris and Warner, Adam, eds. German Weapons of World War II. Edison., New Jersey: Chartwell Books, Inc. 2001.

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002.

Engelmann, Joachim. V1: The Flying Bomb. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992.

Mercado, P. and Miranda, J. Secret Weapons of the Third Reich: German Missiles  1934-1945. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 1996.

Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of the Raiders of the Deep. Washington: District of Columbia. Brasey’s. 2000.

Wheeler, Keith. War Under the Pacific. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.

Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019.

Zaloga, Steven J.  German V-Weapons Sites 1943-45. Long Island City: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2008.

Disastrous Preparation for World War 2’s D-Day: Exercise Tiger

Exercise Tiger was an Allied training exercise in preparation for World War Two’s D-Day that took place in southern England in April 1944; however, it went very wrong. Here, Peter Baugher tells the story of the largely unknown exercise – and how even Nazi Germany became involved.

American troops landing in Slapton Sands, southern England as part of Exercise Tiger. April 1944.

"It was a different world then. It was a world that required young men like myself to be prepared to die for a civilization that was worth living in” (Murphy 2019), says Harry Read, a British D-Day veteran, in a powerful statement. Operation Overlord freed northwestern France, generating shockwaves that eventually toppled Adolf Hitler. The invasion constitutes one of the most tactical military campaigns in history, the largest amphibious operation to date. But how did the Allies prepare? What blood was spilled in secret, and how long will it remain in the shadows? The forgotten dead of one fateful April night must now be remembered and honored. Although the story of Exercise Tiger is widely unknown, the operation was the deadliest training operation of the War.

The Curtain Opened

In September of 1943, around three thousand British villagers evacuated from Devon near Slapton Sands by order of the Allied Forces. (Small 1988) The exiles deserted homes, farms, and, as a result, their livelihoods. Although the officers delivering the order disclosed scarce information, the Allies decided the Beaches of Slapton Sands granted an ideal practice ground for the American troops to prepare for the invasion into Normandy. According to Naval History and Heritage Command, “Slapton was an unspoiled beach of coarse gravel, fronting a shallow lagoon that was backed by bluffs that resembled Omaha Beach. After the people in the nearby village were evacuated, it was an almost perfect place to simulate the Normandy landings. (Command 2015).” The Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower realized that the American troops were not prepared to stage the enormous invasion. Ironically, the future President failed to avoid spoiling that beach of gravel during a training exercise to prepare for success.

Evil Entered the Stage

The horrors of the morning of April twenty-seventh foreshadowed the disaster. In the early morning hours, British personnel bunkered on the beaches at Slapton Sands.  In the interest of preparing the men for the chaos of battle, Commander Eisenhower commanded the British Army to fire live rounds aloft the American troops. Originally, Convoys planned to stage the mock invasion at seven-thirty. After logistical delays, the appointed time was moved to eight thirty. One convoy did not receive the order and arrived at the beach at the original scheduled time. The first wave stormed the beach while the British initiated live fire over the heads of the Americans. As the next wave arrived abaft, rogue lead found the bodies of American troops. Although the army avoided creating an official count, an estimated four hundred were killed during the incident. 

The following midnight, a convoy known as T-4, consisting of American Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs), lumbered through the murky waters of the English Channel. After leaving port, British scanners detected the presence of German submarines, and attempted to alert the Americans. The American Convoy was not set to the proper frequency. Consequently, the American soldiers and sailors floated oblivious to potent danger (although some officers later reported ignorance that the mission was a training exercise at all). Years later, American and British historians learned that the German aerial reconnaissance missions found evidence of American and British Naval presence in the English Channel. German submarines were consequently ordered to patrol the surrounding waters. At 2:30 AM, the German S-Boat Flotilla found the convoy and fired missiles at the LST-515, resulting in critical damage to the hull. The survivors went overboard, thus initiating the Battle of Lyme Bay. 

Naval policy forbade a functional ship to attempt a rescue in the middle of an operation without explicit order. However, the men of the LST-515, with unanimous consent, risked death or court martial, turned back to the burning wreckage of the 507, and saved half the crew. The rest of the men died in the fire, succumbed to frostbite, and drowned, or burned to death from the gasoline and oil spilled onto the water. Meanwhile, other submarines joined the attack, sinking the LST-531 and killing four hundred twenty-four men on board. A report from military archives states, “Most of the casualties were from LST 531. There were only 290 survivors of 744 soldiers and 282 sailors.” (Military History) In an attempt to retaliate against the aggressors, the LST-496 fired at the submarines, but caught the LST-515 in the crossfire. Although the endeavor sent the Germans back to port, the accident killed eighteen naval service members. At the end of the catastrophe, over seven hundred Americans were dead. The bodies that were recovered were reportedly never buried. According to an eyewitness, “They were driven round the top of the island and stored in Castletown dockyard.... they were packed in the tunnels, which were collapsed by explosions in 1994 before the dockyard closed.” (Dorset 2009) The failure had wider implications for Eisenhower and the other Allied leaders. 

The Heroes Foregathered and the Warriors Sequestered  

Eisenhower prepared to reconsider all Operations in the European Theater. Ten officers with detailed knowledge of Operation Overlord remained missing in action for several days. Additionally, the cataclysm provided evidence that German intelligence was successfully monitoring American and British movement.  The men were given strict orders to remain in friendly territory. According to a researcher Rodney Ley, “General Dwight D Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, had given strict instructions that no BIGOT-classified (A classification referencing personnel with knowledge of specific details of the invasion, standing for “British Invasion of German Occupied Territory”) personnel should go on any journey or operation before D-Day which carried a risk of being captured by the Germans.” (Dorset 2009) Eisenhower carefully considered canceling or postponing the invasion into Normandy. However, after in-depth deliberation and discussion, as history shows, the invasion date remained June Sixth. 

Despite the operation producing the deadliest training exercise of the war, the operation is unknown to most Americans and Brits. To date, no significant memorial appears to exist that honors the American lives lost. Although a private endeavor led by Devon native Kenn Small pulled a Sherman tank out of the water, and dedicated a plaque in honor of the fallen, neither the United States nor the British governments participated or recognized the ceremonies. At the time of writing, nothing of the sort exists on American soil. Both Navy and Army personnel were lost that day, but seventy years later, neither branch has erected a cenotaph to those bodies dwelling the wreckage of their old vessels. An acquaintance of mine, with a master’s in military history, was fascinated by my knowledge of the occurrence. Though you, reader, missed an opportunity this April, let the deaths of the men of Exercise Tiger infuse you with thanksgiving and respect for those who died to provide you with the freedom you live every day. 

What do you think of Exercise Tiger? Let us know below.

References

Business Insider. “D-Day by the Numbers: Pulling Off the Biggest Amphibious Invasion in History.” Military.Com, 5 June 2019, www.military.com/off-duty/2019/06/05/d-day-numbers-pulling-biggest-amphibious-invasion-history.html

“Massacre at Slapton Sands — the Great Portland Cover-up | Dorset Life - The Dorset Magazine.” Dorset Life, May 2008, www.dorsetlife.co.uk/2009/05/massacre-at-slapton-sands-the-great-portland-cover-up.

Murphy, Bill, Jr. “17 Inspiring Quotes to Remember the 75th Anniversary of D-Day.” Inc.Com, 6 June 2020, www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/17-inspiring-d-day-quotes-to-remember-75th-anniversary-of-d-day.html.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Exercise Tiger.” Naval History and Heritage Command, 26 Aug. 2015, www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/e/operation-tiger.html.

Small, Ken. The Forgotten Dead: The True Story of Exercise Tiger, the Disastrous Rehearsal for D-Day. Reprint, Osprey Publishing, 1988.

Robert E. Lee’s Indispensable Man: The Life of Walter H. Taylor

Walter H. Taylor was indispensable to the Confederacy’s efforts in the US Civil War. His contribution to the southern war effort as Lee’s adjutant was key. His contributions to the City of Norfolk and the state of Virginia after the war are also well known. Taylor would also contribute to the history of the war by writing two books about Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. At one point, Taylor would comment about not loving Lee, but never losing respect for him. The other part of Taylor’s story is his relationship with Bettie Saunders, his future wife. Their wartime letters are an endless source of information about their relationship and what was taking place on the war front.

William Floyd Junior explains.

Walter H. Taylor, circa 1864.

Taylor was born in Norfolk, Virginia on June 13, 1838. His early education took place at what today is Norfolk Academy. In August of 1854, he began attending the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. Walter was an excellent student, but failed to complete his studies, having to withdraw upon the death of his father. He would go to work at the Bank of Virginia and then at the Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad. Taylor was also part of a Norfolk Volunteer Militia group known as “Company F.”

On May 2, 1861, he received a telegram from Virginia Governor John Letcher to report for duty. Taylor was twenty-two years of age without any combat experience. On May 3, Taylor took the train to Richmond and went to the Spotswood Hotel. It was here that Taylor first saw Robert E, Lee, commenting that, “he appeared every inch a soldier and a man born to command.”

When the Provisional Army of Virginia, which Lee had been assembling, became part of the Confederacy, Lee was appointed one of five new generals. He would be retained in Richmond as military advisor to President Jefferson Davis. Taylor and other members of the headquarters staff would remain on duty with the general.

In late July Taylor would travel with Lee to western Virginia in an effort to reconcile differences between generals Floyd, Wise, and Loring. After three months in the mountains, Lee’s mission could not be called a success.

On November 6, 1861, Taylor left with Lee for Charleston, South Carolina. Lee had been given the job of building a defensive line along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and east Florida. In the following months defenses were improved around Charleston, Fort Pulaski, and Savannah. Lee’s work would soon come to an end with Davis ordering him to return to Richmond to begin his job as military advisor. Taylor would now be designated as an aide. Lee’s trust in Taylor would grow to a point that Taylor would be allowed to sign important documents in Lee’s absence.

1862

At this time, General Joseph E. Johnston was in command of Confederate forces defending Richmond. On May 31, 1862, at the battle of Seven Pines, Johnston would be severely wounded. President Davis would give command of Johnston’s forces to Lee. Taylor would remain on Lee’s staff when he assumed his new position. At this time, Taylor listed two assistant adjutants general, four aides and a military secretary as part of Lee’s staff.

The army that Lee took command of had an effective strength of 80,762 with which to defend Richmond during the Seven Days Battles. Taylor, at twenty-four years of age, would now have the heavy burden of acting as Lee’s alter ego, in matters of administration. Taylor would also be entrusted to deliver important orders to commanders on the battlefield.

On September 7, 1862, at the start of the Antietam campaign, Walter would write to Bettie about working for Lee, “But I never worked so hard to please anyone and with so little effect as with General Lee. He is so unappreciative-Everybody else makes me flattering speeches, but I want to satisfy him. They all say he appreciates my efforts, but I don’t believe it, you know how silly and sensitive I am.”

Taylor’s workload would increase even more, when he was directed to see after the sick and wounded from recent battles and arrange for their transportation to Winchester which had been designated a rendezvous point.

On September 17, the single bloodiest day of the war, would take place at Sharpsburg (Antietam), Maryland. Union General George B. McClellan enjoyed an almost two-to-one advantage in troops, but the Confederates would hold their own. The outcome of the battle was indecisive. In a letter to his sister, Taylor wrote, “Don’t let any of your friends sing ‘My Maryland’-not my Western Maryland anyhow.”

In early November, the Union Army crossed the Potomac back into Virginia. On November 7, McClellan would be replaced by General Ambrose Burnside. On December 13, Burnside would attack Lee’s strong position at Fredericksburg, which became a total disaster for the Federals. Taylor would later write that he had never seen anything like the fighting at Fredericksburg.

1863

Both armies would go into winter quarters after Fredericksburg. The fighting would be resumed on May 1 at Chancellorsville. In a daring move Lee would divide his army and win what was said to be his greatest victory. However, Lee would suffer the devastating loss of Stonewall Jackson. Taylor would praise God for their victory, writing, “Surely the hand of God was on our side, never was it more plainly demonstrated. . .”

In the latter part of June 1863, Lee in, an effort to move the war out of Virginia, began moving his army into Pennsylvania. This would eventually result in the Battle of Gettysburg beginning on July 1, 1863, when the opposing forces would clash west of the city. This would be the beginning of the battle that would be the turning point of the war. The first day’s fighting would be a decisive victory for Lee. The fighting on July 2, which Taylor described as “disjointed” took place on the Union left at the “Round Tops” and at the center of the Union line. Both Confederate assaults were turned back.

On July 3, just before 3 o’ clock, the attack on Cemetery Hill began, with 13,000 Confederates led by George Pickett’s division. A small group of Confederate soldiers, led by General Lewis Armistead, reached the Union line but were soon pushed back. The day was a total loss for Lee. After the war, Taylor would write, “After the assault on the enemies works on the third of July, there was not any serious fighting at Gettysburg. The day passed in comparative quiet.” After Gettysburg, there was no fighting of any consequence for three months. During this lull, Taylor travelled to Richmond to see Bettie and would return with a promise to marry.

1864

Both armies would remain inactive for the most part through January and February. On January 7, 1864, Taylor had been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, assuming more responsibility and was in reality Chief of Staff.

In March of 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was made General in Chief of all Union forces. The Federal army of more than 141,000 was on the north bank of the Rapidan River in Virginia. Lee’s army of 50,000 was on the south bank. On May 5, Grant moved his army to the south side, exactly as Lee had predicted beginning what would be known as the “Overland Campaign.”

The first battle of the campaign was on May 5 in the Wilderness, in which the Federals would incur twice as many casualties as the Confederates in the confused fighting of the thick forest.

Lee now anticipated that Grant would move to Spotsylvania. Taylor would write, “The general thinks there is nothing to indicate an intention on [Grant’s] part to retire, but rather appearances would indicate an intention to move toward Spotsylvania.”

In the ensuing fighting, Taylor would rally troops to drive back Union forces and recover a vital portion of the Confederate line. He would later write to Bettie, “God has indeed been merciful to me thus far.” The fight would continue until the 20th when Grant began moving to the south and east.

At the end of May, forces reached a crossroads northeast of Richmond known as Cold Harbor. On June 3, Grant attacked a well-entrenched Confederate line which turned into a total disaster for the Federals, suffering 7,000 casualties. After the battle, Grant would begin his move toward Petersburg. Lee would do the same on June 18.

1865

The siege of Petersburg would go on for ten months. The siege would devastate the city. On April 1, 1865, General George Pickett’s Confederate force suffered an overwhelming defeat at Five Forks, which essentially caused the Confederates to abandon Petersburg.

As the evacuation of Petersburg was getting under way, Taylor asked Lee if he could travel to Richmond to marry Bettie. Although Lee was surprised to hear this request at this time, he gave his permission. The wedding took place on April 3, after which Taylor returned to the army.

On April 6, the battle of Sayler’s Creek would take place. It was an overwhelming Union victory and the beginning of the end of Lee’s army.

On April 9, Lee would surrender to Grant at the Mclean House in Appomattox. Taylor could not bring himself to attend, not wanting to see the general humiliated. Taylor would accompany Lee to Richmond and after two weeks leave with Bettie on their wedding tour.

After the war

Back home Taylor would go into the hardware business. On April 30, 1870, he would accompany Lee on his visit to Norfolk. In 1877, he would become president of Marine Bank where he would remain for life. Taylor would belong to a number of Southern organizations dedicated to the memory of the Confederacy. Taylor would also become, “an official court of last resort,” concerning information on the Army of Northern Virginia. Taylor would publish two books, “Four Years With General Lee,” and “General Lee, 1861- 865”, both considered as authorities on Lee.

Some of Taylor’s other interests included serving on the Board of Visitors at Virginia Military Institute and the Board of Directors of the Norfolk & Western Railroad. In community affairs, he would promote waterworks, railroad consolidation, and the development of Ocean View, a resort area on the Chesapeake Bay in Norfolk. He was also influential in the beginning of the Building Loan Associations. He was president of the Ocean View and Hotel Company.

For the Jamestown Exposition, taking place in Norfolk in 1907, Taylor would play a major role in raising funds for the project. In the end the exposition was a financial failure.

Taylor would play a role in the development of Hampton Roads to a major trading center and seaport. He would be a member of the Atlantic Deeper Waterways Association and was chairman of the Virginia area.

Of course, it cannot be forgotten during this time that Walter and Bettie were expanding and raising what become a large family. They would have eight children, the last of which was named Robert Edward Lee Taylor. Lee would write to Taylor on April 13, 1868, saying, “Give my congratulations to Mrs. T. Tell her I hope that when her fancy for girls is satisfied (mine is exorbitant) she will begin upon the boys. We must have someone to work for them.”

In the last year of his life, Taylor became seriously ill, being diagnosed with cancer of the lower bowel. Radium treatments would extend his life, but in the end, it would be the cause of his death. On March 1, 1916, with Bettie and the children by his side, Walter would pass away just before midnight. On Thursday, March 2, the afternoon Norfolk newspaper read, General Lee’s Adjutant Dead, the article read, “Colonel Walter H. Taylor, one of Norfolk’s leading citizens and among her most distinguished citizens passed away last night at 11:35 o’clock at his home, 300 West York Street, following several months of failing health and two weeks of extreme illness.”

What do you think of Walter H. Taylor? Let us know below.

Now read William’s first article for the site on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here.

Moving On Up: 5 Amazing Female Businesses in 19th Century America

19th century America was a very male-dominated society, and it was very difficult for women to have independent lives; however, this did not stop some women breaking the mold. Here, Angie Grandstaff looks at the lives of 5 amazing women who had businesses in 19th century America.

Mary Laveau.

Women and work. It has been a long and winding road, but women are making progress. They are getting closer to equal pay and opportunities. If we look back to the 19th century, it was a quite different situation for women. It was a time when women were essentially property and African American women were legally property until 1863. Any money or property that women inherited or possessed was technically her husband’s or father’s. She could not vote and had very few rights.

Education was extremely limited and very few colleges or universities existed that would accept women. There were a small number of women who broke through despite challenges like Elizabeth Blackwell who was the first woman to receive a medical degree in 1849. Lucy Sessions was the first African American woman to graduate college in 1850. These educational opportunities were afforded to wealthy women, usually white, so Lucy Sessions was a rare exception during that time.

Lower class white women, single women and women of color always had to work. It made no difference if it was the 19th century, 18th, or 17th. They made their way as servants, paid companions or prostitutes. Women earned money by sewing, knitting and laundry services. Now there were some instances when a husband or father died, the wife or daughter stepped up to run a business, saloon or farm. This was also rare.

The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of factories, which could mass-produce products. Some of these factories would employ women when they could not find enough men to work. There was a great benefit to employers who employed women.  Female employees earned significantly less than men, which meant more money for the owners. Women were paid half or one third of the salaries paid to men. The conditions in factories were dangerous and the hours were long. Women would work twelve to fourteen hours a day in factories with little light and ventilation.

The goal for most women during the 19th century was surviving. Thriving was not an option and for most women not even something they would even dream of. The focus was how to survive each day, to provide food and shelter for themselves and their children. But there were some women who dared to dream for more. There were women who were able to look beyond surviving the day. They wanted to thrive, to move up. This was not an easy task in a male dominated society. But some women had the strength, courage and vision to look beyond what was and reach for more. Here are 5 women who moved up and became successful businesswomen and entrepreneurs in the 19th century.   

Belle Brezing

Belle was born in 1860 and raised in Lexington, Kentucky. She was an illegitimate child to a woman who had abusive partners and husbands. Her mother worked as a prostitute occasionally to help feed her children. At the age of 12, Belle began a relationship with a man who was 36 years old.  The age of consent was 12 at that time. She married another man at age 15 and had a child but the husband disappeared shortly after. Belle was 15, a mother and facing eviction. She did what many women did at the time to feed herself and child - she became a prostitute. She was determined to do more than survive. She worked for two years, saving money to open her own house.  Her first brothel was a success. Belle was well known in Lexington and had earned quite a reputation. She used this to her advantage. A charge of keeping a bawdy house was brought against her while she owned her first brothel but the governor at the time pardoned her, and the charge was dismissed. She opened a second brothel in the early 1880s.  As Belle’s reputation grew so did her connections and bank account. William M. Singerly, a Philadelphia businessman and newspaper publisher, gave her a loan to open a third brothel. This would be Belle’s finest. She went all out to make it a grand establishment. This brothel was the most popular and most expensive in the area. Her clientele were successful men from the upper circles of society. Belle made her way using her brain, skills and connections to create a successful business that allowed her to thrive. 

Marie Laveau

Marie Laveau was born in New Orleans in either the late 1700s or early 1800s. Her actual birth year is disputed. Marie was a wise woman who knew how to take advantage of her talents and use them to help her thrive wherever she was. Laveau married and had several children; many died during different yellow fever outbreaks in New Orleans. Her husband disappeared and was later declared dead. Marie had to support herself and her children, so she pursued work as a hairdresser. She was successful with African American and white clients. Her African American clients gave her a lot of gossip about the white upper-class families they worked for. New Orleans during the 19th century was a place where Voodoo was a popular and practiced religion. All levels of New Orleans society believed in Voodoo and would consult Voodoo conjurers or priestesses about all areas of their lives. Marie worked with a well-known Voodoo conjurer and began to build her own reputation. The information she gained while working as a hairdresser came in handy when clients sought her out for spiritual consultations. People would come to her for advice on their personal and professional affairs. She was able to prosper financially as a hairdresser and through her work as a Voodoo priestess. She became known as the Voodoo Queen and would regularly hold Voodoo rituals and ceremonies. Marie’s abilities led to her widespread fame and her magical powers were feared by the locals. Her reputation continues to this day with thousands visiting her gravesite in New Orleans.     

Mary Ellen Pleasant

The early life of Mary Ellen Pleasant is unknown. There are accounts that she was a slave but by the 1820s she was in New England working in a shop. It is rumored that Mary Ellen helped slaves escape bondage on the Underground Railroad while in New England. She was a woman who stepped up and stood out even during her early years. Her first husband was a successful carpenter and contractor. He left Mary Ellen a considerable inheritance when he died that allowed her to move out west. She headed to San Francisco when the Gold Rush was starting with her second husband. She used her inheritance to buy properties and invest. She owned boarding houses and laundry services. She would even work as a housekeeper in wealthy homes. All of this was done with one goal - to help her move up. Mary Ellen was savvy. She used her businesses, her work in people’s homes, to gain information about investment opportunities and ultimately influence.  Mary Ellen continued her work as an abolitionist, and she used her wealth and influence to help the lives of African Americans in San Francisco and around the country. Her fame spread and she was known as Mammy Pleasant. She didn’t like this nickname, but she knew how to use her fame and role to increase her wealth and influence.  

Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley

Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley was born a slave around 1821 in Virginia. We know so much about Elizabeth for a couple of reasons - she was a dressmaker to the White House, serving the Lincoln family and she wrote a biography. The fact that she did this during her life shows what a brave woman she was. This biography gives us insight into the lives of enslaved women and the White House during the Lincoln administration. Elizabeth’s mother was a slave to the Burwell family and her father was Colonel Burwell, who owned and raped her mother. Elizabeth helped her mother with her domestic duties as she grew up in the Burwell household. She was sent to live with other members of the Burwell family. Her life during those years was filled with difficulties and abuse. She gave birth to her only child, a son, George, during this time. His father was a white storeowner who raped Elizabeth repeatedly. In 1842, Elizabeth and her son were sent back to Colonel Burwell’s wife Mary. Mary was living with her daughter and son-in-law Hugh Garland. Financial difficulties led the Garland family along with Elizabeth and her mother to move to St. Louis. Elizabeth offered to use her sewing skills to make money for the financially strapped Garlands to keep her mother from being hired out. Elizabeth’s work as a seamstress helped her gain money and connections. She was able to buy her and her son’s freedom in 1855 through loans of friends and money she obtained as a seamstress. By this time, Elizabeth was a successful dressmaker. She moved to Washington, D.C. in 1860 and built up her dressmaking business by serving the wealthy women of the area. This led to an opportunity to make a dress for the First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. She became the First Lady’s dressmaker and confidante.  Elizabeth’s biography was published after the death of President Lincoln. It led to considerable backlash and the end of her relationship with the First Lady. But it did not stop Elizabeth from thriving.       

Mary Ann Magnin

Mary Ann Magnin was born Mary Ann Cohen in Holland in 1850. Her family moved to London, and she married Isaac Magnin there in 1865. Mary Ann and her husband moved to San Francisco in 1875 looking for a better life. She needed to help support her growing family, so she used her talent for sewing as many women did during the 19th century. But Mary Ann had a vision for something grand. She opened a store where she sold her creations. She specialized in baby clothes, women’s lingerie and clothing. She named her store I. Magnin after husband Isaac. It would have gone against the societal conventions of the time to name her business after herself. But her husband took little interest in his wife’s business. Her eight children helped with the business though. The girls were put to work sewing and the boys worked in the store.  Mary Ann had a good head for business and knew that she would make the most profit by catering to the wealthy women of the area. She sold bridal gowns and high fashion clothing from Paris.  Her store was set up to impress her wealthy clientele. Mary Ann was dedicated to her growing business. Eventually, I. Magnin had locations up and down the West Coast. Mary Ann would turn the business over to her sons at the turn of the century but was still involved.   

Conclusion

All these women had many things in common. They knew how to take their skills and talents to move up in a male dominated society. This took brains, bravery and belief. At a time when most women were just looking to survive the day, these women had the fortitude to aim higher. Belle, Marie, Mary Ellen, Elizabeth, and Mary Ann all gained financially and became famous in their time. They stood as examples to the women around them of what could be.     

What do you think of these amazing women? Let us know below.

Angie Grandstaff is a writer who loves to write about history, books, and self-development.

Sources

Lewis, Jone Johnson. "A Brief History of Women in Higher Education." ThoughtCo, Aug. 27, 2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/history-women-higher-ed-4129738.

“Women in the Industrial Workforce.”  Ohio History Central, https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Women_in_the_Industrial_Workforce

“Belle Brezing. A Short Biography of Lexington’s Most Famous Woman”.  University of Kentucky, Special Libraries Research Center, https://libraries.uky.edu/libpage.php?lweb_id=341&llib_id=13

Lewis, Shantrelle P.  “Marie Laveau”.  Britannica, June 11, 2021.  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marie-Laveau

“Marie Laveau”.  History of American Women.  https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2012/07/marie-laveau.html

“Mary Ellen Pleasant”.  National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-ellen-pleasant.htm

Hudson, Lynn M. (2003).  The Making of “Mammy Pleasant”: a Black Entrepreneur in 19th Century San Francisco.  University of Illinois Press.  

Mann, Lina.  “From Slavery to the White House: The Extraordinary Life of Elizabeth Keckly”.  The White House Historical Association, Sept. 14, 2020.  https://www.whitehousehistory.org/from-slavery-to-the-white-house-the-extraordinary-life-of-elizabeth-keckly

Kahn, Ava F.  “Mary Ann Cohen Magnin”.  Jewish Women’s Archive.  https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/magnin-mary-ann-cohen

The Colonization of America: 16th and 17th Centuries

This article is the first in a series of articles that will look at the North American frontier and colonists. It will be divided between its initial stage of 16th and 17th centuries, then the century of empire wars, the 18th century, and its final stage, the conquest of the west in the 19th century and the initial years of the 20th century.

In this article we look at the early years of colonization, the main colonizers, and some of their interactions and battles with Native American tribes.

Champlain's Battle with the Iroquois, Ticonderoga, July, 1609. Part of the Beaver Wars.

Early activity

The conquest of this inhospitable place began from the moment the first Spanish settlement was founded in Florida in the 1550s. These first settlements were not permanent and were often used as military outposts and camps or used as bases for the intrepid Spanish explorers, then in the 17th century, more precisely in 1607, the British founded the settlement of Jamestown in the now state of Virginia. After that moment the conquest of the frontier really began. The British started to go inland, the French, who already had a few failed costal settlements founded by maritime explorers, as well as the Dutch, soon followed, with conquest or occupation of inland territories near their settlements.

At this initial stage the French colonized the valley of the Saint Lawrence River founding Quebec, in present-day Canada, in 1608, and the territory of the Great Lakes, and around the city of New Orleans. The Dutch, settled and colonized the Hudson River valley, where they would build the city of New Amsterdam, the future New York, in 1624; and last but not least, the Spanish settled and colonized the territories of Florida, Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico, and even though we talk about the conquest of west, and the Spanish were already there, they were in such small numbers and so disperse that these southwest colonies were used as buffer territories, to separate the Spanish colonists that occupied the former Aztec Empire from the Native Americans that occupied the Midwest, Rocky Mountains, and the southwest.

Organization

At the head of colonial organization were the trade companies, like the Compagnie de la Nouvelle-France (Company of New France), the Dutch West India Company, the London Virginia Company, and the Plymouth Company. In the specific case of the Spanish, the head of the colonial organization in North America was the Viceroy of the Vice-royalty of New Spain, founded in 1521, who then appointed various governors and military leaders, scattered in the different regions and colonies. 

During this initial period, the border territories were marked by trade with Native Americans, and the main items were the pelts of bears, wolves, deer, raccoons, and other animals. This business was located especially in the region of valley of the Saint Laurence River, location of military and colonial clashes between the French and the British. As colonization advanced in the south, the now states of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, commerce and trade was marked by the selling of slaves, cotton, and tobacco.  

This struggle for the frontier, led to countless wars, revolts, popular uprisings and attacks by Native Americans, that is, all those who were not “civilized” by the conquerors. In the initial period of the colonization two major confederacies occupied the territories of northeast America, the Powhatan Confederacy composed of tribes in the region of Virginia, New York, and Maryland. The tribes included the Powhatan, the Chesapeake, and the Appomattoc. The second was the Iroquois Confederacy or Haudenosaunee, composed of tribes in the region of the valleys of the Hudson and St. Lawrence River. The tribes included the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Cayuga, the Seneca, the Tuscarora, and the Onondaga. Alongside these two confederacies, a few other tribes occupied this vast region, such as the Métis, the Abenaki, the Lenape, the Cree, and the Algonquin.

Conflict

After a few years of peace, conflicts between colonists, for territory, trade and political causes started to occur and were supported by the different tribes who signed alliances with the French, British or Dutch. Of the conflicts that occurred in the first years of colonial occupation, the Beaver Wars between the Iroquois, who were supported by the British and the Dutch, and the French supported by an alliance of tribes from the Great Lakes Region, is one of the first major conflicts of the colonial era in North America. At the same time the British fought skirmishes with the Powhattan Confederacy among others. Alongside these tribal skirmishes, they had conflicts with the French and Dutch colonists. All of these conflicts were mostly for territory in the regions that were occupied by colonial powers or by the tribal confederacies or solo tribes. These colonial conflicts were shadowed by larger imperial conflicts in Europe, like the Thirty Years’ War, or other regional conflicts that occurred between the different states and empires. 

By the end of the 17th century the colonial powers were politically consolidated in North American territories, but they were not established territorially. That only happened in the next two centuries, and for that to happen a lot of battles and wars would happen and a lot of men and women, colonists and natives, would die.

What do you think of the early colonization of America? Let us know below.

King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York: True Love?

Of all the love stories throughout time, one that is rarely mentioned is that of England’s King Henry VII and his Queen, Elizabeth of York. Here, C. M. Schmidlkofer looks at their marriage, considers whether it was true love, and what happened when one of the couple died.

Elizabeth of York.

The union of King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York in 1486 coincided with the end of the War of the Roses, a series of civil wars between the House of Lancaster and the House of York, rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet fighting for the English throne.

Henry Tudor won the crown and Elizabeth’s hand in marriage, bringing the two factions together and establishing a peaceful realm in the land.

Arranged

While it sounds romantic, marriages at the time were rarely the result of romantic love. They were vehicles for political and familial alliances, cemented further with the resulting children. 

Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage was arranged by their mothers, Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville, for the sole purpose of uniting the Lancasters and Yorks.

And while Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage may have started in the usual way, it is thought the two fell in love over time. 

Elizabeth had been raised to be a dutiful wife and evidence suggests in that she was successful. Admirers cited her beauty, fertility and devotion as the making of a good queen.

Historians cite evidence of a loving, joyful marriage between them. It is reported they showered one another with gifts throughout their union. Elizabeth earned Henry’s love with her loyalty and support and he responded with acts of kindness and concern.

Kings of the day did not typically confer with their queens about matters of state, yet there appears to be evidence Henry gave Elizabeth the power to petition him on behalf of her servants, merchants and others to even resolve issues independently on occasion on matters of law.

When Elizabeth’s brother-in-law, William Courtenay, was charged with treason in 1502 and imprisoned in the Tower, she took to her charge his young children to raise shortly before the arrest. Historians suggest that Henry had come to trust his wife enough to alert her of his intentions regarding Courtenay, showing how confident he was in her loyalty to share a secret of the highest level.

Historians cite an example of their love and trust for each other when their eldest son, Arthur, died at the age of 15 the same year.

Overwrought with emotion over the death, the two fell to each other for comfort, with Elizabeth reminding Henry they were still blessed with a son and two daughters and were still young enough to have more children. And he supported her when, afterwards, she succumbed to grief.

Death

Henry was devastated following Elizabeth’s death, only a year after the birth of a daughter, who also died a short time later. He was reportedly inconsolable, securing himself away for a time, unwilling to accept the solace of comforters.

In what is considered a display of his love for Elizabeth, Henry spent a considerable sum on her funeral. Records show that he spent approximately $4,225, the equivalent of $184,494 today, for opulent processions and services. He spent $845 for Arthur’s final expenses.

Henry VII attempted remarriage several times, searching for a wife that would strengthen England’s political and financial standing.

One potential wife was his own deceased son’s widow, Spanish royal Catherine of Aragon, which caused much concern as she was slated to become the bride of Henry VIII, Henry’s second son, when he came of age.

And while this looks like another political move, Henry VII is thought to have had mercenary motives as well as lustful ones. He wanted to keep Catherine’s dowry in his control and there was speculation he was smitten by her beauty and personality. He also wanted another son, and the young widow could provide that for him.

There aren’t many details of this attraction and even fewer concerning Catherine’s reaction to Henry VII’s interest. Historical novels suggest the King danced and flirted with the teenage girl to the dismay of his advisors, who tried to talk him out of marrying the teenager.

His negotiations for a marriage contract with Catherine’s parents, Queen of Castile Isabella I and King Ferdinand II of Aragon, never materialized as they objected to the union.

Unwilling to return Catherine’s dowry to Ferdinand, King Henry VII moved forward with the marriage of Catherine to Henry VIII in 1509 while he sought other prospects for his own remarriage.

Queen Isabella suggested King Henry VII marry her niece, Joanna of Aragon (Dowager Queen of Naples), but a satisfactory agreement did not materialize.

And finally, Margaret, Archduchess of Austria, declined Henry’s offer of marriage. He spent his remaining years an unmarried man, passing away in 1509, his son Henry VIII becoming King of England, with Catherine of Aragon at his side as Queen.

What do you think Henry VII and Elizabeth? Let us know below.

Now read more from the author here on “Five Amazing Things About King Henry VIII’s ‘Fixer’ - Thomas Cromwell”.