Tales of warriors and elite guards often evoke images of honor, loyalty, and legendary feats. Among these, the Varangian Guard stands out as a formidable force, renowned for their loyalty, discipline, and fierce combat prowess. Originating from the distant lands of Scandinavia, these warriors left an indelible mark on the Byzantine Empire, serving as its elite protectors for centuries. To understand the Varangian Guard, it is vital to explore their origins, composition, duties, and the pivotal role they played in the Byzantine Empire.

Terry Bailey explains.

Here, is a picture of the Varangian Guard per thethe 11th century chronicle of John Skylitzes. Here, the body of Leo V is being dragged to the Hippodrome through the Skyla Gate.

Origins and Formation

Byzantine Emperor Basil II suffered a major defeat against the Bulgarians in 986, at Trajan's Gate, a strategic mountain pass in Bulgaria. The rebels Bardas Sclerus and Bardas Phocas renewed their attempts to supplant Basil and seize the Byzantine throne for themselves. Surrounded by enemies both within and without the empire, Basil desperately needed help and turned to Prince Vladimir of Kiev. Vladimir sent 6,000 Varangian mercenaries to aid Basil.

Thus the Varangian Guard's story began in the turbulent times of the Byzantine Empire. Grappling with external threats and internal strife, foreign mercenaries were vital to the continuation of the empire. It was during this time that the Byzantine Emperor harnessed the potential of the Scandinavian warriors. The term "Varangian" originally referred to Scandinavian and Viking adventurers who ventured far from their homelands in search of riches and glory. These Norsemen hailed from regions encompassing modern-day Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and their reputation as fearsome warriors preceded them across Europe. The Byzantine Emperor saw an opportunity in their martial skills and offered them employment as his bodyguards.

 

Composition and Recruitment

The Varangian Guard was comprised primarily of Norsemen, Swedes, Danes, and later, Anglo-Saxons, forming a diverse force bound by a common purpose. Recruitment into the Varangian Guard offered these warriors lucrative incentives, including generous pay, plunder, and land grants. Additionally, the promise of adventure and the allure of serving a powerful emperor in a distant land appealed to the Viking spirit of exploration and conquest.

To join the Varangian Guard, candidates underwent rigorous selection criteria, including physical prowess, combat skills, and loyalty. Those deemed worthy were sworn into service, pledging allegiance to the Byzantine Emperor and vowing to defend the empire with their lives. Once inducted, Varangian warriors adopted a distinct attire, often adorned with symbols of their Scandinavian heritage, such as runes and Viking motifs.

 

Duties and Responsibilities

The primary duty of the Varangian Guard was to protect the Byzantine Emperor and the imperial family. Stationed in Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, these elite warriors formed an impenetrable shield around the emperor, deterring would-be assassins and safeguarding the throne from internal and external threats. Their presence instilled fear in the hearts of adversaries, earning them a reputation as the emperor's loyal guardians.

Beyond their role as bodyguards, the Varangian Guard played a crucial role in Byzantine military campaigns. Renowned for their ferocity and combat prowess, they served as shock troops in battle, leading the charge against enemy forces with unmatched bravery and determination. Their proficiency in wielding axes, swords, and shields made them formidable adversaries on the battlefield, striking fear into the hearts of their foes.

One notable campaign where the guard was vital to Byzantine victory under the emperor John II Komnenos was at the Battle of Beroia in 1122. The Varangians hacked their way through the enemy's circle of Pecheneg wagons, collapsing the Pecheneg position and causing a general rout in their camp.

In addition to their martial duties, members of the Varangian Guard served as elite palace guards, maintaining order within the imperial court and ensuring the security of key strategic locations. Their presence symbolized the emperor's authority and power, serving as a visible reminder of the empire's military might and prestige.

 

Prominence and Influence

Throughout its existence, the Varangian Guard played a pivotal role in shaping the destiny of the Byzantine Empire. The presence of these elite warriors bolstered the emperor's authority and deterred rebellions and coups, ensuring the stability and continuity of the imperial regime.

Their loyalty to the emperor was unwavering, earning them the trust and admiration of successive rulers who relied on their protection and counsel. Moreover, the Varangian Guard's influence extended beyond the confines of the imperial palace.

As foreign mercenaries serving in a distant land, they brought with them elements of their Scandinavian culture and traditions, enriching the culture of Byzantine society. Their presence in Constantinople contributed to the exchange of ideas, technologies, and customs between the Byzantine Empire and the northern realms of Europe, fostering cross-cultural interactions and mutual understanding.

 

Decline and Legacy

Despite their illustrious history, the fortunes of the Varangian Guard began to wane in the latter years of the Byzantine Empire. The decline of the empire, coupled with internal power struggles and external threats, weakened the once-mighty Varangian Guard. As the Byzantine Empire faced mounting challenges from Seljuk Turks, Crusaders, and other adversaries, the Varangian Guard found themselves overstretched and outnumbered.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 marked the end of an era for the Varangian Guard. With the demise of the Byzantine Empire, the once-vaunted Varangian Guard was disbanded, However, their legacy was immortalized in tales of velour and heroism. Despite their eventual disbandment, the Varangian Guard's impact on Byzantine history and culture remains undeniable evidence of the enduring spirit of the Norse warriors who ventured far from their homelands to carve out a place in history.

Needless to say, the Varangian Guard stands as an enduring legacy of the Norse warriors who served as the elite protectors of the Byzantine Empire. Originating from distant lands, these fierce warriors left an indelible mark on Byzantine history, shaping the destiny of an empire and earning a place of honor in military history. Their loyalty, discipline, and unmatched combat prowess continue to inspire awe and admiration, providing a powerful reminder of the enduring power of the human spirit in the face of adversity.

 

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

 

Note of interest

A renowned figure of the Varangian Guard was Harald Sigurdson (Hardrada), who is well known for his invasion of Northern England in 1066, where he was engaged by Harold Godwinson ruler of England at the Battle at Stamford Bridge.

However, Harald Sigurdson (Hardrada), was struck in the throat by an arrow and killed early in the battle in a state of berserkergang, (berserker rage), wearing no body armor and fighting aggressively with both hands around his sword.

However, Harold Godwinson's victory over Harold Sigurdson, (Hardrada), was short-lived, as only a few weeks later he was defeated by William the Conqueror and killed at the Battle of Hastings when he was struck in the eye by an arrow.

The fact that Harold Godwinson had to make a forced march to fight Hardrada at Stamford Bridge and then move at utmost speed south to meet the Norman invasion, all in less than three weeks, is widely seen as a primary factor in William's victory at Hastings over Godwinson's army.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

A 1998 U.S. Department of Commerce report provided the following assessment on the emergence of the internet:

"The internet's pace of adoption eclipses all other technologies that preceded it. Radio was in existence 38 years before 50 million people tuned in; TV took 13 years to reach that benchmark. Sixteen years after the first PC kit came out, 50 million people were using one. Once it was opened to the general public, the Internet crossed that line in four years".

Here, Felix Debieux returns to the site and considers the military origin of the internet - and the role of the Vietnam War in that.

A DEC PDP-10 computer. Source: Gah4, available here.

Despite the hold that the internet now has on everyday life, it is difficult to imagine it as something that was ever invented. Unlike the car, the telephone, or the aeroplane, the internet by comparison has managed to achieve ubiquity without us being able to point to an obvious creator. Of course, we see traces of the internet in apps, video games and email, but there is nothing we can picture holding, touching, or turning over in our hands for inspection.

Maybe it is the ubiquity of the internet which makes it such a daunting prospect for historians. With so many applications, how would one even begin to trace its origins? Historians might also be put off by the technical workings of the internet – the circuit boards, networks and switches. The truth, however, is that the history of the internet is more straightforward than we might expect. In fact, if it was not for its simplicity, it is arguable that the meteoric success of the internet would never have occurred.

The emergence of the internet is a story of global proportions. Its inventors (yes, there were inventors!) include the French government-sponsored computer network Cyclades, England’s National Physical Laboratory, Xerox, and the University of Hawaii. Normally placed at the foreground of the typical story are the freewheeling creatives and plucky entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley. Here, the internet is typically cast as a great liberating force that helped to decentralise power and spread democracy around the globe.

The glitz of this conventional narrative, however, obscures a much more sinister history explored in great detail by investigative reporter Yasha Levine. In Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet, Levine shifts the focus of the story onto one of its most important and yet consistently overlooked characters: The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). A generously funded research arm of the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPA was born out of America’s insecurities during the Cold War. Its remit grew quickly, however, to encompass a wide array of counterinsurgency and surveillance projects which played a key part in the genesis of the internet.

The best starting point for this story is the Cold War, when ARPA first appears on the scene.

 

The Cold War and ARPA

The origins of the internet are rooted in the heightened international tensions of the Cold War, a period during which the U.S. and Soviet Union vied for technological supremacy. Each boasted a deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons, and populations on both sides lived in fear of surprise attack. In the U.S., paranoia peaked in 1957 with the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik 1. The success of the Soviet’s in reaching space first shattered America’s sense of exceptionalism. Politicians seized on the launch as a sign of U.S. military and technological weakness. How had America fallen behind the reds in something so vital?

President Dwight Eisenhower was vilified for appearing to have fallen asleep at the wheel. Generals and political rivals spun tales of an impending Soviet conquest of Earth and space, and pushed for greater military spending. Even Vice President Richard Nixon publicly criticised Eisenhower, informing business leaders that the technology gap between America and the Soviet Union was too great for them to expect a tax cut. As the public reeled from defeat in the so-called Space Race, Eisenhower knew that the only way to save face was to do something big, bold and very public.

It was against this backdrop that Eisenhower established ARPA in 1958. The idea was straightforward. With a small staff count and a large budget, ARPA would function as a civilian-led unit housed by the Pentagon. It would neither build or run its own research facilities, but instead would operate as an executive management hub that identified priorities and then siphoned the research out to universities, private research institutes, and military contractors. ARPA would bring together some of the top scientific minds in the country, with the aim of keeping American military technology ahead of the communists. One area given priority were the perceived vulnerabilities in U.S. computer communications. Indeed, military commanders were very keen to develop a computer communications system without a central core, and with no obvious headquarters that could easily be knocked out by a single Soviet strike (thus crippling the entire U.S. network).

 

The ARPANET

ARPA was therefore tasked with testing the feasibility of a large-scale computer network. Lawrence Roberts, the first person to have succeeded in connecting two computers, was responsible for developing the network, and collaborated closely with scientist Leonard Kleinrock. By 1969, the first packet-switch network was developed and Kleinrock successfully used it to send messages to another site. The ARPA Network, or ARPANET - the grandfather of the internet as we know it - was born.

Originally, there were only four computers connected when the ARPANET was created. These were located in the computer labs of UCLA (Honeywell DDP-516 computer), Stanford Research Institute (SDS-940 computer), University of California, Santa Barbara (IBM 360/75) and the University of Utah (DEC PDP-10). The first data exchange over this new network was between computers at UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute. On their first attempt to log into Stanford's computer by typing "log win," UCLA researchers crashed their computer after typing the letter “g”.

In time the network would expand, and different models of computer were connected. This gave rise to inevitable compatibility issues. The solution rested on an improved set of protocols called TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) that were designed in 1982. This worked by breaking data into IP (Internet Protocol) packets, akin to individually addressed digital envelopes. TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) then ensured that the packets were delivered from client to server and reassembled in the right sequence.

Through the ARPANET, we see the emergence of several computing innovations which we take for granted today. Notable examples include email (or electronic mail), a system that allows for simple messages to be sent to another person across the network (1971), telnet, a remote connection service for controlling a computer (1972) and file transfer protocol (FTP), which allows information to be sent from one computer to another in bulk (1973).

In its early days, the ARPANET was seen largely as a tool for academic engineers and computer scientists. It linked departments at several universities into a wider network, which by 1973 had expanded to over 30 intuitions in locations as far apart as Hawaii and Norway. While we could choose to end the story of the ARPANET here, it is only by following the roots deeper that we are able to acquire a fuller understanding of how the technology came to be. Indeed, while academic scientists were busy using the ARPANET to establish connections between research sites, it was a conflict taking place thousands of miles away which provided the perfect conditions for the technology to be tested and refined.

 

Vietnam

Some further context is likely to be useful here.  During the Cold War, the U.S. faced regional insurgencies against allied governments. From Algiers to Laos, from Nicaragua to Lebanon, most of these conflicts shared common characteristics. They were born out of local movements, they recruited local fighters, and they were supported by local populations. No matter how many nuclear weapons the U.S. boasted, countering insurgencies of this nature was not something that a conventional military operation was equipped to deal with. There was an obvious need to modernise and expand U.S. military capabilities, the case for which was made very clear by President Kennedy in his 1961 message to Congress:

The Free World’s security can be endangered not only by a nuclear attack, but also by being slowly nibbled away at the periphery, regardless of our strategic power, by forces of subversion, infiltration, intimidation, indirect or non-overt aggression, internal revolution, diplomatic blackmail, guerrilla warfare or a series of limited wars […] we need a greater ability to deal with guerrilla forces, insurrections, and subversion”.

 

In essence, Kennedy envisioned cleverer and more sophisticated ways of fighting communism. What better institution was there than ARPA to develop the modern technological capabilities which the U.S. so desperately needed? In response to Kennedy’s speech, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department drew up plans for a massive programme of covert military, economic, and psychological warfare initiatives to deal with one of America’s key geopolitical problems: the growing insurrection in Vietnam.

Among the biggest beneficiaries in the funding pipeline was ARPA’s Project Agile, a high-tech counterinsurgency programme which aimed to support the government of South Vietnam in researching and developing new techniques for use against the Vietcong. More specifically, Project Agile sought to develop weapons and adapt counterinsurgency gadgets suited to the dense, sweltering jungles of South East Asia. Some of the initiatives in the project included:

§  Testing light combat arms for the South Vietnamese military, which led to the adoption of the AR-15 and M-16 as standard-issue rifles.

§  Developing a light surveillance aircraft that glided silently above the jungle canopy.

§  Formulating field rations and food suited to the hot, wet climate.

§  Developing sophisticated electronic surveillance systems and elaborate efforts to collect all manner of conflict-related intelligence.

§  Working to improve the function of military communication technology in dense rainforest.

§  Developing portable radar installations that could be floated up on a balloon.

Through Project Agile, ARPA would push the boundaries of what contemporaries considered technologically possible. It pioneered electronic surveillance systems that were decades ahead of their time.

Agile was by no means the only ARPA battlefield project. Indeed, among ARPA’s most ambitious initiatives was Project Igloo White, a multi-billion-dollar computerised surveillance barrier. Operated out of a secret air force base in Thailand, the project involved depositing thousands of radio-controlled seismic sensors, microphones, and heat and urine detectors in the jungle. These eavesdropping devices, disguised as sticks or plants and usually dropped from aeroplanes, transmitted signals to a centralised computer control centre which alerted technicians to any movement in the bush. If movement was detected, an air strike was called in and the area was blanketed with bombs and napalm. Igloo White could be described as a giant wireless alarm system that spanned hundreds of miles of jungle. As the US Air Force explained: “we are, in effect, bugging the battlefield”.

Soon we will see how ARPA’s burgeoning surveillance and counterinsurgency expertise fed into the development of the ARPANET. But first it is necessary to understand ARAP’s deepening role in the conflict.

 

Know thy enemy

While the development of high-tech counterinsurgency and surveillance equipment was an important dimension of ARPA’s role in the war, key to our story is the application of the technology to the examination and study of rebellious peoples and their culture. This was the truly visionary part of ARPA’s mandate: to use advanced science not just to develop weapons, but to beat the motivated and well-disciplined Vietnamese insurgents. The idea was to understand why they resisted, to weaken their resolve, to predict insurgency, and to prevent it from maturing. The value of this science to the U.S. military, deployed to a hostile environment which they did not understand, was obvious.

In a step up of its activities, ARPA was given license to figure out how to weaponize anthropology, psychology, and sociology in support of the military’s counterinsurgency work. ARPA doled out millions of dollars to studies of Vietnamese peasants, captured Vietcong fighters, and rebellious hill tribes of northern Thailand. Swarms of ARPA contractors—anthropologists, political scientists, linguists, and sociologists—put poor villages under the microscope. Their work involved measuring, gathering data, interviewing, studying, assessing, and reporting on their inhabitants. As Levine explains, “the intention was to understand the enemy, to know their hopes, their fears, their dreams, their social networks, and their relationships to power”.

Studies commissioned by ARPA contractors sought answers to the questions which nagged at the American psyche: why were North Vietnamese fighters not defecting to our side? What was so appealing about their cause? Don’t they want to live like we do in America? Why was their morale so high? 2,400 interviews of North Vietnamese prisoners and defectors were conducted, generating tens of thousands of pages of intelligence. Perhaps the clearest illustration of ARPA’s application of science to socio-cultural problems was its work on the Strategic Hamlet Programme. The programme was a pacification effort that had been developed as part of Project Agile, and involved the forced resettlement of South Vietnamese peasants from their traditional villages into new areas that were walled off and made “safe” from Vietcong infiltration.

In addition, ARPA funded several projects which sought to pinpoint the precise socio-cultural indicators that could be used to predict when tribes would go insurgent. One initiative involved a team of political scientists and anthropologists sent from UCLA and UC Berkeley to Thailand to map out the religious beliefs, value systems, group dynamics and civil-military relationships of Thai hill tribes, focusing in particular on predictive behaviour. A project report summarised the objective: “to determine the most likely sources of social conflict in north east Thailand, concentrating on those local problems and attitudes which could be exploited by the communists”.

Not content with merely gathering intelligence, ARPA also experimented with how it could shape indigenous populations. For example, one study carried out for ARPA by the CIA-connected American Institutes for Research (AIR) attempted to gauge the effectiveness of counterinsurgency techniques deployed against rebellious hill tribes. Techniques included assassinating tribal leaders, forcibly relocating villages, and using artificially-induced famine to pacify rebellious populations. A 1970 investigation for Ramparts magazine detailed the effects of these brutal counterinsurgency methods on the Meo hill tribe: “conditions in the Meo resettlement villages are harsh, strongly reminiscent of the American Indian reservations of the 19th century. The people lack sufficient rice and water, and corrupt local agents pocket the funds appropriated for the Meo in Bangkok.”

While ARPA’s activities in Vietnam were certainly disturbing, we have yet to explain their relevance to the creation of the ARPANET. An understanding of how ARPA’s science projects were adapted from the jungles of Vietnam and used back home on American citizens will bring us closer to an explanation.

 

Spying at home

To contemporaries, America in this period must have felt like it might explode at any second. Race riots, militant black activism, left-wing student movements, and anti-war protests were rife. In 1968 alone, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were both assassinated, the death of the latter sparking riots across the country. In November the following year, three hundred thousand people descended on Washington D.C. for the largest anti-war protest in American history. Suspicion of communist agitation was high, and U.S. intelligence services focused their resources on weeding out communist troublemakers - both real and alleged.

This climate of suspicion and paranoia afforded ARPA the perfect conditions in which to refine everything it had learned in Vietnam in a domestic setting. Take its work on the Strategic Hamlet Programme. Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the initiative is that it was, at least in part, always intended to serve as a model for counterinsurgency operations elsewhere in the world – including against black Americans living in inner cities back home. This was made explicit in the project proposal:

The potential applicability of the findings in the United States will also receive special attention. In many of our key domestic programs, especially those directed at disadvantaged sub-cultures, the methodological problems are similar to those described in this proposal […] the application of the Thai findings at home constitutes a potentially most significant project contribution”.

 

Once the war in Vietnam had concluded, ARPA researchers returned to the U.S. and began applying the lessons of the programme to the domestic problems of racial and socio-economic inequality.

One of the strongest insights we have into ARPA’s domestic turn comes from a shocking exposé, which dragged the agency’s work out into the sunlight. From 2nd June 1975, NBC correspondent Ford Rowan appeared on the evening news every night for a week to warn millions of viewers that the country’s military had built a sophisticated computer communications network and was using it to spy on Americans:

Our sources say, the Army’s information on thousands of American protesters has been given to the CIA, and some of it is in CIA computers now. We don’t know who gave the order to copy and keep the files. What we do know is that once the files are computerized, the Defense Department’s new technology makes it incredibly easy to move information from one computer to another […] this network links computers at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, more than 20 universities, and a dozen research centres, like the RAND Corporation”.

Rowan was no doubt talking about the ARPANET, and warning his fellow citizens of the threat that its networking capabilities posed to American freedoms. This was a story which Rowan had pieced together from the testimony of whistleblowing ARPA contractors, who had grown increasingly uncomfortable with this new application of the ARPANET. His reporting offers a vital window into how the U.S. defence and intelligence communities were using network technology to snoop on Americans in the very earliest version of the internet. Surveillance was baked into its original design.

A demonstration of the technology in action can be gleaned from its use against communists, both real and alleged, living in American.

 

Targeting communists

One of the most illustrative domestic counterinsurgency and surveillance operations conducted against Americans went by the name CONUS Intel (Continental United States Intelligence). Managed by U.S. Army Intelligence Command, CONUS Intel deployed thousands of undercover agents with the aim of infiltrating anti-war groups, monitoring left-wing activists, and filing reports in a centralised database on millions of U.S. citizens. The scale of CONUS Intel was far reaching. Agents reported on the smallest of protests, monitored labour strikes, and kept detailed notes on union supporters. At the 1968 Democratic National Convention they even tapped the phone of Senator Eugene McCarthy, a vocal critic of the Vietnam War. Agents infiltrated a meeting of Catholic priests who protested the church’s ban on birth control. They spied on the funeral of Martin Luther King, mingling with mourners and recording any discussions they heard. They even infiltrated the 1970 Earth Day festival, photographing and filing reports on anti-pollution activists.

In January 1970, former military intelligence officer and whistleblower Christopher Pyle published an exposé in the Washington Monthly which revealed details of CONUS Intel to the public. “When this program began in the summer of 1965, its purpose was to provide early warning of civil disorders which the Army might be called upon to quell in the summer of 1967,” reported Pyle. “Today, the Army maintains files on the membership, ideology, programs, and practices of virtually every activist political group in the country”. This is identical to the way in which ARPA had curated the lives, behaviours and cultures of Vietnamese insurgents.

Pyle’s exposé went on to describe how CONUS Intel’s surveillance data was encoded onto IBM (International Business Machines Corporation) punch cards and fed into a computer located at the Army Counter Intelligence Corps Centre at Fort Holabird. The centre was equipped with a terminal link that could be used to access almost a hundred different information categories and to print out reports on individual people. As Pyle explained:

In this respect, the Army’s data bank promises to be unique. Unlike similar computers now in use at the FBI’s National Crime Information Center in Washington and New York State’s Identification and Intelligence System in Albany, it will not be restricted to the storage of case histories of persons arrested for, or convicted of, crimes. Rather it will specialize in files devoted exclusively to the descriptions of the lawful political activity of civilians”.

As with Rowan’s exposé, Americans were warned again that their freedoms were under threat. In this case, we see how ARPA’s techniques and technology - which had first been used to predict communist uprisings in Vietnam - were now being applied for precisely the same purpose against perceived domestic enemies. Indeed, the same ARPANET which academics had used to link research sites also provided the intelligence community with some of its earliest network surveillance capabilities. On a fundamental level, the academic and military applications were no different. Weeding out communists required surveillance, intelligence, computers to process the intelligence, and networks to transmit the intelligence between advisors in remote locations and their commanding officers in the Pentagon, Whitehouse, or elsewhere. Surveillance of this kind cannot be separated from either the creation of the ARPANET nor the emergence of the internet.

 

Conclusion

In examining the military origins of the internet we are confronted with a paradigm shift. Over a short span of time, we see how counterinsurgency and surveillance capabilities came to play a much greater role on the battlefield than trained soldiers. ARPA played a critical role in this shift. Indeed, its work on the ARPANET provided the ability to manage counterinsurgency and surveillance operations on an unprecedented scale. The networking technology it provided transformed the way in which enemies were monitored and studied, and the ways in which intelligence was gathered, processed and deployed. While ARPA outwardly preferred to talk up the academic benefits of the ARPANET, we cannot escape the military imperatives at the heart of its development.

Taking this a step further, the development of the ARPANET demonstrates how the boundaries between military and civilian life - already eroded by previous 20th century conflicts - took on a disturbing permanence during the Cold War era. Indeed, technology ostensibly developed for academic use proved highly effective in military operations. In turn, military operations provided the conditions needed for the further experimentation and refinement of the technology. In this context, the fine points of distinction between enemies on the battlefield and civilians back home seemed unimportant. The latter increasingly came to be seen as legitimate targets for counterinsurgency and mass surveillance.

To end on an optimistic note, we should also reflect on the importance of whistleblowers, testimony and exposé. At different points during our story, figures like Ford Rowan and Christopher Pyle were willing – some might even say brave – to call out what they saw as the immoral use of new technology against civil liberties. Their efforts to warn Americans of the dangers of mass surveillance and intelligence gathering played a part in holding those with power to account. This feels particularly important today. In recent years, we have seen the reach of the state dwarfed by the emergence of new players in the form of Big Tech. These companies, and the products and services they provide, have opened up new concerns about the way in which the internet works and who benefits from it. While these concerns are not likely to be resolved any time soon, it is worth remembering how people in the past sought to address the earliest ethical questions of the internet.

 

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

 

 

References

Yasha Levine, Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet (2019)

In the Beginning, There Was Arpanet | Air & Space Forces Magazine (airandspaceforces.com)

Inside DARPA, The Pentagon Agency Whose Technology Has 'Changed the World' : NPR

The Emerging Digital Economy | U.S. Department of Commerce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Hamlet_Program

How the internet was invented | Internet | The Guardian

INTERNET Prehistory: ARPANET Chronology

The Origin and Nature of the US “Military-Industrial Complex”

June 28 this week marks the 110th anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The assassination was one of history's greatest turning points, putting into play the diplomatic crisis that led to the First World War. However, it happened by accident, as a result of a whole series of mistakes and missed opportunities.

Alan Bardos, author of a related novel (Amazon US | Amazon UK) explains.

A depiction of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo. From Domenica del Corriere, by Achille Beltrame.

Oskar Potiorek

Bosnia and Herzegovina was a hotly disputed territory in 1914. It had been annexed by the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in 1910 from the crumbling Ottoman Empire, but was also claimed by neighboring Serbia and had a growing nationalist movement amongst its youth who wanted it to be part of a South Slav state. The decision to send the crown prince of Austro-Hungary into such an unstable region, to attend army maneuvers, was largely made in an attempt to strengthen the monarchy’s rule; charming the local population and demonstrating its military might.

The security for Franz Ferdinand’s visit fell to the military governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, General Oskar Potiorek. Potiorek wanted to become the Chief of the General Staff and saw the visit as an opportunity to stake his claim. Franz Ferdinand was a fastidious man, prone to fits of rage and was known as ‘The Ogre’ in court circles. A single error could have finished the governor’s career. The Archduke had already blocked Potiorek’s promotion, twice.

Potiorek paid close attention to every aspect of the Archduke’s needs during the visit. He had an extraordinary eye for detail. He over saw all arrangements, from ensuring that the Archduke’s wine would be served at the correct temperature, to building him a private chapel.

Nothing was left to chance, that is except the security of Franz Ferdinand’s visit to Sarajevo. Austro-Hungarian intelligence was aware of plots against Archduke Ferdinand and the danger posed by Serbia who were attempting to resist Austro-Hungarian expansion in the region. There was however no definite evidence of a plot against Archduke Franz Ferdinand, threats of this kind were not unusual in the increasingly volatile Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

 

A schoolboy conspiracy

Unlike other areas of the Monarchy there had not been any violence attributed to nationalism in Bosnia. Potiorek did not recognize the growing nationalism among the youth that had inspired a Young Bosnia Movement and the assassins.

This reflects the Austro-Hungarian Government’s attitude to the threat placed by the nationalist movements in their Balkan provinces. No attempt was made to counter them because the security services did not believe they existed. The idea that half-starved schoolboys could be any kind of a threat was too ridiculous to contemplate.

There were officials in Sarajevo who did understand the growing danger from these “schoolboys” and that they were working with Serbia. The police commissioner for Sarajevo, Dr Edmund Gerde, advised Potirok that there was a conspiracy, two weeks before Franz Ferdinand’s visit. Dr Sunaric the vice president of the Bosnian Parliament urged Potiorek to cancel the archducal visit because of possible Young Bosnia activity. Potiorek dismissed these warnings.

Archduke Ferdinand himself was warned about the possibility of an assassination attempt, but travelled to Bosnia nonetheless, albeit reluctantly. Franz Ferdinand’s wife Sophie insisted on accompanying her husband when she heard of the threats, as she did not believe anyone would shoot at him if a woman was by his side.

The night before the Royal couple were due to visit Sarajevo, Sophie met Doctor Sunaric at a state dinner and told him that he was wrong. Wherever they had been, ‘everyone had greeted them with great friendliness’. Doctor Sunaric responded ‘Your Highness, I pray to God that when I have the honor of meeting you again tomorrow night, you can repeat those words to me.’

One of the most tragic aspects of the whole affair is that Archduke Franz Ferdinand decided to cancel the visit to Sarajevo following the state dinner, possibly having been warned by the local police, but he was persuaded to complete the planned itinerary by Colonel von Merizzi, Governor Potiorek’s aide-de-camp.

 

Sarajevo, Sunday morning, June 28, 1914

Potiorek left the protection of Franz Ferdinand largely to the officers of the Archduke’s entourage. There were only 120 gendarmes lining the streets, to provide security in a city of over 50,000 people. Bringing in additional policemen was deemed to be too expensive, as all of the budget had gone on building the chapel for Franz Ferdinand. Potiorek also refused to use the troops from the maneuvers as extra security. He felt a strong military presence would offend the local inhabitants and the soldiers did not have their dress uniforms.

Consequently one of the conspirators in the assassination plot, Nedeljko Cabrinovic, was able to throw a bomb at the Archduke’s car as it drove to the official reception. The bomb missed, but when the motorcade reached the reception Potiorek took full responsibility and assured Franz Ferdinand that the danger had passed.

Potiorek spurred the suggestion that troops be used to clear the streets stating, ‘do you think that Sarajevo is full of assassins?’ Potiorek did suggest cutting the Archduke’s itinerary short and proceeding to his residence for lunch. To avoid any further danger in the narrow backstreets that the Archduke was scheduled to drive through.

The Archduke however wanted to visit the wounded from the earlier bombing. In the ensuing confusion the change of route was not communicated to the driver of the first car in the Archduke’s motorcade. When the motorcade left the reception the lead driver stuck to the original route and turned into a backstreet.

As the Archduke’s car began to follow, Potiorek realized the mistake and ordered the driver to stop. In front of 19 year old Gavrilo Princip, who fired twice with a Browning model semi-automatic pistol, killing the Archduke and Sophie, and sparking the First World War.

The fact that Potiorek was in the car and that Princip claimed to be shooting at him when he shot Franz Ferdinand’s wife, has meant that Potiorek was never held to account for his actions. The blame was placed on Serbia. The assassins were aided by elements in Serbian intelligence, but if Potiorek had followed the advice of his police chief; or acted decisively following the first assassination attempt, Gavrilo Princip and the ensuing war could have been stopped.

           

The events depicted in this article inspired Alan Bardos’ novel ‘The Assassins’, which can be purchased here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

 

Sources

'One Morning in Sarajevo', David James Smith

'The Archduke and the Assassin', Lavender Cassels

'The Road To Sarajevo', Vadmire Dedijer

'The Desperate Act', Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht.

'Archduke of Sarajevo: The Romance & Tragedy of Franz Ferdinand of Austria', Gordon Brook-Shepherd

'The Assassination of the Archduke', Greg King & Sue Woolmans

One man links two of the most notorious crimes of the nineteenth century – an Irish American by the name of Francis Tumblety. It stretches credulity but this individual, arrested in 1865, as a suspected member of the gang behind the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, was also detained by Scotland Yard in 1888 over the Jack the Ripper case.

Tony McMahon, author of a related book (Amazon US | Amazon UK), explains.

Francis Tumblety in a military uniform.

If the story rested on the bizarre coincidence of the arrests in 1865 and 1888, that would be compelling enough. But during my research, I encountered an extraordinary figure whose life consisted of a series of crises and scandals. It included two manslaughter cases; violent assaults; arrests for gross indecency; and accusations of business fraud. Then add to that being arrested as a suspected co-conspirator in the Lincoln assassination and Scotland Yard drawing up charges in relation to the Jack the Ripper case.

Even after the 1888 arrest over the Ripper murders - when Tumblety jumped bail and escaped to New York - he was soon in court for striking a young man while Manhattan later shuddered in horror at news of a copycat Ripper killing in a hotel. New Yorkers were convinced the Whitechapel murderer was in their midst and the newspapers pointed an accusing finger at Tumblety.

Tumblety did not operate in the shadows. Far from it. Styling himself the Indian Herb Doctor, he was a high-profile medicine man skillfully using the emerging mass circulation newspapers to transform himself into a nineteenth century celebrity, known throughout north America (Canada and the United States). In fact, his celebrity, and the networks he developed in high society, played a key role in protecting him from imprisonment on multiple occasions. It may also explain why he was not extradited from the United States to face the Ripper charges in London after absconding.

 

Tumblety’s sexuality

As an LGBT historian, I am fascinated by Tumblety’s very open homosexuality. The term was yet to be popularized in the mid-nineteenth century but nobody needed sodomy to be defined. Gay men were recognized in clubs, theatres, and taverns. Journalists commented on the doctor's nocturnal cruising and very literal clashes with younger men he picked up, then fell out with bitterly. He supplied great copy for the gossip columns of the newspapers given his repeat brushes with the police and courts. For decades he was tailed by the Pinkerton detective agency who seemed obsessed by the doctor’s man problems.

While he has been recognized as a Ripper suspect since his arrest, Tumblety’s sexuality has often been skirted around, maybe to save the blushes of some Ripperologists. Also because it raises awkward questions about his motives in the Ripper murders, which I set out to tackle in the book. To understand the kind of life he led and how he came to be implicated in these two enormous crimes, it’s impossible not to put his homosexuality center stage.

Tumblety claimed to be disinterested in the opposite sex after marrying a woman he then discovered was a prostitute. I suspect this story, told by Tumblety in his multi-edition slim autobiography, may not be true. It offered a cover for his same sex preference coupled with a violent misogyny noted by the American police and shared by them with Scotland Yard. The London police were further convinced he was Jack the Ripper after reports in the American press that Tumblety owned a grotesque collection of uteruses in glass jars which he displayed at his all-male dinner parties. The Ripper’s second victim, Annie Chapman, was missing her uterus when her body was discovered.

 

America

This intriguing figure began his life in Dublin but like many Irish at the time, including many of my ancestors, he boarded a ship for a new life in America. His family set up home in Rochester, New York, and the Irish teenager lived in miserable poverty. But he was growing up in a country experiencing rapid growth where hucksters and opportunists changed their backstory, adopted a glamorous persona, and fleeced the vulnerable, making considerable fortunes. This was capitalism at its most unregulated and freewheeling.

Clearly not without talent, Tumblety set himself up as a completely unqualified doctor with a flamboyant persona. To promote his dubious medical business, he processed down main street on a circus horse with a plumed helmet and assistant dressed as a native American handing out leaflets. With bombastic language, he declared war on mainstream physicians and claimed his herbal cures could tackle everything from pimples to cancer.

The association with Lincoln began with an astonishing appearance on horseback behind Lincoln’s carriage when the newly elected president processed through New York, having just been elected president in early 1861. Journalists were aghast at this unlikely vision, as the herb doctor was embroiled at that moment in a rather sordid legal case involving one of his young male assistants. Yet Tumblety ignored the brouhaha and set out to ingratiate himself with the president by moving to Washington DC, attending Lincoln’s public appearances.

However, he seems to have been playing a double game. I’ve uncovered evidence linking Tumblety to at least two members of the gang that plotted Lincoln’s assassination and a newspaper article from 1914 that proves he knew the man who fired the fatal bullet: John Wilkes Booth. Little wonder that Tumblety was arrested and held at the Old Capitol Prison in the aftermath of the presidential slaying. Somehow, though, he was able to walk out of jail a free man.

 

After Lincoln

The quarter of a century between the Lincoln killing and the Ripper murders saw Tumblety flitting between America and Europe. The police and Pinkerton agency continuing to keep tabs on this strange character. I believe he contracted syphilis at some point and that the condition impacted both his physical and mental health as we approach 1888. The alleged manslaughter of a patient in Liverpool led to no conviction, possibly the result of an out-of-court settlement. Then the herb doctor was arrested over gross indecency with four men. While he was being held, Scotland Yard changed tack, realizing he was Jack the Ripper.

Without giving too much away, he ends up back in the United States and it’s his last years, neglected up until now, that are very revelatory. There is clear proof that Tumblety had cultivated networks in the Irish American diaspora and what passed for a gay community. In two cases, respected political figures rescued him from criminal convictions – but for what reason?

 

Conclusion

American journalists had no doubt that Tumblety was the notorious serial killer who had struck terror into the streets of Whitechapel. I share some ideas, based on his life experience and character, that explain why a gay man would have committed such heinous acts. His sexuality does not rule him out at all. Reporters speculated on other crimes that he may have been linked to and the possibility that one of his “valets” – young male employees – could have helped him on his murder spree.

To me, Tumblety presents a far more intriguing prospect as Jack the Ripper than a rogue member of the Royal Family or a conspiracy by Freemasons. He was a rags to riches story that guides us through Civil War America, the Gilded Age, and on to the streets of Victorian London. His life was turbulent, violent, and scandalous. What he did was unforgivable and sheds so much light on the sexual politics, media landscape, and precarious existence that millions of people led during this period.

 

Tony McMahon’s new book Jack the Ripper and Abraham Lincoln: One man links the two greatest crimes of the 19th century is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

In the twilight of the 19th century, the world watched as China convulsed in a tumultuous uprising known as the Boxer Rebellion. This cataclysmic event, which erupted in 1900, was not merely a clash of arms, but a collision of civilizations, ideologies, and ambitions. At its core, the Boxer Rebellion was a struggle for the soul of China, pitting traditional values against encroaching foreign influence.

Here Terry Bailey delves into the multifaceted dimensions of the rebellion, outline the foreign powers involved, their political aims, the valor recognized through decorations like the Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor, and the perspectives of the Chinese Boxers, including the pivotal role played by Empress Dowager Cixi.

The photo shows foreign forces inside the Forbidden City in Beijing in November 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion.

Origins of the Boxer Movement

To comprehend the Boxer Rebellion, one must understand its roots deeply entwined with China's history of internal strife and external pressures. The late 19th century saw China reeling from a series of humiliations at the hands of foreign powers, compounded by internal turmoil and economic distress. The Boxers, officially known as the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, emerged as a grassroots movement fueled by resentment towards foreign domination and perceived cultural erosion.

 

The International Response

As the Boxer movement gained momentum, foreign nationals and missionaries in China became targets of violent attacks, triggering international alarm. In response, an Eight-Nation Alliance composed of troops from Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom intervened to quell the rebellion and protect their interests in China.

Each member of the alliance had its own political aims and agendas driving their involvement in the conflict. For instance, European powers sought to safeguard their economic privileges and spheres of influence in China, while Japan seized the opportunity to assert its growing regional power. The United States, keen on preserving its ‘Open Door Policy’ and ensuring the safety of American citizens, also joined the intervention force.

 

The Boxers' Perspective

Contrary to portrayals by Western accounts, the Boxers were not merely mindless fanatics but individuals driven by a complex blend of nationalism, religious fervor, and socio-economic grievances. Comprising primarily of peasants and martial artists, the Boxers perceived themselves as defenders of Chinese tradition against the encroachment of Western imperialism and Christian missionary activities.

For the Boxers, their struggle was not just against foreign powers but also against the corruption and decadence of the Qing dynasty. Their rallying cry, "Support the Qing, destroy the foreigners," encapsulated their belief in restoring China's glory by expelling foreign influence and purging the nation of perceived traitors.

 

Empress Dowager Cixi's Role

At the heart of the Boxer Rebellion stood Empress Dowager Cixi, a formidable figure whose political maneuvering would shape the course of Chinese history. Initially hesitant to openly support the Boxers, Cixi eventually threw her support behind the movement, viewing it as a means to bolster her own waning authority and expel foreign influences.

Cixi's decision to align with the Boxers proved fateful, leading to a declaration of war against the Eight-Nation Alliance. Despite her efforts to galvanize Chinese forces, the coalition's superior firepower and logistical prowess ultimately overwhelmed the Boxer forces and brought about the collapse of their rebellion.

 

Legacy of the Boxer Rebellion

The Boxer Rebellion left an indelible mark on China and the world, reshaping geopolitical dynamics and fueling nationalist sentiments. While the intervention of the Eight-Nation Alliance temporarily quelled the uprising, it also deepened China's resentment towards foreign powers and sowed the seeds of future conflicts, in addition to further internal strife.

The rebellion's aftermath witnessed the imposition of harsh indemnities on China, further weakening the Qing dynasty and hastening its eventual collapse. The events of 1900 served as a stark reminder of the perils of imperialism and the enduring struggle for national sovereignty.

Sun Yat-sen, known in China as Sun Zhongshan was the eventual galvanized the popular overthrow of the imperial dynasty through his force of personality. Which occurred on the 19th of October 1911. At the time of the eventual successful overthrow of the 2000 year old dynasty Sun Yat-sen was in America attempting to raise funds for the future of China.

He was a highly educated individual who was strongly opposed to the actions of the Boxers before and during the rebellion, knowing that violent offensive action against the strong foreign powers would be detrimental to China’s future.

 

In conclusion

The Boxer Rebellion is an outstanding example of the complexities of history, where competing interests, ideologies, and aspirations converge in a crucible of conflict. Reflecting on this turbulent chapter, it is possible to be reminded of the enduring quest for dignity, autonomy, and justice that transcends borders and generations.

 

Additionally, the history of the Boxer rebellion should provide a stark reminder for any nation that decides to intervene into another nation’s concerns where the intervening power has hidden political agenda residing below the surface.

This reminder should be dealt to all nations, not only where a political fueled agenda influences an intervention by military force but any intervention that the preservation and protection of life is not the prime concern of military action.

 

“war is a continuation of politics by other means,”

Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz, 1st of July 1780 – 16th of November 1831

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients

The Boxer Rebellion witnessed acts of exceptional bravery and heroism, recognized through prestigious military decorations such as the Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor, for soldier of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America.

 

Victoria Cross recipients

General Sir Lewis Stratford Tollemache Halliday VC, KCB

General Sir Lewis Stratford Tollemache Halliday VC, KCB (14th of May 1870 – 9th of March 1966) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Rank when awarded VC (and later highest rank): Captain RMLI, (later General)

 

His citation reads:

Captain (now Brevet Major) Lewis Stratford Tollemache Halliday, Royal Marine Light Infantry, on the 24th June, 1900. The enemy, consisting of Boxers and Imperial troops, made a fierce attack on the west wall of the British Legation, setting fire to the West Gate of the south stable quarters, and taking cover in the buildings which adjoined the wall. The fire, which spread to part of the stables, and through which and the smoke a galling fire was kept up by the Imperial troops, was with difficulty extinguished, and as the presence of the enemy in the adjoining buildings was a grave danger to the Legation, a sortie was organized to drive them out.

 A hole was made in the Legation Wall, and Captain Halliday, in command of twenty Marines, led the way into the buildings and almost immediately engaged a party of the enemy. Before he could use his revolver, however, he was shot through the left shoulder, at point blank range, the bullet fracturing the shoulder and carrying away part of the lung.

Notwithstanding the extremely severe nature of his wound, Captain Halliday killed three of his assailants, and telling his men to "carry on and not mind him," walked back unaided to the hospital, refusing escort and aid so as not to diminish the number of men engaged in the sortie.

 

Commander Basil John Douglas Guy VC, DSO

Commander Basil John Douglas Guy VC, DSO (9th of May 1882 – 29th of December 1956) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Rank when awarded VC (and later highest rank): Midshipman RN, (later Commander)

 

London Gazette citation

“Mr, (read Midshipman), Basil John Douglas Guy, Midshipman of Her Majesty’s Ship “Barfleur”.

 

On 19th July, 1900, during the attack on Tientsin City, a very heavy cross-fire was brought to bear on the Naval Brigade, and there were several casualties. Among those who fell was one A.B.I. McCarthy, shot about 50 yards short of cover.

Mr. Guy stopped with him, and, after seeing what the injury was, attempted to lift him up and carry him in, but was not strong enough, so after binding up the wound Mr. Guy ran to get assistance.

In the meantime the remainder of the company had passed in under cover, and the entire fire from the city wall was concentrated on Mr. Guy and McCarthy. Shortly after Mr. Guy had got in under cover the stretchers came up, and again Mr. Guy dashed out and assisted in placing McCarthy on the stretcher and carrying him in.

The wounded man was however shot dead just as he was being carried into safety. During the whole time a very heavy fire had been brought to bear upon Mr. Guy, and the ground around him was absolutely ploughed up.

 

Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients

During the Boxer rebellion, 59 American servicemen received the Medal of Honor for their actions. Four of these were for Army personnel, twenty-two went to navy sailors and the remaining thirty-three went to Marines. Harry Fisher was the first Marine to receive the medal posthumously and the only posthumous recipient for this conflict.

 

Side note:

Total number Victoria Crosses awarded

Since the inception of the Victoria Cross in 1856, there have been 1,358 VCs awarded. This total includes three bars granted to soldiers who won a second VC and the cross awarded to the unknown American soldier.

The most recent was awarded to Lance Corporal Joshua Leakey of 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment, whose VC was gazetted in February 2015, following an action in Afghanistan on 22nd of August 2013, this information was correct at the time of writing.

 

Total number of Congressional Medal of Honor, (MOH), awarded

Since the inception of the MOH in, 1861 there have been 3,536 MOH awarded.

The most recent was awarded was made to former Army Capt. Larry L. Taylor during a ceremony at the White House, by President Joe Biden, Sept. 5, 2023, this information was correct at the time of writing.

The Medal of Honor was introduced for the Naval Service in 1861, followed in 1862 a version for the Army.

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were a series of judicial procedures led by the Roman Catholic Church in the later Middle Ages in response to movements that the Church considered heretical.  Here, Jeb Smith continues his series by looking at just who the inquisitors were.

Part 1 on an introduction to the inquisitions is here.

A depiction of Bernard Gui receiving a blessing from Pope John XXII.

It is sometimes portrayed that whenever an Inquisitor came to a district the people ran and hid for their lives, fearing an overzealous murderous madman who falsely accused anyone who floats! But nearly the opposite is true. The people desired and even celebrated the death of condemned heretics. Even an accused heretic would feel safer with an Inquisitor than in the hands of a mob.

Contrary to popular belief, Inquisitors only had authority over baptized Christians and did not investigate Jews, Muslims, or pagans. Further, the death penalty was typically only used in specific cases. For the most part, those who were considered heretics received less severe punishments, such as penances, confiscation of property or, in the worst cases, imprisonment. Instances of the death penalty were rare and usually limited to the most zealously unrepentant among those investigated.

Generally, the people pushed for authorities, lords, and the Church to deal with heretics among them; most of the authorities only did so “reluctantly.”[1] The ordeal was more of a “will of the people,” a democratic reaction to fear, as the people beseeched authorities to ease their concerns. Concern over God’s judgment on the realm if they allowed heresy to spread, and other motivators,[2] led emotional mobs to accusing and murdering innocents for heresy or witchcraft without trials. The heretic lacked rights and protections enjoyed by faithful Catholics. Angry mobs brought supposed heretics to court, seeking swift punishment, which too often was granted by the courts and rulers. And so, desiring to put a stop to it, the Church sent out trained authorities to “inquire” into these claims and ensure a fair trial.[3] A mid-13th century Inquisitor manual declares, “To no one do we deny a legitimate defense,” and the same manual stated, “we do not proceed to the condemnation of anyone without clear and evident proof or without his own confession, nor God permitting, will we do so.”[4] The statement emphasizes the importance of fair and just trials.

 

Fair outsiders

Having a fair and impartial outsider who is trained and knowledgeable about conducting trials can make a significant difference in saving lives from enraged mobs. An excellent example of this is during the middle of the witch craze hysteria in 1612 when Spanish inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías investigated 1,802 people accused of witchcraft and, after careful examination of their claimed magical powers and alleged sex with demons, declared, “I have not found even indications from which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has really occurred.”[5] Had these accused individuals been left to the mercy of an angry and fearful mob, it is unlikely that many would have survived.

In many instances, the inquisitors were able to save lives; overall, it is hard not to see them as doing so. For example, in 1256, the inquisitors were able to save Jews who had been falsely accused of ritual murder.[6] There were, of course, overzealous Inquisitors. One such figure was Robert the Dominican, who during the 13th century sent 180 heretics to the stake along with a local bishop who gave them their freedom. However, for his actions Robert was suspended by the Pope and imprisoned for life.[7] Also, during the Middle Ages, local bishops and lords complained about the Inquisitor Conrad of Marburg’s excessive use of torture and heavy punishments; the Inquisitor was eventually assassinated for his abuses.

The investigators tried to avoid punishing the accused and guided them to avoid punishment. Professor Rodney Stark wrote, “It was the inquisition that prevented the murderous witch craze, which flourished...during the sixteenth and seventeenth century...instead of burning witches, the inquisitors sent a few people to be hanged because they had burned witches.”[8] It was the Catholic Clergy that first stamped out the witch craze and were first skeptical of it.[9]

 

Debate

Inquisitors would engage in ongoing and lengthy debates with Jews who had relapsed; these were not hasty trials and verdicts but rather actual investigations, inquiries into the mind of the heretic to render accurate judgments, the exact opposite of emotional mob outrage.[10]

Contrary to popular portrayals, the Inquisitor’s job was not to seek out and destroy heretics; their goal was to ensure a fair trial for the accused and bring them back to the Catholic fold. Medieval scholar Thomas Madden tells us that the “Inquisitions was originally set up to save lives.”[11] They first sought to correct false beliefs and cause the heretic to repent. In 1206, a Papal Bull stated the Church must “go humbly in search of heretics and lead them out of error.”[12]Most of the cases of heresy were simply misunderstood positions that were quickly corrected by the trained Inquisitor, and the cases dismissed.[13] The most common punishments (or penances) for heresy included fasting, pilgrimage, wearing a yellow cross in public, or scourging. As previously emphasized, very few heretics received the death penalty. A medieval guide by Saint Raymond of Peñafort described multiple levels of heresy, from those who listened to them preach, to those who helped, to those who defended the heresy. Only unrepented defenders were set to receive the death penalty.

 

Bernard Gui

The most famous inquisitor of the medieval period was Bernard Gui, who presided over 930 cases where the accused were found guilty of heresy, but sent only 42 people to the secular authorities for execution.[14] Willful heresy was not at all common.  Giving a heretic over to the local authorities for capital punishment was “an act of desperation.”[15] It was a last resort taken only after the Inquisitor failed to convert his subject. Professor Edward Peters studied the manuals of the Inquisitors and remarked that the procedures employed by them against heretics were “not from zeal for righteous vengeance, but out of love of correcting an erring brother”[16] and “the essential purpose of the Inquisition was to save the souls of heretics and those close to them and to protect the unity of the church.”[17]

The Church prioritized letting the guilty go free over falsely condemning the innocent. This meant that there must be substantial evidence or a genuine confession that proves the accused’s guilt beyond doubt. Historian Will Durant wrote, “In general the inquisitors were instructed that it was better to let the guilty escape than to condemn the innocent, and that they must have either clear proof or a confession.”[18]

Further, the Church and its servants, the Inquisitors, never executed a single heretic directly. They would however give up their rescue mission when a heretic remained unrepentant and defiant. Instead, they would turn them over to local authorities, who would condemn them to death.[19] Heretics were only put to death after a long, unrepentant period of maintaining their stance.[20]

 

Repentance

By setting up their courts, inquisitors enabled heretics to legally repent, be protected by the Church, have a fair trial, and avoid mob violence. The Inquisitor sought to prevent guilty verdicts and encourage repentance; they were the heretics’ friend, not their enemy as commonly believed. Likewise, Inquisitors never forced anyone to convert to Catholicism. The Inquisitors made sure that the accused fully understood and acknowledged that their beliefs were heretical, and that they persisted in holding them. During the interview process, the Inquisitors were often willing to meet with the accused on multiple occasions over several years in an attempt to dissuade them from facing trial.

Originally, Bishops would determine if the accused were heretics, and they would move on, not staying in one place. It was common for those accused of heresy or questioned by the Inquisitor to inform other heretics in the town of the Inquisitor’s arrival, leading to the heretics fleeing the area to escape interrogation.

Inquisitors came to an area, announced they were there, and gave a grace period (where heretics could confess and repent and be forgiven) of 30-40 days – they would also teach and preach the faith. The most well-known Inquisitor of the medieval period, Bernard Gui, stated in his Inquisitors’ manual that heretics should receive a written warning and one year to repent.[21] After the grace period was over, the people would bring one accused of heresy (Inquisitors did not hunt them down, and those who accused others would face a penalty if the accused were not actually guilty), and the evidence was gathered to bring a heretic to court where they would be tried. The defendant could gather evidence (and witnesses), and everything said was recorded and written down. If they were found guilty, the inquisitors would try to show the heretic why they are wrong and why their soul is in danger and try to bring them back.

The heretics received a written notice containing accusations before being charged. Heretics were protected from personal enemies, who couldn’t testify due to bias.[22] False witnesses who accused others faced a lifetime in prison on bread and water as a form of penance.[23] After admitting guilt, heretics voluntarily went to the Inquisitor’s prison instead of secular ones. They were not shackled and dragged into the Inquisitor’s custody; they selected this option for better conditions.[24]

Those who were accused of sorcery and witchcraft sought out the more forgiving Inquisitor courts, as they were typically given a light punishment for their offenses, similar to heretics. For punishment, heretics who confessed their guilt were usually given the penance of giving alms, perhaps going on a pilgrimage, or wearing a yellow cloth with a cross for a specified period.

During medieval times, people believed that lying would lead to punishment from God. As a result, individuals were often trusted when they gave their word, as breaking the commandment against lying under oath (Exodus 20:16) was seen as a serious offense. Those who falsely accused others of heresy were warned that if they lied, they themselves would be punished not just by the Inquisitors, but by God.

The Inquisitor prisons were created to mimic monastic isolation as a means of repentance and atonement for deviating from God. Those who were imprisoned were permitted to have visitors and communicate with others, and minor offenders were even granted gifts and time off.

 

Torture

The use of torture during the Inquisitions has been greatly exaggerated, and many other related misunderstandings have endured.  For example, torture was not used by the Church until it was reintroduced through Roman law, and secular courts used torture before the Church first approved it in 1252.[25] Inquisitors then began using it, but only when there was substantial evidence of heresy and no confession was given. Most inquisitors chose not to utilize torture, and many questioned its usefulness. Back in 866, Pope Nicholas I had written, “A confession must be voluntary and not forced. By means of torture an innocent man may suffer to the uttermost without making any avowal—in such a case what a crime for the judge! Or a person may be subdued by pain, and acknowledge himself guilty, though he be innocent—which throws an equally great sin upon the tribunal.”[26] The use of torture was also regulated; historian Will Durant wrote, “The popes advised that torture should be a last resort, should be applied only once, and should be kept ‘this side of loss of limb and danger of death.’”[27]The torturers were not viewed with distaste by society but instead accepted as a necessary evil.[28] The modern Catholic Church has since regretted its involvement in torture during the Inquisitions.[29]

The Inquisitors were not like the typical portrayal of angry, bloodthirsty lunatics enjoying torture. In fact, they were often educated and morally upright men who were seeking the truth. The previously-mentioned Bernard Gui, one of the most well-known Inquisitors, believed that an Inquisitor should be honest, maintain self-control at all times, and proceed slowly in his legal cases to arrive at the best possible judgment.[30]

Torture could only be used once during the interrogation process, and a local priest, Inquisitor, doctor, and, at times, local bishop must be present for it. Although the image of dark dungeons and secret trials, torture and murders is commonly shared, everything was actually written down and recorded. Two witnesses had to observe, and a notary or scribe had to authenticate the exchanges. There were often many witnesses present, for example, those listed during the "Confession of Arnaud  Gélis" were "in the presence of the religious persons my lord Germain de Castelnau, archdeacon of the church of Pamiers, Brother Gaillard de Pomiès, brother Arnaud du Carla of the order of Preachers of the convent of Pamiers, Brother Jean Estève, of the same order, companion of my said lord inquisitor, and Brother David, monk of Fontfroide, witnesse to the preceding, and of Masters Guillaume Peyre-Barthe, notary of my lord bishop and Barthélemy Adalbert, public notary by royal authority and the charge of the inquistor, who were present at all the proceedings of this day and approved them."[31]There were times when over a dozen people were involved as witnesses.[32]

Torture was only used when a guilty verdict seemed inevitable but the guilty refused to confess. Further, confessions made under torture must be repeated the next day without the use of torture. Neither the death penalty nor torture were standard in the Middle Ages; French historian Régine Pernoud states, “Of the nine hundred and thirty convictions recorded by the inquisitor Berard Gui during his career, those involving the death penalty total forty two. As for torture, one finds only three cases when it was applied for certain, during the whole history of the Inquisition in Languedoc.”[33]

Torture was not a form of punishment; it was only to bring forth truth. Steve Weidenkopf explained, “In the medieval inquisitor courts, torture was never used as a punishment for heresy ...not approved until 1252... and never became common...several groups of people were automatically exempted, including children, the elderly, pregnant women, knights, members of the nobility, and in some cases clergy.”[34]

 

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

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

 

 

Bibliography

-Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. New York, London: J.M. Dent; E.P. Dutton, 1910.

-Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Dorset Press, 1992.

-Carroll, Warren H. 1993. The Glory of Christendom. N.p.: Christendom Press.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated. Crown Publishing Group, 1995.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.

-Davis, Michael Warren. The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative Isn't Enough. Regnery Gateway, 2021.

-Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization). Simon & Schuster, 1980.

-Ferrara, Christopher A. 2012. Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. N.p.: Angelico Press.

-Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

-Holmes, George, ed. 1988. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

-Jarrett, Bede. 2007. Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200-1500. N.p.: Archivum Press.

-Jones, Andrew W. 2017. Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX. N.p.: Emmaus Academic.

-Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 2014.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001

-L. PLUNKET, IERNE L. 1922. EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai, England: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

-Madden, Thomas, director. “The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.” 2008.

-Madden, Thomas. “The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture.” The Great Courses Series, 2019.

-The following citation were derived from Medieval Sourcebook Fordham University (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler "The Drunkard" of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)(“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”) (GUI, BERNARD, and Translation by David Burr. “BERNARD GUI: INQUISITOR'S MANUAL.”.)(Schroeder, H. J., translator. The Disciplinary Decrees of the Ecumenical Counci,. St. Louis:, B. Herder Book Co., 1937).(Agobard of Lyons, and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);.Agobard of Lyons (9th Century): On Hail and Thunder.”)

-Pernoud, Regine. Glory of the Medieval World. Dobson Books Ltd, 1950.

-Peters, Edward. Inquisition. University of California Press, 1989.

-Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Wiley, 2006.

-Smith, Jeb. 2024. Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty.

-Smith, Jeb. 2023. The Road Goes Ever On and On. N.p.: Christian Faith Publishing, Incorporated.

-Stark, Rodney. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. Templeton Press, 2017.

-Thatcher, Oliver J. “The Library of Original Sources - Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp. 211-239.” Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co, 1901.

-Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475: Formerly entitled a History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500. 4th ed., Knopf, 1983.

-Weidenkompf, Steve, director. The Real Story of the Inquisitions. Catholic Answers.

-Weidenkopf, Steve. The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths. Catholic Answers, Incorporated, 2017

-Wickham, Chris. Medieval Europe. Yale University Press, 2017.


[1] (Durant 1950, 777-778)

[2] (Smith 2024)

[3] (Davis 2021 30-31)

[4] (Peters 59)

[5] (Burman 182)

[6] (Durant 1950, 780)

[7] (Durant 1950, 780) (Burman 38)

[8] (Stark 6)

[9] (Stark 127-128)

[10] (“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”)

[11] (Madden 2019)

[12] (Burman 27)

[13] (Madden 2019)

[14] (Weidenkopf 2017, 121) (Durant 1950, 783)

[15] (Burman 72)

[16] (Peters 56)

[17] (Peters 64)

[18] (Durant 1950, 781)

[19] (THATCHER and SCRIBNER’S, n.d. Bull of Nicholas III Condemning all Heretics, 1280) (GUI and Burr)

[20] (Kors and Peters 222-223)

[21] (GUI and Burr)

[22] (Peters 66)

[23] (Kors and Peters 222)

[24] (Burman 51)

[25] (Weidenkopf 2017, 119)

[26] (Davis 166)

[27] (Durant 1950, 781)

[28] (Davis 166)

[29] (Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated paragraph #2298)

[30] (Burman 53)

[31] (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler "The Drunkard" of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)

[32] (“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”)

[33] (Pernoud 115)

[34] (Weidenkopf 2017)

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The British Labour Party has long been at the forefront of progressive social change in the United Kingdom, introducing such policy innovations over the years as the NHS, comprehensive education, and the national minimum wage. Labour has also left its mark in local government, where historically the party has often been successful in putting its socialist principles into practice. Early Twentieth Century Labour councils built a reputation not only for providing more generous levels of social assistance in comparison to non-Labour councils, but also for fostering improvements in education and public health, lowering rates for municipal gas and electricity rates, and serving as good local employers. However, it is nationally that Labour has had the greatest impact on people’s lives; a trend that started exactly 100 years ago.

Vittorio Trevitt explains.

Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald (middle of bottom row in lighter suit) and his ministers in January 1924.

This January marked the centenary of the formation of the First Labour Government. The product of an inconclusive election the previous month, in which the Conservatives won the most seats but were unable to win a parliamentary vote of confidence, Labour was able to form a minority government with the backing of the Liberal Party.

The coming to power of the First Labour Government has long been of great interest, due to the fact that it marked the first time that Labour, a democratic socialist party committed to radical social change, had come to lead the United Kingdom. Unsurprisingly, Labour’s ascension caused mixed reactions, with elements of the press incredulous at the thought of socialist “wildmen” running Britain, while the Annual Register, by contrast, referred to this historic event as representing ‘A revolution in British politics as profound as that associated with the Reform Act of 1832’. It also led to an overhaul of the two-party system, where for decades power had alternated between the Conservatives and Liberals; their traditional rivals. It was now Labour that held the mantle of chief rival of the Conservative Party; a role that it has continued to play to this day. Symbolically for a worker-oriented party, the new prime minister Ramsay MacDonald was the first person from a working-class background to hold that notable position.

Apart from the symbolism of Labour finally holding the reins of power after years in opposition, it is important to ask oneself what the Party actually achieved in office. One should not, I believe, celebrate a socialist government coming into being if it is unable to implement policies of social justice that represent the ideals of democratic socialism. The First Labour Government’s actions, however, certainly lived up to these.

 

War’s end

Labour came to power during a period following the end of the First World War when a number of other socialist parties came to power throughout Europe for the first time, either as senior or junior partners in coalitions. In Germany, the Social Democratic Party (the nation’s longest-established party) formed an all-socialist administration, while other European states like Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria witnessed members of social-democratic parties assuming ministerial positions in office, enabling their members to have the opportunity to drive and influencepositive social change. British Labour was no different, although numerous policy proposals put forward during Labour’s time in opposition failed to see the light of day, hampered by the Party’s minority status in Parliament. A proposed capital levy never materialised, while Labour failed to secure passage of a number of bills such as one aimed at regulating rents and a private bill focusing on shop assistants’ hours of work. Despite these shortcomings, Labour succeeded in implementing a broad range of reforms during their relatively short period in office, many of which left an indelible stamp on society. Duties on certain foodstuffs were reduced, while improvements were made in financial support for the unemployed. Benefits were increased by a fifth for men and women, eligibility for payments to dependents was widened while more people were brought under the umbrella of unemployment insurance, and a statutory right to cash benefits was introduced. The government also acted to improve conditions for pensioners; raising pensions and extending the old-age pension to all those over the age of 70 in need. In regards to earnings, action was taken on trade boards, with the number of minimum rate enforcement inspectors increased by a third, Grocery Trade Boards revived (after having previously lapsed) and an official investigation launched into certain sections of the catering trade. Additionally, machinery for fixing minimum wage rates for agricultural workers (which was dismantled in 1921) was re-established.

 

Infrastructure

Emphasis was placed on developing infrastructure, with money made available for drainage, roads, and repairs and improvements for dwellings dating back to the First World War. Also of significance was the setting up of Royal Commissions on schooling and health insurance to formulate plans for delivering future changes in those areas (with the latter focusing on the uneven coverage of health insurance in Britain, amongst other aspects of the system), together with a Royal Commission on mental illness law, whose work culminated in important developments in provisions for people with mental illnesses in later years. Agricultural research received a sizeable cash injection, while the Small Debt (Scotland) Act offered support to poorer individuals in that part of the UK, with provisions such as a rise in the amount that could not be attached from wages and the direct payment by instalments of sums found due in small debt courts in rent arrear cases. As a sign of the spirit of the times, a parliamentary motion was adopted in March 1924 calling on the government to establish a Commission of Inquiry to look into the setting of minimum pay scales for working people.

The grant terms of the Unemployment Grants Committee, a body set up 4 years earlier to provide grants to local authorities offering work schemes to jobless persons, were also improved. More areas, for instance, became eligible for grants, while a 6 month probation of 75% or 87.5% of wages was eliminated and a stipulation introduced whereby contracts had to include Fair Wage Clauses. Provisions for war veterans and dependents were also improved, in keeping with the commitment made by Labour in its election programme to ensure “fair play” for this segment of British society.

True to its progressive principles, the First Labour Government reversed various austerity measures introduced in the years following the Armistice, which had entailed cutbacks in areas such as health, education, and housing. Cuts made to the educational system (including the abolition of state scholarships to universities) were reversed, a grant for adult education was bolstered, and an easing of regulations on the construction of schools was carried out. Efforts were made to reduce the number of unqualified teachers, while class sizes in elementary schools were brought down.Reflecting a policy adopted by Labour a year earlier to make universal secondary education a reality, the government increased the number of free secondary school places available; a policy development that resulted in nearly 50% of all secondary school children receiving their education for free by 1931.

 

Housing Act of 1924

Arguably the most radical measure of the First Labour Government was the Housing Act of 1924. The result of the work of health minister John Wheatley, this far-reaching piece of legislation, which raised government subsidies to housing let at regulated rents, facilitated the construction of more than half a million homes, increased the standard of council housing built, and included a fair wages clause for those involved in the building of these homes. This landmark law was, according to one historian, the First Labour Government’s “most significant domestic reform,” and to me represents a perfect example of progressive politics in action.

Despite these noteworthy accomplishments, Labour’s aforementioned lack of a legislative majority meant that it was unable to implement (in comparison with future Labour administrations) a programme of radical change, and lasted less than a year before losing the support of the Liberals and failing to win a snap election. In the run-up to this election, Labour was confronted with accusations that it was “soft” on the USSR, as arguably demonstrated by its recognition of and promise of a loan to the latter; decisions which possibly contributed to its electoral defeat.

The fate of Labour’s first administration was sealed by the controversy surrounding the “Campbell Case,” in which the government dropped a case put against the left-wing journalist John Campbell, who was accused of encouraging British troops to commit acts of mutiny by calling on soldiers to ignore orders to fire on striking workers if ever told to do so. A vote of confidence was held which Labour lost, and in the subsequent election, the Conservatives returned to office with a massive majority of seats in Parliament. Anti-communist propaganda deployed by Conservatives during the election campaign arguably contributed to Labour’s loss, with various Tory candidates equating the Labour Party with communism or leading Britain down this path. Both the Campbell case, along with the government’s building of bridges with the Soviet Union, gave ample ammunition for right-wing propagandists.

What helped their successful anti-socialist crusade was the publication in the Daily Mail (a few days prior to the election) of the Zinoviev Letter. Presumably from Communist International president Grigory Zinoviev to an official of the British Communist Party, the letter encouraged British communists to foment revolution. Although its authenticity remains open to debate, its likely that this document played a part in turning potential voters against Labour, bringing its first stint in power to a premature end.

 

Conclusion

In spite of its brevity in office, and the challenges it faced, it is to Labour’s credit that it was able to do so much, while demonstrating to voters that Labourites were democrats who believed in change through constitutional means and could be trusted to safely run the country while also being a credible alternative to the Conservatives. Undoubtedly, the positive achievements of the First Labour Government under the circumstances it found itself in demonstrated both Labour’s effectiveness as a governing party and its commitment to changing Britain for the better.

The lesson that progressives can learn from the record of the First Labour Government is that social change can be achieved even when a reforming administration lacks a majority in the chambers of power, as long as there is the will to do so. At the time of writing, Labour looks set to emerge victorious in the upcoming general election. If it does, a Starmer Administration should, in the face of a difficult economic situation, do its best to carry out as much in the way of social-democratic reform as possible if it wishes to make Britain a more just society for all in the years ahead. To do so would not only be to the benefit of ordinary people, but would serve as a great tribute to the memory of the First Labour Government.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Today, when most people think of Afghanistan, they recall the Biden administration’s calamitous withdrawal in the summer of 2021 and the end of what many have termed a ‘forever war.’ Tragically, the Taliban’s victory reversed two decades of effort to establish liberal institutions and women’s rights in the war-ravaged country. Many commentators have compared America’s retreat from Afghanistan to the country’s hasty evacuation of Vietnam in 1975. Indeed, there are similarities in the chaotic nature of the two withdrawals and the resulting tragic effects for the people of Afghanistan and Vietnam, respectively.

Brian Morra looks at the lessons the Biden Administration could have taken from earlier Soviet and American wars in Afghanistan.

Soviet troops atop a tank in Kabul in 1986.

Regarding Afghanistan, Americans are less likely to remember the Soviet Union’s war there and Moscow’s own rather ignominious pull out. This is unfortunate because there are lessons to be learned from the USSR’s ill-fated foray into Afghanistan that US policymakers ought to have heeded during our own twenty-year war. My latest historical novel, The Righteous Arrows (Amazon US | Amazon UK), published by Koehler Books, devotes a good deal of ink to the missteps made by Washington and Moscow in that long-ago war. My intention with The Righteous Arrows is to entertain while providing the reader with a sense of what should have been learned from the Soviets’ failed adventure in Afghanistan.

 

What was Moscow’s war in Afghanistan all about?

Like many wars, it began with what seemed to be good intentions. The Kremlin leaders who made the decision to go to war thought that it would not really be a war at all but a ‘police action’ or a ‘special military operation’ if you like. The Kremlin leadership expected their engagement in Afghanistan to be sharp and quick. Instead, it turned into a decade-long, bloody slog that contributed to the later implosion of the USSR itself. Talk about unintended consequences!

 

How did the Soviet foray into Afghanistan start?

It began over the Christmas season in 1979 when the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was convinced to come to the aid of a weak, pro-Russian socialist regime in Kabul. The initial operation was led by the KGB with support from the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) and Army Airborne units. After initial success, the Kremlin quickly became embroiled in a war with tribal militias who did not like either the socialist puppet regime that Moscow was propping up or the Soviet occupation.

What was supposed to be a quick operation became a ferocious guerrilla war that lasted most of the 1980s and killed some 16,000 Soviet troops. The war sapped the strength of the Soviet armed forces and exposed to anyone who was paying attention just how weak the USSR had become. By 1986, the reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had decided to get out of the bloody quagmire in Afghanistan. He found it was not that easy to leave and the last Russian forces did not depart Afghanistan until February 1989.

 

United States’ involvement

Beginning with the Jimmy Carter administration, the United States provided arms to the Afghan Islamic rebels fighting the Soviets. Military support from the US grew exponentially under President Ronald Reagan and by 1986 Washington was arming the Mujaheddin with advanced weapons, including the Stinger surface-to-air missiles that decimated Soviet airpower. America’s weapons turned the tide against the Soviet occupiers, but Washington also rolled the dice by arming Islamic rebels that it could not control.

Not only did the Afghan Islamic fighters become radicalized, but they were also joined by idealistic jihadis from all over the world. The Soviets’ ten-year occupation of Afghanistan became a magnet for recruiting jihadis, as did NATO’s two-decades long occupation some years later. The founder of al Qaeda, Usama bin Laden, brought together and funded Arab fighters in Afghanistan, ostensibly to fight the Russians, but mainly to build his own power base. Although Washington never armed bin Laden’s fighters, he used his presence in Afghanistan during the Soviet war and occupation as a propaganda bonanza. He trumpeted the military prowess of al Qaeda, which was largely a myth of bin Laden’s own creation, and claimed that he brought down the Soviet bear. His propaganda machine claimed that if al Qaeda could defeat one superpower (the USSR), then it also could beat the other one (the USA).

During the 1980s, Washington officials downplayed the danger of arming radical Islamic fighters. It was far more important for the White House to bring down the Soviet Union than to worry about a handful of Mujaheddin. One must admit that the Americans’ proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan was the most successful one it conducted during the entire Cold War. On the other hand, Washington opened a virtual Pandora’s box of militarized jihadism and has been dealing with the consequences ever since.

 

The aftermath

The Soviet occupation encouraged most of Afghanistan’s middle class to flee the country, leaving an increasingly radicalized and militarized society in its wake. This was the Afghanistan the United States invaded in the fall of 2001, shortly after bin Laden’s 9/11 attacks on Wall Street and the Pentagon. Policymakers in Washington failed to grasp just how radically Afghan society had changed because of the Soviet occupation.

There was discussion in Washington’s national security circles in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, warning of the dangers of fighting in Afghanistan. Bromides were offered, calling the country the ‘graveyard of empires’, but none of it had much impact on policy. Most officials in the George W. Bush administration did not understand how radicalized Afghan society had become and how severe the costs of fighting a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan might turn out to be.

The CIA-led operation to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s with small numbers of Americans was the game plan Washington also used in the fall of 2001 to defeat al Qaeda and bring down the ruling Taliban regime. The playbook worked brilliantly in both cases. Unfortunately, for the United States and our NATO allies, the initial defeat of the Taliban did not make for a lasting victory or an enduring peace.

For twenty years, the United States fought two different wars in Afghanistan. One was a counter-terror war, the fight to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates and to prevent them from reconstituting. The other war was a counterinsurgency against the Taliban and their allies. The reason the United States and NATO went into Afghanistan was to prosecute the first war – the anti-terror war. We fell into a counterinsurgency conflict as the Taliban reconstituted with help from Pakistan and others. This was a classic case of ‘mission creep’ and it required large combat forces to be deployed, in contrast to the light footprint of the counter-terror operation. The first war – the counter-terror war – prevented another 9/11 style major attack on the United States, while the second one required the US and NATO to deploy massive force and – ultimately – depended on the soundness of the Afghan government we supported.

The sad fact is that the successful campaign against the Taliban and the routing of al Qaeda in 2001 and 2002 led to an unfocused twenty-year war that ended with the Taliban back in charge and a humiliated United States leaving hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Afghan allies behind. In sworn Congressional testimony, General Milley, who in 2021 was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Mackenzie, who was Commander of Central Command, have stated that they forcefully advised President Biden to leave a small footprint of US forces and contractors in Afghanistan to prosecute the counter-terror war. Our NATO allies were willing to stay and in fact increased their forces in Afghanistan shortly after Biden was inaugurated. Not only did President Biden not heed his military advisors, but he also later denied that they ever counseled him to keep a small force in Afghanistan. Some have described Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan as ‘pulling defeat from the jaws of victory’.

President Biden further asserted that, by withdrawing, he was merely honoring the agreement President Trump had made earlier with the Taliban. This claim does not stand up to objective scrutiny because the Taliban repeatedly violated the terms of the Trump agreement, which gave the White House ample opportunity to declare it null and void.

 

What are the lessons the United States should have learned from the Soviet and American wars in Afghanistan?

  1. Keep your war aims limited and crystal clear.

  2. Fight mission creep and do not allow it to warp the original war aims or plans for a light footprint of forces.

  3. Beware of the law of unintended consequences. Consider the downside risks of arming the enemy of one’s enemy.

  4. Be willing to invest for the long-term or do not get involved. The United States still has forces in Germany, Italy, and Japan nearly eighty years after the end of World War II. Some victories are worth protecting.

  5. Ensure that the Washington tendency toward ‘group think’ does not hijack critical thinking. Senior policymakers must think and act strategically, so that ‘hope’ does not become the plan.

 

Footnote on Ukraine

I will close with a footnote about the Russian war in Ukraine. The Soviet war in Afghanistan has dire similarities with Russia’s ‘special military operation’ underway today in Ukraine. In Afghanistan, Soviet forces killed indiscriminately and almost certainly committed numerous war crimes. The war also militarized Afghan society – a condition that persists to this day, and one that had a profound impact on America’s war in Afghanistan. In Ukraine, Russia’s invasion has been characterized by war crimes, mass emigration, and the militarization of Ukrainian society.

 

Much as in Iraq and Afghanistan, senior US policy in Ukraine is failing to identify clear strategic outcomes. It is the role of our most senior policy officials to focus on strategic outcomes and an exit strategy (if one is warranted) beforecommitting American forces or treasure to foreign wars. Too often, platitudes have masqueraded as strategy. When one thinks of great wartime presidents like Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, the trait they shared was a singular focus on strategic outcomes and on how to shape the post-war environment. The Soviets failed to do so in their war in Afghanistan. The US also fell short in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the banalities that pass for foreign policy strategy we hear in Washington today indicate that we have not learned from the past.

 

 

Brian J. Morra is the author of two historical novels: “The Able Archers” (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and the recently-published “The Righteous Arrows” (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

 

 

More about Brian:

Brian a former U.S. intelligence officer and a retired senior aerospace executive. He helped lead the American intelligence team in Japan that uncovered the true story behind the Soviet Union's shootdown of Korean Airlines flight 007 in September 1983. He also served on the Air Staff at the Pentagon while on active duty. As an aerospace executive he worked on many important national security programs. Morra earned a BA from William and Mary, an MPA from the University of Oklahoma, an MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University, and completed the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School. He has provided commentary for CBS, Netflix and the BBC. Learn more at: www.brianjmorra.com

Astrophysics, the study of the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, is a clear indication that humanity has an insatiable curiosity and relentless pursuit of knowledge. From the earliest civilizations to the modern era, our understanding of the cosmos has evolved exponentially, propelled by the brilliance of countless minds across centuries.

Here, Terry Bailey takes us on a brief yet captivating journey through history, tracing the origins and development of astrophysics and astronomy from its humble beginnings to the awe-inspiring advancements of the present day.

A depiction of Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.

Our journey commences in ancient times, where the seeds of astrophysics were sown amidst the fertile intellectual landscapes of early civilizations such as ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Greece to name a few. Among the pioneers of this era were Democritus of Thrace born in the 5th Century BCE, whose revolutionary atomic theory posited that all matter consisted of indivisible particles called atoms. Although his ideas primarily pertained to terrestrial phenomena, it laid a foundational framework for understanding the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

Another luminary of antiquity was Aristarchus of Samos, whose heliocentric model challenged the prevailing geocentric, (Earth centric), worldview. In the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus proposed that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun—a concept far ahead of its time. Despite facing resistance from contemporaries such as Aristotle, Aristarchus's visionary insight foreshadowed the Copernican revolution millennia later. Additionally, he calculated and estimated the distance to the Moon and the Sun and size of the Sun. It was after realizing the Sun was far larger than Earth he concluded that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene emerges as yet another luminary of antiquity, renowned for his groundbreaking contributions to geometry, astronomy and mathematics. In the 3rd century BCE, Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth using simple trigonometric principles, and calculated the Earth's axial tilt. In addition, Eratosthenes also worked on calculating the distance to the Moon and Sun as well as the diameter of the Sun adding to the works of Aristarchus of Samos - showcasing the ancient world's nascent grasp of celestial mechanics.

 

Renaissance

As the world transitioned into the Renaissance period, the torch of astrophysical inquiry continued to burn brightly in the hands of visionaries such as Nicolaus Copernicus. Building upon the heliocentric model proposed by Aristarchus, Copernicus's seminal work "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium", (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres),  revolutionized our understanding of the solar system. Thereby, placing the Sun at the center of the cosmos, Copernicus catalyzed a paradigm shift that would forever alter humanity's perception of its place in the universe.

The Enlightenment era ushered in a golden age of scientific discovery, with luminaries such as Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei making indelible contributions to astrophysics / astronomy. Kepler's laws of planetary motion provided a mathematical framework for understanding the dynamics of celestial bodies, while Galileo's telescopic observations offered compelling evidence in support of the heliocentric model.

 

20th century

The dawn of the 20th century witnessed the birth of modern astrophysics / astronomy marked by transformative developments in theoretical physics and observational techniques. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity completely changed our understanding of gravity, by adding to Isaac Newton findings, Einstein’s work offered profound insight into the curvature of space-time and the behavior of massive objects in the cosmos. Meanwhile, advancements in spectroscopy and telescopic technology facilitated unprecedented discoveries, allowing astronomers to peer deeper into the universe than ever before.

The latter half of the 20th century witnessed a surge in astrophysical / astronomical research, fueled by technological innovations such as space-based observatories and supercomputers. The advent of radio, X-ray and Gamma astronomy opened new vistas of exploration, enabling scientists to study cosmic phenomena beyond the visible spectrum. Concurrently, the emergence of particle astrophysics shed light on the enigmatic nature of dark matter and dark energy—two elusive entities that comprise the majority of the universe's mass-energy content.

In recent decades, the field of astrophysics has witnessed a convergence of disciplines, as researchers unravel the mysteries of black holes, gravitational waves, and the cosmic microwave background, (CMBR). Groundbreaking discoveries such as the detection of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) have provided empirical validation for Einstein's predictions, while opening new avenues for studying the dynamics of space-time.

As we stand on the precipice of a new era of exploration, the future of astrophysics / astronomy appears more promising and tantalizing than ever before. From the quest to uncover the origins of cosmic inflation to the search for extraterrestrial life, humanity's insatiable curiosity continues to drive scientific inquiry to unprecedented heights. As we gaze upon the vast expanse of the cosmos, we are reminded of our shared quest to unravel the mysteries of existence and unlock the secrets of the universe.

 

In perspective

In retracing the illustrious history of astrophysics / astronomy, we are reminded of humanity's enduring quest for knowledge and understanding. From the ancient musings of Democritus and Aristarchus to the groundbreaking discoveries of modern-day physicists, the journey of astrophysics serves as proof to the boundless potential of the human intellect. Gazing upon celestial weave of the cosmos, humans are reminded of our humble place within the vast expanse of space and time—a reminder of the profound interconnectedness that binds us to the universe itself.

I should add that amateur astronomers are now playing an increasingly active role in cosmic research, a number of projects are currently running that actively engage amateur astronomers to aid in the searching of the cosmos.

The vast expanse of the cosmos means it is impossible to observe the whole universe all the time, therefore, by engaging experienced home based astronomers across the globe it allows more of the cosmos to be observed, thus providing researchers with extra eyes to report possible finds.

Amateur astronomy is currently one of the fastest growing pastimes, as a professional astrophysicist I actively encourage everyone to look skyward and explore the cosmos either for pure pleasure and wonder or with the aim of possible becoming engaged in a live project.

 

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

 

 

 

Special notes:

Size of the observable universe

The observable universe is more than 46 billion light-years in any direction from Earth, therefore, the observable universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter. Given the constant expansion of the universe, the observable universe expands another light-year every Earth year. However, it is important to note this is only the observable universe and Earth is simply part of the universe and not at the center of the universe.

One light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometers.

 

 

Point of interest:

Recent ground breaking research has identified evidence that suggests black holes are the source of dark energy, however, it must be remembered that this research is in the early stages and required more work.

Although, other researchers have proposed sources for dark energy, what makes this research unique is this is the first observational research where nothing was added to explain the source of dark energy in the Universe. This research simply uses existing proven physics, in other words black holes in Einstein's theory of gravity are the dark energy.

As further research is carried out and empirical testing hopefully provides the same answers then the mystery of the source for dark energy with be known at last, resolving a physics conundrum.

 

Theory of general relativity

A simple summing up of the core principles of general relativity.

John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, summed up the core of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. “Matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to move”.

In perhaps the pivotal moment of the Civil War, on July 3 at 1 pm, about 12,000 men charged across a field about a mile in length and were cut down in an extraordinary artillery barrage. The infantry attack was named after Confederate General George Pickett, who led the charge of his division from the south portion of the field. Generals Pettigrew and Trimble also led their divisions in the charge from the northern part of the field.  These divisions advanced toward the center of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge, encountering fierce resistance in the form of intense artillery and rifle fire from Union troops strategically placed on higher ground.. Only men from Pickett’s division made it to the Angle and pierced the Union line; Pettigrew and Trimble never crossed the Emmitsburg Pike.

Here, Lloyd W Klein explains what happened during Pickett’s Charge.

If you missed it, part 1 on General Lee’s advance to Pennsylvania is here, part 2 on day 1 of the battle is here, and part 3 on day 2 of the battle is here, and part 4 on Culp’s Hill, Cemetery Hill, and East Cavalry Field here.

Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Meade Staff Meeting

Late in the evening of July 2nd,, General Meade held a council of war to decide what should be done after two days of intense warfare. Probably Meade had already decided this issue and was using the meeting not as a formal council of war, but as a way to achieve consensus among officers he had commanded for less than a week. His senior staff officers and corps commanders concurred that, despite the significant losses suffered by the army, the most prudent course of action was to maintain their current position and await the enemy's attack.  As the meeting ended, Meade took aside Brig. Gen. John Gibbon, in command of the II Corps, and predicted, "If Lee attacks tomorrow, it will be in your front. ... he has made attacks on both our flanks and failed and if he concludes to try it again, it will be on our center."

 

Lee’s Plan

In contrast, General Lee did not convene a similar council of war, and his subsequent reports indicate that no alternative course of action was seriously considered. General Lee had intended for an early morning assault to coincide with the attack on Culp's Hill, but the arrival of Pickett's forces was delayed. The reasons behind this delay have been a topic of debate among historians ever since, and it remains a point of contention.

Longstreet’s intent to try a flank attack further around the Union right was immediately denied by Lee that morning, who insisted on an infantry attack on the Union center. Longstreet considered the attack unlikely to succeed, and according to his memoirs, he told Lee so in the moment. His reluctance to order Pickett’s Charge is one of the most renowned anecdotes of the Civil War. His memoirs describe that he told Lee: “General,” said Longstreet, “I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know as well as anyone what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no 15,000 men ever arrayed for battle can take that position.” His reluctance and doubt have reverberated in history.

 

Pre-Attack Bombardment

The July 3 bombardment before Pickett’s Charge was the largest of the war, with hundreds of cannons from both sides firing along the lines for one hour, starting around 1 p.m. The Confederate artillery, numbering between 150 to 170 guns, unleashed a barrage along a two-mile line, aiming to weaken the Union defenses and silence their artillery. The cannonade is believed to be the most intense artillery attack in history up to that moment.  Despite the massive scale of the bombardment, its impact was limited.

The Confederate guns inflicted some damage on the Union batteries, but they largely overshot their targets. Part of the reason the Confederate bombardment was ineffective was that Confederate artillerymen missed their marks due to poor visibility from the smoke on the battlefield. July 3, 1863, was an extremely hot, windless day and the smoke from the guns hid the lines from the Confederate gunners, who thus could not adjust their range. The smoke from the firing hung low over the battlefield during the summer heat so no one could see what the effect on the defense line was and to make adjustments. Another factor was that It was usual to aim over the heads of the enemy so the explosion would maximize the shrapnel below. Further, at Cemetery Ridge, the line was very narrow, so there was little room for error. For these reasons most of the shells sailed over the heads of the line into the rear, causing mostly unimportant damage.

Fuses. But the most significant problem was that the fuses used burned longer than expected. The fuses used were not the usual ones; these had an extra second burn before detonating. The reason for this originated in a fire in the Richmond arsenal producing the fuses. An explosion in Richmond Harbor in April 1863 blew up the fuse manufacturing area, which led to a deficiency of the usual artillery fuses, so replacement ones had to be used from ordnance supplies manufactured in Selma and Charleston. These new fuses took 1 second longer than what the artillery commanders were used to, delaying detonation.

The Bormann fuse was the most common fuse used on smoothbore field artillery ammunition during the war. Both sides used this design.  Bormann fuses were notoriously unreliable and were often replaced with copper fuse adaptors to accept the standard paper time fuse. The Confederates adopted the Bormann fuse, a mechanical fuse, in 1861 and immediately began having problems.

The inferiority of the Bormann fuse combined with the intentional overhead trajectory led to the inefficiency of the artillery. If firing overhead and the fuse explosion is delayed by a second, it will not explode until it has gone past the target. Today, manufactured products are tested for effectiveness before they are sent to the supplier. After Gettysburg, Lt James Dinwiddie working for the Ordnance Dept investigated the fuses and it was found that they contained a resin filler that would soften and mix with the powder in humid warm weather such as that in the first days of July. The filler mixing with the powder was the cause of the longer burning fuses and non-detonating shells.

The CSA artillerymen had no idea that there was a problem with the fuses coming out of Selma and Charleston that would make them burn longer than a fuse of the same length coming out of Richmond. The design modification was intended to make the fuses burn slower, but no one had informed the Confederate artillery commanders.

A week after the battle, tests were conducted on the various fuses supplied from around the Confederacy at the Richmond Laboratories. The findings showed that those fuses in shells intended to explode over the Federal position at Gettysburg ranged anywhere from 150 to 200 yards further to the rear before exploding. A 4-inch fuse would burn at the rate as a Richmond fuse one cut to 5 inches. Why this product testing wasn’t carried out sooner isn’t known.

 

The Confederate Artillery: Organization and Position

Focusing on the Confederate artillery positioning, the Confederate cannons are placed in a wide perimeter. While those focused on Culps Hill make sense, you will note how many batteries are placed north and northwest of town where no troops are going to charge. Confederate authority dictated that artillery remain under the control of their corps command. Thus, Alexander had to organize his artillery without other help. As a result, there was insufficient concentration of Confederate fire on the objective.

The Confederate officer responsible for this configuration was Lee's artillery chief, Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton. Although he was Lee’s friend, his major contribution to Pickett’s Charge was to obstruct the effective placement of artillery from the two corps besides Longstreet.  The responsibility for the artillery cannonade to start the charge was given to Longstreet’s Corps Artillery chief, the outstanding young artillerist, Col. Edward Porter Alexander, who had effective command of the field.

Confederate authority dictated that artillery remain under the control of their corps command. As a result, there was insufficient concentration of Confederate fire on the objective. When Lee reorganized after Chancellorsville and Jackson’s mortal wounding, creating 3 Corps instead of 2, the army’s reserve artillery was disbanded and its batteries reassigned to the infantry corps. This provided each corps with five artillery battalions and the flexibility of assigning battalions to the infantry divisions or keeping them under corps command. This seemingly trivial command structure change had huge implications on July 3rd.

Note that the Confederate configuration is based on the corps location. The artillery stayed with their commander. The Union placement is based on intuitive defense. Aside from the command arrangement, geography factored in: the Confederates were occupying a wider area and many of their artillery placements were based on the needs of the previous two days and what grounds they had suitable for artillery placement.

Alexander did not have full confidence that all the enemy's guns were silenced and that the Confederate ammunition was almost exhausted. Longstreet ordered Alexander to stop Pickett, but the young colonel explained that replenishing his ammunition from the trains in the rear would take over an hour, and this delay would nullify any advantage the previous barrage had given them. The infantry assault went forward without the Confederate artillery close support that had been originally planned. When the Union artillery died down, General Alexander believed that the time to charge had arrived.

 

 

The Union Artillery Organization and Position

Were it not for General Henry J Hunt, Chief of Artillery of the Army of the Potomac, the Union might have lost the battle and perhaps the war.

Before the war, General Hunt was a member of a team that had revised the drill and tactics for the artillery arm of the US Army. He was the lead proponent of a radical organization concept: instead of allowing artillery batteries to be commanded by the infantry command, where they were used only to protect troops, he proposed strategic control by artillery commanders. The idea was that artillery could do much more than protect: they could attack, both on offense and defense.

On the morning of July 3, while inspecting the Union lines, he found an elevated vantage point from which he observed something whose importance only an expert in artillery tactics would grasp: the Rebel batteries were forming in line or going into position along a line that stretched from the Peach Orchard to the edge of town to the north. He alone knew what that meant. He also observed hurried activity in the Confederate infantry lines.

General Hunt understood that these were signs of an impending enormous attack. And, he knew from Colonel Sharpe of BMI that General Pickett commanded a division that had not yet seen action. Convinced that a massive infantry assault was imminent, Hunt rode back along the Union position, directing his battery commanders to reserve fire and avoid an artillery duel, which would simply exhaust the ammunition supply before the infantry’s appearance.

He lined the artillery up to catch the invasion in a crossfire. His idea was to create enfilading fire along the lines of the invading troops rather than face-on. Consequently, when he fired, entire lines of men disappeared. Hunt had only about 80 guns available to conduct counter-battery fire; the geographic features of the Union line had limited areas for effective gun emplacement. He also ordered that firing cease to conserve ammunition but to fool Alexander, Hunt ordered his cannons to cease fire slowly to create the illusion that they were being destroyed one by one. By the time all of Hunt's cannons ceased fire, and still blinded by the smoke from battle, Alexander fell for Hunt's deception and believed that many of the Union batteries had been destroyed. Hunt was also saving his ammunition for the infantry charge rather than long-distance firing.

But Pendleton ran out of ammunition; Longstreet inquired if this should delay the attack, but Pendleton’s supply wagons would have required over an hour delay, by which time all of the firing benefits from the bombardment already undertaken would have been lost.

Hunt, the best-known artillerist of his day, had argued for years that a single commander of artillery should be in charge. The Confederates never accepted Hunt’s command ideas, so each division and regiment had their own artillery under the division leader’s command. Hunt had full authority over his army's artillery while the ANV's artillery was directed by the three corps artillery chiefs (note- Alexander at this time was not the 1st corps artillery chief, he was technically just a battalion commander. Putting him in charge of the bombardment was a huge breach of protocol).

This caused the flanks of the attack to be pushed toward the center of the Union line: The Angle. Note how Alonzo Cushing’s battery just north of the Copse of Trees becomes the central focus. He was at the center not by intentional design but rather because the two Confederate flanks converged on his position to escape the crossfire.

Next, he ordered the last four batteries of the artillery reserve to start moving toward the Union battle line. He arranged his lines of fire from the sides of the line to aim toward the center, creating crossfire and plunging fire lanes. And he insisted that the batteries hold their fire when the Confederate batteries began their barrage – to conserve ammunition for what he knew was coming. And, he could so order, despite General Hancock ordering them to fire because he was the artillery commander independent of the Infantry. His theory of command was proven in practice.

He also ordered that firing cease to conserve ammunition, but to fool Alexander, Hunt ordered his cannons to cease fire slowly to create the illusion that they were being destroyed one by one. By the time all of Hunt's cannons ceased fire, and still blinded by the smoke from battle, Alexander fell for Hunt's deception and believed that many of the Union batteries had been destroyed. Hunt was also saving his ammunition for the infantry charge rather than long distance firing. The diminishment in US artillery fire was intentionally designed by Hunt (CO of the Artillery reserve) to create the impression among the rebels that the US artillery had been silenced and therefor would be unable to respond effectively to Pickett's charge. There was actually a substantial row between Hancock, who wanted the artillery firing to boost the morale of his troops, and Hunt who wanted to gull the rebels.

As the barrage continued, Hunt gave orders that deceived the Confederates; he directed several batteries to withdraw near the center of the line, causing the Confederates to think the batteries were destroyed. However, Hunt replaced the withdrawn batteries with artillerymen and cannons from the reserve, making sure the artillery line stayed strong along the ridge.

When the Confederate infantry broke the Union lines at The Angle, Hunt rushed forward, directly into the fray, firing away with a pistol at the advancing Rebels until his horse was shot, pinning him to the ground, but with no serious injury.

Hunt’s artillery knowledge, determination, and brilliant tactics ensured the Union line’s cannons had ammunition to fire when the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge began. Trusted by Meade and forceful enough to inspire his artillerymen to obey his orders rather than Hancock’s, General Hunt garners huge admiration from those who understand his contributions. Hunt was able to control the Union artillery as a single force which Pendleton could not do on the Confederate side Because Hunt was in charge of all of the artillery separate from Corps command, he was able to create this deception. Hunt had to resist the strong arguments of Hancock, who demanded Union fire to lift the spirits of the infantrymen pinned down by Alexander's bombardment.

General Hunt anticipated the infantry attack across the field connecting Seminary Ridge and Cemetery Ridge in the afternoon of July 3. As the map shows, he lined the artillery up to catch the invasion in a crossfire and plunging fire. His idea was to fire along the lines of the invading troops rather than face-on. Consequently, when he fired, entire lines of men disappeared. See the map which shows the lines of fire Hunt placed the Union artillery in position for, while the Confederate line of fire was straight ahead.

 

The Infantry Charge

Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three-quarters of a mile under heavy Union artillery and rifle fire.

The charge was made by 3 divisions. Pickett’s division led the charge. General Pettigrew led Heth’s division (of Hill’s Corps), who had been injured on Day 1. General Trimble led Pender’s division, who had been killed on Day 2. Two brigades from Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson's division (Hill's Corps) was to support the attack on the right flank: Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox and Col. David Lang (Perry's brigade). Hill’s illness precluded him from selecting who would attack from his corps; surprisingly, his troops who had fought heavily on Day 1 were chosen but those lightly used were not.

During the assault, the Confederates started to bunch up towards the center of the line. This was precisely at a bend in the Union line called the Angle.  At this location, the Union line formed a 90-degree angle behind a stone wall. The 71st and 69th PA Regiments were positioned on this wall, with support from the 1st NY Battery. Under Gen. Armistead, the Confederates overran the 71st and 69th PA before reaching the 1st NY Battery

 

What was the landmark that was the objective of the attack?

Although traditionally the Copse of Trees near the Angle has been cited since Bachelder as the visual landmark of the attack, this is probably mythical. Lee’s objective was very likely on July 3 exactly what his original objective on July 2 was: the actual focus of the attack was Cemetery Hill and the trees they were keying on were those of Ziegler’s Grove, which was much more prominent then. Lee’s attacks on both days were intended for the Union center. It was much more strategically significant than the open area where the Copse of Trees was. It was more elevated and a perfect artillery platform (hence why the Union had artillery there) and it would command the road network.

Cemetery Hill was the key to the fishhook position. Lee saw this July 1 from Seminary Ridge and his goal never wavered for 3 days. The fundamental problem was that the town of Gettysburg is right beneath that hill, and there remains no direct route even today, you have to go by Culps Hill or Cemetery Ridge. Today’s Steinwehr Avenue runs close but perpendicular to where you’d need to go. The only possible staging area would be the old Cyclotron site, and imagine that with artillery blasting the whole time from there. Washington Street does get near, but it goes directly into the center of the town. So, Lee either has to get his army up Emmitsburg Road onto Steinwehr, then make a right turn onto Washington Street or nearby, or take Culps Hill or Cemetery Ridge.

If Ziegler’s Grove was the intended focus of the attack to crush Cemetery Hill, how did the attack end up at the Angle at Cemetery Ridge instead? Hunt’s placement of his weapons forced the charge to go south. This caused the flanks of the attack to be pushed toward the center of the Union line: The Angle. Note how Alonzo Cushing’s battery just north of the Copse of Trees becomes the central focus. He was at the center not by intentional design but rather because the two Confederate flanks converged on his position to escape the crossfire.

 

The fences on Emmitsburg Turnpike

To cross from their positions on Seminary Ridge, the infantry had to cross Emmitsburg Turnpike about 100 yards before Cemetery Ridge. Witnesses noted that Pickett’s men crossed the road without problem from the southern end of the attack and were the ones who made it to Cemetery Ridge.  However, Trimble and Pettigrew’s men were caught in the road and very few moved further east. Hess first identified that a significant part of the problem was that the fences on either side of the road posed an obstacle to cross. Many were killed trying to get over the fence. But on the southern part of the road, these fence posts had been removed the day before during the July 2 battle, so they didn’t pose a problem for Pickett.

 

The fences on both sides of the road on the south part of the field were down from the action of July 2nd but not on the north side and this proved to be a huge obstruction. After crossing Emmitsburg Road, Kemper’s brigade was hit by flanking fire, driving it to the left and disrupting the cohesion of the assault. General Hunt had arranged his artillery to create crossfires and plunging fires on the south end. On the north part of the field, the Emmitsburg Pike was lined with fences which became huge obstacles to cross during the battle. The casualties piled up where men attempted to cross, only to be shot in the act. Many of the troops just took cover in the road.  Pettigrew’s men were in a similar situation although at least some of his men were caught in artillery at the start of the battle, and panic developed. Meanwhile, those fence posts had been removed on the South part of the field in the Rebel attack on July 2. There was no problem for Pickett to get to the wall, but then Stannard and artillery units opened up firing on the flank, forcing the attack to the north.

 

Hancock

Winfield Scott Hancock was one of the heroes of the Battle of Gettysburg, Hancock's leadership and bravery were conspicuous during Pickett's Charge. As the Confederate forces prepared for Pickett's Charge, Hancock rode along the Union lines, boosting the morale of his troops. He famously told his men, "There is no reason why any man should be nervous...I shall lead you through this battle!"

Hancock was himself wounded during the Charge and needed to be assisted off the field after the attack was over. It was a severe wound caused by a bullet striking the pommel of his saddle, entering his inner right thigh along with wood fragments and a large bent nail. He was helped from his horse by aides, and with a tourniquet applied to staunch the bleeding, The nail wasn’t removed for over a month despite repeated attempts. A surgeon finally was able to remove it by having him assume the position he was in when wounded sitting on his horse. He suffered from its effects for the remainder of the war and for the rest of his life, carrying a cane.

On July 3rd, his Corps was positioned on Cemetery Ridge and therefore commanded the Union center. Hancock recognized the Confederates' intentions to launch a major assault and anticipated that the Confederate attack would focus on Cemetery Ridge and made preparations to defend against it. He coordinated with other Union generals to reinforce the defensive line and prepare for the Confederate assault.

Hancock was himself wounded during the Charge and needed to be assisted off the field after the attack was over. It was a severe wound caused by a bullet striking the pommel of his saddle, entering his inner right thigh along with wood fragments and a large bent nail. He was helped from his horse by aides, and with a tourniquet applied to staunch the bleeding, The nail wasn’t removed for over a month despite repeated attempts. A surgeon finally was able to remove it by having him assume the position he was in when wounded sitting on his horse. He suffered from its effects for the remainder of the war, and for the rest of his life.

He almost died. Although he was wounded during the assault, he remained on the field until the Confederate attack was repulsed. When the fighting ended, the general was taken by stretcher and ambulance to a field hospital. He journeyed through Pennsylvania to Philadelphia and then Norristown to convalesce. His wound gave Hancock enough trouble, especially when riding a horse, that he was forced to give up active command at Petersburg in 1864, and it bothered him for the rest of his life. 

 

General Gibbon, who had been warned the night before, commanded the 2nd Division, II Corps. Gibbon's division bore the brunt of Pickett's Charge, where Gibbon was wounded. His leadership at the Angle was instrumental in the victory.

Alexander S. Webb was the brigade leader at the Copse of Trees. The 71st PA stopped the Confederate advance and forced the Confederates to seek cover behind a stone wall. Hand-to-hand fighting began in the Angle, and 2 companies fell back. Webb ordered a charge by the neighboring 72nd to drive the Confederates back, but the regiment refused the order. He then went to lead the 69th PA but was wounded in the thigh and groin. By this time, Col. Devereux's 19th MA Regiment and the 42nd NY Regiment rushed in and drove the Confederates out. He received the MOH in 1891.

Armistead

Brig Gen Lewis Armistead is esteemed as leading Pickett’s Division on the south end of the attack. He led his brigade from in front, through the artillery attack, hat on his sword, toward the Angle, over the stone wall, before being mortally wounded. Armistead embodied every positive attribute a courageous American military leader could display in a desperate moment.

Armistead of course was pre-war friends with General Hancock, his opponent that day. Armistead was the older man by seven years, so their paths never crossed at West Point, but army records show they met for the first time while serving on the frontier in 1844. After working together for 16 months in the remote outposts of modern-day Oklahoma, they fought in the same regiment and experienced some of the same battles in the Mexican War, where both were breveted for gallantry. Then, for a brief period after the war, as the U.S. Army occupied Mexico, Armistead commanded a small company and Hancock was one of his lieutenants. Captain Armistead was in command of the small garrison at the New San Diego Depot in San Diego, which was occupied in 1860. He was a close friend of Winfield Scott Hancock, serving with him as a quartermaster in Los Angeles, before the Civil War.  He was However, during the Battle of Gettysburg, they found themselves on opposing sides of Pickett's Charge, with Armistead leading Confederate forces and Hancock defending the Union position.

It is reported that he was struck by multiple bullets as he and his men reached the stone wall. Traditionally, it is said that he was shot with 3 bullets. Armistead's wounds were not believed to be mortal; he had been shot in the fleshy part of the arm and below the knee, and according to the surgeon who tended him, none of the wounds caused bone, artery, or nerve damage. Other accounts suggest the wounds were located in the upper thigh or groin area. The exact details of his wounds may vary in different accounts, but it is generally agreed upon that he suffered injuries to his lower body.

He was then taken to a Union field hospital at the George Spangler Farm where he died two days later. Dr. Daniel Brinton, the chief surgeon at the Union hospital there, had expected Armistead to survive because he characterized the bullet wounds as not of a "serious character." He wrote that the death "was not from his wounds directly but from secondary bacterium, fever, and prostration.”  One hears frequent discussions of Stonewall Jackson’s death from non-mortal wounds, but rarely Armistead’s. Infection and sepsis were the main causes of battlefield death if the initial wound was not itself mortal. Although this death would not have happened after penicillin was discovered in the mid-1930s, it was a common story in this war. Hancock wasn’t at Gettysburg long enough to see his friend and was in sufficient distress that it wouldn’t have been possible anyway. He might not even have known at the moment.

 

How many would have been needed to carry the position?

Longstreet ordered nine infantry brigades to make the charge on July 3. Five more brigades were held in reserve, which Longstreet never ordered to advance. Longstreet states in his autobiography that he estimated that it would have required 30,000 men to take Cemetery Ridge.

Mathematical modeling based on the Lanchester equations developed during the First World War to determine the numbers necessary for successful assaults demonstrates that with the commitment of one to three more infantry brigades to the nine brigades in the initial force, Pickett’s Charge would probably have taken the Union position and altered the battle’s outcome.  If he had put most of those reserves into the charge, the model estimated it would have captured the Union position. However, the Confederates would have been unable to exploit such a success without the commitment of still more troops.

Calculations based on the Lancaster Formula which was developed in World War I suggest that 20,000 men would have been needed to make a lodgment, but perhaps 5-10,000 more would have been needed to defeat the inevitable counterattack, which is not far off from the number Longstreet hypothesized.  The authors do not include Wilcox’s and Lang’s brigades in the initial force.  If these troops and Anderson’s entire division had attacked with the initial force, this would have supplied five additional brigades and around 5,000 more men, making the attack force fourteen brigades and from 15,000 to 18,000 men. These numbers would have guaranteed a lodgment at the Angle.  Another five brigades and one regiment scheduled for the second wave of Pickett’s Charge from Pender’s and Rodes’ divisions, as well as at least another brigade from McLaws’ division, were also available.  Had all of these men been brought into the attack column, the total would be nearer to the 30,000 men Longstreet thought necessary.

However, assuming the same rate of casualties, the cost would have been about half, or 15,000 casualties. There would have been insufficient fresh troops left to take advantage of that success. And what about the next hill and the next one? Various regiments might have been recruited for this effort: essentially, all of Longstreet and all of Hill’s Corps. But, assuming the 50% casualty rate on this additional number, and realizing that Lee only had 60,000 men at this point, while it’s theoretically possible they might have held this line, the cost would have been intolerable. Add another 10,000 casualties and it’s hard to see how Lee could have continued the war after taking that ridge.

This illustration shows the Union line kneeling and firing, with only the officers standing. The destroyed artillery from earlier bombardment is seen in the foreground. The rebel attack is coming from the southern or left side, very accurate since Armistead was originally placed far in that direction. It shows a large contingent of southern troops in the Emmitsburg Road just as suggested by Hess in his book and as I noted in my Pickett’s charge challenges. It shows the heavy smoke from the weaponry and seminary ridge in the background.  Note also the Codori Farm at the top left.

 

Casualty Rate

Between 10-15,000 infantry made the charge. The duration of Pickett’s Charge was 50 minutes. Total Confederate losses during the attack were 6,555, of which 1,123 Confederates were killed on the battlefield, 4,019 were wounded, and 3750 were captured including many of those listed as wounded. Many of the “wounded” died over the next days to weeks. Do the math: that’s 22 killed and 80 wounded per minute; about 1.7 casualties per second.

The casualty rate of Pickett’s Charge is typically given as 50-60%, with 10% killed on the

battlefield and 30% wounded with another 30% captured, many overlapping the wounded category. The Union loss is thought to be 1500 casualties. Pickett's division suffered 2,655 casualties (498 killed, 643 wounded, 833 wounded and captured, and 681 captured, unwounded). Pettigrew's losses are estimated to be about 2,700 (470 killed, 1,893 wounded, 337 captured). Trimble's two brigades lost 885 (155 killed, 650 wounded, and 80 captured). Wilcox's brigade reported losses of 200, Lang's about 400.

These figures are similar to the famed Charge of the Light Brigade (Crimean War, 1854) where, a British cavalry unit attacked Russian forces. The casualty rate was exceptionally high, with around 40% killed or wounded. These rates surpass the Assault on the Great Redoubt (Battle of Borodino, Napoleonic Wars, 1812), where The French Grand Army's assault on the Russian Great Redoubt during the Battle of Borodino resulted in high casualties; estimates suggest casualty rates of around 30%, and also the Assault on Marye's Heights (Battle of Fredericksburg, 1862), where the casualty rates for the Union troops were estimated to be around 15-20%.

The Confederate Army lost many of its top officers. Brigadier General Armistead was mortally wounded and captured. Garnett was killed in action; his body was never recovered and is believed to be buried with his men in Richmond, Virginia. Kemper was wounded and taken prisoner by the Union. Although the newspapers reported he was killed in the battle, his family did not believe it and were able to free Kemper from the Union prison.

 

Was Pickett’s Charge a Bad Decision?

The criticisms often directed at Lee for Pickett’s Charge are unwarranted. What else could he do under the circumstances? He had tried both flanks. He couldn’t go left because it led further away from any viable target. He couldn’t go right because it lengthened his supply line and he was out of artillery ammunition. If he turned around and declared victory, he wouldn’t have changed anything in the trajectory of the war and he’d be right where he started.

The Gettysburg campaign was a roll of the dice at a crucial moment.. You have to see it as a desperate final try to win the war on the battlefield. Despite all of Lee’s victories, the Union had not given up and in fact, were winning in the Western theater. The west was being lost and the confederacy was running out of time. Resources are dwindling. Davis and Lee know that things aren’t looking promising. He was a riverboat gambler who rolled the dice in every battle. From that perspective, it starts to make sense.

One hears suggestions that General Lee was ill and that he had heart disease, weakening his judgment. A contemporary analysis shows no reason for this suspicion. Heart attacks do not lead to poor judgment 2 months after they occur.

Faced with circumstances on July 3, Lee had no other options but to attack, and no other place to attack than the center.  If he retreated then the campaign would be a failure. The salient on Cemetery Hill is the obvious place to attack. Ewell is stalled on the left. Longstreet tried on the right the day before. He wants to go further to the right but there is no road there and no supply line. Hill is sick. Longstreet is being obstinate. Stuart had gotten nowhere that morning. General Lee is all alone. Where Lee miscalculated is that Hunt had created a deadly crossfire with artillery that had never been done like that before. Lee had not anticipated as devastating an artillery defense and indeed, none like it had ever been organized. Lee lost that day but look at all the other gambles he won.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

Further Reading:

·       Hess, Earl, Pickett's Charge--The Last Attack at Gettysburg.  UNC Press, 2010.

·       J David Petruzzi, The Complete Gettysburg Guide. SavasBeattie, 2009.

·       Michael Shaara, The Killer Angels: The Classic Novel of the Civil War (Civil War Trilogy).Modern Library, 2004.

·       Stephen W Sears, Gettysburg. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

·       Carol Reardon and Tom Vossler, A Field Guide to Gettysburg, Second Edition: Experiencing the Battlefield through Its History, Places, and People. University of North Carolina Press, 2017.

·       William A. Frassanito, Gettysburg: A Journey in Time. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1975.

·       https://theconversation.com/picketts-charge-what-modern-mathematics-teaches-us-about-civil-war-battle-78982

·       Edwin B Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. Charles Scribner, 1968.

·       James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America. 2nd edition, Lippincott, 1912. Accessed at: http://www.wtj.com/archives/longstreet/

·       Michael J. Armstrong and Steven E. Soderbergh, “Refighting Pickett’s Charge:  mathematical modeling of the Civil War battlefield,” Social Science Quarterly 96, No. 4 (May 14, 2015), 1153-1168. 

·       Richard Rollins, “The Second Wave of Pickett’s Charge,” Gettysburg Magazine, No. 18, July 1998, 104-110.

·       Lloyd W Klein and Eric J Wittenberg, “Did General Lee’s heart attack impact the conduct of the Battle of Gettysburg?” Gettysburg Magazine 67:July 2022; 62-75.

·       James M McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.

·       Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volumes 1-3. Random House, 1963.

·       https://emergingcivilwar.com/2018/06/26/artillery-henry-j-hunt-chief-of-artillery-for-the-army-of-the-potomac/

·       https://militaryhistorynow.com/2022/11/27/armistead-and-hancock-rethinking-the-storied-friendship-between-opposing-generals-at-gettysburg/amp/

·       Lloyd W Klein,  “Why Pickett’s Charge Failed”. The Civil War Center. https://thecivilwarcenter.com/2022/06/29/why-picketts-charge-failed-analysis-and-significance/