The Introduction of the Gatling Gun — And How It Changed Military Strategy

As long as there have been human beings, there has been war. What started as small-scale conflicts over resources, mates or land evolved into massive country and globe-spanning wars that took millions of lives and years or decades to recover from. We started by killing each other with rocks and sticks and evolved to firearms and atomic bombs. 

One of the biggest turning points in military strategy and the history of war was the introduction of the Gatling gun. This automatic weapon changed the way we look at combat as a whole and military strategy in particular. Dylan Berger explains.

The British Army with Gatling Guns during the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

Introducing the Gatling Gun

Most of the weapons used during the U.S. Civil War were single-shot rifles and handguns. Even skilled and practiced soldiers couldn’t fire more than two to three shots every minute. Repeating rifles helped alleviate some of those problems, but they were still limited to the number of internal rounds each gun could hold. 

Handguns became more popular, but their accuracy was limited to about 50 yards. Modern handgun accuracy, with drills and practice, has a much farther range.

In 1861, Richard Jordan Gatling invented the first rapid-firing multiple-barrel rifle, which now bears his name. The first versions operated using a hand crank and were capable of firing up to 450 rounds a minute. The first incarnation of this automatic rifle only had one barrel that was prone to overheating. Gatling solved this problem by incorporating first six and then 10 rotating barrels that moved around a central axis.

The first Gatling gun — or rather, the first 12 Gatling guns — were used during the Siege of Petersburg, Virginia, between June 1864 and April 1865. Eight more were fitted on gunboats, but the U.S. Army didn’t start utilizing them until 1866, after they were demonstrated to be effective in combat. They weren’t used much during the Civil War because operators and military experts worried about wasting too much ammo, which was already in short supply.

After their introduction, the Gatling gun was used worldwide, including by the British Army during its various wars in Africa and by U.S. forces during the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. They were also used during the 1870s, to devastating effect, against Native American populations in the Midwest. This mechanical monstrosity, at the time, spelled utter destruction for those unprepared or who didn’t match its technology or speed.

The crank-operated Gatling gun was replaced by the Maxim gun, a recoil-operated machine gun, in 1884. Like its predecessor, the Maxim gun is named for its inventor — Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim.

New Strategies Became Necessary

When you’re facing off against an opponent attacking with single-shot or even repeating rifles, the strategies are fairly straightforward. Opponents that suddenly bring to bear a gun that can fire 450 rounds per minute requires a change in your plan. Clustering soldiers in tight formations that could rotate as needed to reload and fire was no longer a viable strategy because a Gatling gun could decimate such a group in seconds.

Military commanders did not learn how to counter these weapons until well into World War I. The standard military tactic of the Great War was the infantry charge. This was effective against rifles and armed infantrymen, but once machine guns hit the field, soldiers were cut down as soon as they left their trenches. The introduction of these automatic weapons led to a four-year stalemate and finally broke the deadlock in 1918 that led to the end of the war.

Automatic Weapons Have Evolved

We’ve come a long way since Gatling first introduced his coffee-grinder gun, and automatic weapons have evolved. Many of the design elements of those early examples were incorporated into modern weapons. The Vulcan minigun, often colloquially known as “Puff the Magic Dragon,” is a helicopter-mounted version of the original Gatling gun. It is belt-fed and is capable of firing a whopping 6,000 rounds per minute. A larger version that shoots 20 mm rounds is used as a tool for anti-aircraft defense.

The Vulcan minigun is still used today, often as a tool for counterinsurgency missions in Central America. In many ways, pitting the population of a Central American village against a Vulcan minigun is not much different than what the U.S. and Britain did with Gatling’s original design against native and tribal populations in the late 1800s.

The Future of Military Strategy

Military strategy has often been slow to evolve when new technology is adopted. The tendency to order infantry charges in the face of machine guns during World War I is proof of that. If a new game-changing weapon takes the field, only time will tell what the future of military strategy might look like.

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

The Early Life of Confederate General Robert E. Lee

If asked about Robert E. Lee, most people would answer that he was the most famous Confederate general in the Civil War - but here William Floyd Junior looks at Lee’s life before the Civil War. It includes his early education, his time at the United States Military Academy, both as a student and later as superintendent, his long career as an army engineer, the Mexican-American War, and his time in the regular U.S. Army.

Robert E. Lee at age 31 in 1838. He was then a Lieutenant of Engineers in the US Army.

Early life

Robert’s father was the famous, “Light Horse Harry Lee,” of Revolutionary War fame and a close friend of George Washington. He served in the Continental Congress and was governor of Virginia. In April of 1782, Harry married Matilda Lee, a second cousin. When Matilda’s father died, he left the family home, Stratford, to Matilda, her sister, and mother. Matilda’s mother and sister would move away leaving their shares of the property to Harry. Harry would begin to sell off parcels of Stratford’s property to cover his debts. After Matilda’s death, Harry would marry Ann Hill Carter. In the following years, Harry would be jailed twice for not paying his debts.

When Harry returned home, Ann insisted that they move to Alexandria, where they could be among friends and family and the children could receive a proper education. In Alexandria, Harry would continue to write his memoirs while trying to play the role of military hero. In the summer of 1813, he left on a ship for Barbados. In early March 1818, Harry left Nassau for the southern United States in an effort to return to his family. Harry would pass away on March 25, 1818, at Cumberland Island Georgia.

The person who did the most to teach Robert the ways of a gentleman was his mother. She would send one son to Harvard, one into the Navy, and another to the United States Military Academy. Robert’s early years were pleasant enough despite his mother’s failing health and the family’s limited income. With the absence of his siblings, Robert became the man of the house, taking care of all the family’s business and looking after his mother.

West Point

Robert’s earliest education began with his mother, before attending Eastern View, a family school maintained by the Carter family. Robert would then attend the Alexandria Academy where he would be introduced to Latin, the Classics, and become an excellent student in mathematics. After finishing at the Alexandria Academy, it was decided that Robert would attend West Point, a major factor being financial. Tuition at the United States Military Academy was free but after graduating the student had to commit to one year in the regular Army.

In 1825, the United States Military Academy at West Point was a school whose primary emphasis was on engineering. Robert, of course, met all the necessary requirements. Appointments to the Academy were made by the President from nominations made by the Secretary of War. Robert would be one of six candidates accepted from Virginia.

After a series of test at the school, Robert officially became a cadet (Freshman/Plebe) on June 28. The day at West Point officially began at 5:30 A.M. and ended at 10:00 P.M. The day was filled with classes and military activities. At the end of his first year, Robert was ranked third in his class without any demerits and promoted to staff sergeant, an unusually high rank for a plebe. In his second year, he would be appointed an “assistant professor of mathematics,” in which he tutored fellow cadets, being paid $10.00 a month. 

In his third year, Robert began scientific studies. He would not be taking a mathematics course but would continue his tutoring duties. Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, and Physics became his major courses of study. He would also take a variety of military studies classes. Lee, along with all other cadets would take compulsory dance classes. In addition, he would be chosen Corps Adjutant. During the summer of 1828, Robert would spend most of his time with his mother, whose health was becoming progressively worse. She would pass away on July 26, 1829, with Robert at her side.

On September 1, Robert began his final year at the Academy. He continued with military studies and added courses in Chemistry, Geology, Ethics, Rhetoric, and Practical Economy. It made for a very long day as in past years. He would pass all of his final exams and graduate second in his class. He would ask to be assigned to the Engineer Corps.

Early career

Brevet 2nd Lieutenant Lee would soon receive his first orders. He was to report to Major Samuel Babcock at Cockspur Island, Georgia by the middle of November. Cockspur was a God forsaken spot where Lee would help prepare the site for the building of a new fort. Lee would spend a good amount of time in water up to his armpits. By January of 1830, Lee had taken over the majority of the work.

In the summer of 1830, Lee would spend part of his time in Northern Virginia, returning to Cockspur on November 10. He would find the ditches filled and the wharf destroyed. He would immediately begin repairs. There would also be a new commanding officer, Lieutenant J.K.F. Mansfield. With Mansfield on the job, Lee became a luxury that the Corps could not afford.

Lee would soon receive orders to report for duty at Old Point Comfort, Virginia, located on the tip of the Virginia peninsula, which was the location of Fort Monroe. Lee would take charge of building Fort Wool, a short distance offshore from Fort Monroe on a manmade island. Lee’s primary task at Fort Wool was the supervision of the placement of loadstone, which he found incredibly tedious.

Lee was stationed at Fort Monroe from 1831 to 1834, directing some of the last phases of construction of Fortress Monroe. Lee’s work would become much more demanding with the absence of the Superintending Engineer, becoming involved in practically all phases of construction.

During his time at Fort Monroe, Robert would marry Mary Custis at Arlington. They would soon travel to the fort and set up housekeeping. The couple’s first child was born on September 16, 1832. The baby boy would be named George Washington Custis Lee.

In November 1834, Lee went to work as assistant to the chief of the Engineering Department (Corps) in Washington. Lee was meticulous and paid attention to every detail. However, after four months in Washington, Lee asked to be reassigned. By the summer of 1835, he would be surveying the boundary between Ohio and Michigan led by his friend, Andrew Talcott. 

The work was not expected to take more than a month but turned out to take the entire summer. The work involved a number of complicated mathematical calculations and take Lee as far as the Great Lakes. Lee would arrive back in Washington in early October to find his wife very sick. Lee became worn down by Mary’s illness and the shear tedium of work. A slow but temporary improvement in Mary’s health and the beauty of Arlington helped to cheer Lee up.

Major challenge

Lee’s next assignment, and probably the most challenging of his career, was the taming of a portion of the Mississippi River, the major transportation route in the Midwest, and St. Louis the major hub and transportation center. However, the route of the river did not remain constant, gradually changing over time. In one case the river would change in such a way that could leave St. Louis landlocked.

By the end of June 1837 Lee would be on his way to his new assignment at St. Louis. Lee’s plan for saving the St. Louis harbor would be to throw the full current of the Mississippi on to the western (Missouri) side. In turn the current would wash away the built-up sand. Lee’s plan was to work with the river, not against it, and allow the Mississippi to do most of the work.

Lee’s hard work would pay off, with the stronger force of water pounding against the head of Duncan’s Island, its sand and silt began washing away. By the end of the construction season, some 700 feet of the island had disappeared. In addition, the channel across the bar between Bloody Island and Duncan’s Island had been deepened by seven feet.

Work on the Mississippi at St. Louis would come to an end and Lee would return to Arlington in December 1839 and was eventually reassigned to the Chief Engineer’s office in Washington.

Lee’s next assignment would be to upgrade the forts, which protected New York City. This work would be all encompassing for Lee, performing all of the administrative duties and supervising construction. At the end of this assignment, Lee would travel to West Point to consult on the new cadet barracks and serve on the Board of Examiners.

Mexican-American War

With the start of the Mexican-American War, Lee would be chosen to serve on the staff of commanding general Winfield Scott. Lee’s first assignment in this position would be to scout locations for the placement of artillery for the attack on the city of Vera Cruz. After the American victory at Vera Cruz, Scott’s forces would move inland but would soon be confronted by Santa Anna’s army on the national road. Again, the reconnaissance of the engineers, including Lee, would play a vital role in Scott’s attack. For his part Lee would be promoted to Brevet Major.

The Mexican Army soon realized they were in a bad position and would retreat to Mexico City. The engineers would again play an important role in the taking of the city. This would lead to the Mexican surrender on May 25, 1848. Lee would leave Mexico the following June.

Lee would soon be back at Arlington spending as much time as possible with his family and would begin work at the Chief Engineer’s Office in Washington. Lee would be commissioned a colonel on August 24. Around this same time, he would receive his next assignment, the building of the foundation for a fort to protect Baltimore from an attack by water.

The work at Baltimore required almost hourly supervision on Lee’s part. In late July Lee would develop a fever, which was most likely malaria. He would leave the site, with General Totten’s permission, until his health improved. Towards the end of summer, Lee would be part of an inspection tour of other facilities but would soon ask to be relieved due to his ongoing illness.

Back to West Point

Lee would not return to Baltimore until the end of August. Work under Lee’s supervision continued but on May 28 he received a letter that would change everything. The orders stated that he would assume the position of Superintendent at West Point the following September. This was a job he really did not want but would reluctantly accept it. On August 23 he left for West Point and assumed his assigned duties.

At the time of his arrival, there was an aggressive building program underway which fit right in with Lee’s vast experience. Congress had approved funds for a riding hall, the expansion of the cadet hospital, cavalry stables, and officer’s quarters. These projects were begun under Lee’s tenure, but the majority of the construction was done in 1855.

In March 1855, Lee would become part of the regular army, again a position he had not sought out. The change from staff to line did not include a pay raise. Transfer also meant a complete break from the Corps of Engineers and, once again, long periods of time away from his family. On March 31, 1855, Lee relinquished command at West Point.

Little did Lee know that the most difficult part of his life was still in front of him.

What do you think of Robert E. Lee’s early life? Let us know below.

Now read William’s article on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here, and Walter H. Taylor, Robert E. Lee’s indispensable man, here.

Wernher von Braun – Dangerous Nazi or Hero of the Space Race? Part 2 – The Evidence

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

Read part 1 on Von Braun’s life here.

Wernher von Braun in civilian clothes, with members of the Nazi military in May 1941 in Peenemunde. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1978-Anh.024-03 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

So what shall we think of the man who probably more than any other was responsible for the unforgettable “Giant Leap'' made by Neil Armstrong that famous day in July 1969? Does von Braun deserve to be condemned for the part he played in the war? Was he, as Lehrer indicated, a hypocrite unworthy of admiration? Or was he a visionary, modern-day Columbus who should be providing inspiration for future generations? Let’s look at the record.

Von Braun's links to the Third Reich began early in the 1930s. Even before Hitler attained power, he and other gifted rocketeers captured the attention of the German military. Specifically, Germany at that time was on the lookout for weapons that would not violate the Treaty of Versailles. Artillery Captain Walter Dornberger was impressed with von Braun and chose him to lead Germany’s rocket artillery unit. Shortly after Hitler took power in 1933, all rocket experiments not under the direct control of the German military were banned. Now the only way for the ambitious young von Braun to continue his research was to work for the German Army. Thus sponsored by the new regime, von Braun and his team developed what was essentially a hobby into the modern science of rocketry - a shift that would soon dramatically alter the course of history. The next step was to find the ideal location, isolated and next to lots of space where failed rocket launches could crash. That place was Peenemunde on the Baltic Sea, where the team moved in 1937 with von Braun as technical director and where the rocket work was kept secret. It was here that his reputation was made and the seeds of later controversy were planted. 

If one were to look only at the surface of von Braun’s record during the Hitler years, the results seem a damning, open-and-shut case. He not only joined the Nazi Party before the war, he was involved with the dreaded SS as early as 1933. As a member of the organization, labeled “criminal” at the Nuremberg Trials, he rose to the rank of SS-Sturmbannführer (major). During his service he earned the War merit cross, first class with Swords and then the Knights Cross of the War Merit Cross with Swords. He then proceeded to play an instrumental role in a weapon that was used in indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian targets, built by enforced labor. The working conditions of the laborers, mostly concentration camp prisoners, were characterized by terrible atrocities. All in all, it looks like a watertight case against the hero of the moon landing. However, as any good detective or historian knows, only looking at surface facts does not tell the whole story. A more thorough investigations reveals that the great engineer had a more complex and ambivalent relationship with the Nazi regime than the above facts indicate. 

Reluctant Nazi, Eager Opportunist

Throughout his post-war career, von Braun consistently attempted to downplay his involvement with the labor-camp atrocities and to portray his several encounters with Hitler as unpleasant. In his 1947 army affidavit von Braun was both coy and forthright at the same time. He attempted to diminish his membership and activities in the NSDAP and the SS. Much of this checks out. His early involvement with the SS was as a member of an SS horse-riding school - a quite harmless endeavor. He left the school after one year. He asserted that he was “demanded” to join the National Socialist Party in 1939 (two years later than he actually did). He explained that refusal to do so would have meant the end of his career with rockets, which is true. Therefore he decided to join. His involvement in the party, he maintained, was largely symbolic and did not involve any political activity. In the words of his biographer Neufeld, “... in every case it (joining the party or the SS) appears to be because of external pressure. There isn’t much evidence that he joined voluntarily or shared the racist, anti-Semitic ideology of the party.” As for the SS, von Braun claimed that his membership in the SS came about when he was approached by a colonel Mueller to join. He consulted with his superior and long-time mentor, Major General Dr. Dornberger, who informed him that, once again, a refusal to join would mean the end of his work with rockets. Himmler, always scheming for power, only wanted von Braun to join as a ploy to gain control over the rocket program. The young rocketeer was in no position to refuse. Thus he became SS with the rank of lieutenant. In his own words, “I received a written promotion every year. At the war’s end I had the rank of a “Sturmbannführer” (major). But nobody ever requested me to report to anyone or to do anything with the SS.” He explained that the only occasion he actually used his rank was to help in the evacuation of the rocket program from Peenamunde to a safer location in southern Germany. His account is corroborated by the available facts. There is no evidence that during his time in the SS he did anything more than send in his monthly dues.

Political fighting

The record displays abundant evidence that, rather than seeking to advance the Nazi agenda, von Braun's priorities were science, rockets and space exploration. According to Neufeld, “He was not ideologically very interested in Nazi ideas.” In fact, his obsession with space travel instead of defense was just the opportunity needed by Himmler to attempt a take-over of the rocket program. The chaotically administered Third Reich was characterized by constant infighting and struggles for power. SS Chief Himmler had cast his eyes on the prestigious field of war production, including rockets. To gain leverage, Himmler had von Braun and his team under surveillance from October 1943. The young engineer and his colleagues were unenthusiastic enough about the National Socialist agenda to provide Himmler what he needed. The SS compiled a file on him and his colleagues, claiming that they were overheard complaining about the use of rockets as a combat weapon instead of for space exploration and making “defeatist” remarks about the war’s progress. In March 1944, without hearing the charges, von Braun was suddenly imprisoned for two weeks. The accusations involved sabotaging or delaying the effort to develop the rocket as an effective weapon in the war effort. The charges were dropped and von Braun was released after Hitler was persuaded that their prisoner was simply too valuable to lose. His arrest does not prove that von Braun was an active opponent of the Nazi regime. It does help corroborate, however, that he was far from a die-hard follower of Hitler. In fact, after his brief incarceration by the Gestapo, the Third Reich’s Wunderkind grew increasingly alienated from the Nazi regime. Fellow engineer Peter Wegener, who worked with him in the last two years of the war, noticed von Braun changing attitude toward the Third Reich: “von Braun joked in small groups about meetings with government leaders and extended his attitude later to the SS. It became obvious to me that he disliked Hitler and all that Hitler did.”

This incident does not absolve von Braun of war-crimes, but it does corroborates the rocket team leader’s claim that he was not a genuine Nazi but rather simply interested in rockets. His behavior at war’s end is also consistent with this view. Rather than hand his blueprints over to the SS, he ordered them hidden in an abandoned mine. After his surrender he cooperated with American authorities, who rescued 14 tons of V-2 documents. Fellow rocket enthusiast William Ley said of him, “I found no reason to regard von Braun as an outspoken anti-Nazi. But just as little, if not even less, did I find him to be a Nazi. In my opinion the man simply wanted to build rockets, period.” He simply took advantage of any opportunity to promote his vision, even if it meant turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. But he, unlike other war criminals, was never eager to contribute to that suffering or to use rocketry to rain destruction upon mankind. After a visit to a 1939 launch, Albert Speer observed, “For him (von Braun) and his team, this was not the development of a weapon, but a step into the future of technology.”

Rockets for the Fatherland

Von Braun’s own politics were typical of the aristocratic, East Prussian class into which he had been born. The engineer shared the hyper-conservative political views of his background. Aristocratic Germans had little use for the vulgar, radical Nazis and viewed them with ridicule. However, as the Nazis restored German stability, prosperity and national pride, the members of this class acknowledged the benefits of the regime and supported it in one way or another, nor were they shy about taking advantage of opportunities offered. This was especially true for von Braun. For him the Nazis offered the only way he could continue pursuing his dream of space travel. This explains his war record as well as his basic sense of patriotic duty, which led him to overlook the moral shortcomings of the regime in order to do his part to help his country. Without diminishing Mr. Salz' suffering, it is simply inaccurate to say that von Braun wanted to “develop a wonder weapon.” After successful launches of the V-2 against Paris and London, von Braun made a short speech to his team: “Let's not forget...that this is only the beginning of a new era, the era of rocket-powered flight. It seems that this is another demonstration of the sad fact that so often important new developments get nowhere until they are first applied as weapons.” As for his work for the “final victory,” although serving a terrible regime, he, like millions of other Germans, saw their service as patriotic duty, not war crimes. As one of von Braun’s colleagues put it: “Most of us were pretty sore about the heavy bombing of Germany-the loss of German civilians, mother, fathers, or relatives. When the first V-2 hit London, we had champagne. And why not? We were at war, and although we weren’t Nazis, we still had a Fatherland to fight for.”

What do you think about Wernher von Braun? Let us know below.

Now, read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple William McKinley’s statue in Arcata, California here.

The Challenges of Preserving American’s Historic Buildings

As in many places, there are significant challenges in preserving America’s historic buildings. Here, Jennifer Gedding looks at these challenges and what can be done to address them.

The art deco Hall of Waters in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. Source: Americasroof, available here.

America has an astonishing array of fantastic architecture, often designed for business, despite its relatively short history. Until 1987, protecting these sites was a difficult task; however, as one National Public Radio (NPR) feature highlights, the introduction of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) has led to just 5% of historic nationwide properties undergoing serious decline. This is not an automatic process, however; to the contrary, the work of the NTHP relies on the vigilant work of interested citizens. According to NPR, historic buildings fight against development, climate change and neglect, and only determination will stop them from being lost to time.

Historic renovation

Most urgent on the list of architectural tasks for the American public is the preservation of its most at-risk historic buildings. As the Smithsonian magazine outlines, even remarkably historic and famous buildings are under threat. One key example of the renovation challenge is presented by the art deco Hall of Waters in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. Composed of historic baths and springs, the Halls have nevertheless fallen into disrepair. Renovation isn’t as simple as a quick fix, however. The process of preserving historic buildings has to be balanced against modern regulations and technology, and is actually a very highly skilled job. Conservators provide knowledge that those engaged in preservation can use to stick to the various rules and guidelines determining the use and upkeep of a building. Over the years, this process can become extremely complex and finely detailed, hence the drawn-out process of preserving some historic structures.

Pressure of development

An esoteric threat to classic examples of architecture comes in the form of new developments. The USA of course needs new development to keep moving forward - the infrastructure of old is sometimes not up to the standards required in the modern day, and it is only natural to seek change. However, a balance can be struck. In Los Angeles, Apple has announced the opening of a new, ultra-high-tech store within a restored building - the iconic Tower Theatre. This shows how the cutting edge of technology and commercial enterprise can absolutely mesh with a priority for keeping old buildings alive.

The climate change challenge

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (AHCP) lists climate change as one of the primary threats to historic buildings - but that historic buildings also offer a huge opportunity. The materials used to make buildings are often impacted by changes in climate and environmental hazards - for instance, sandstone buildings can be very susceptible to acid rain. This makes preservation that much harder - but also, more worthwhile. According to the AHCP, preserving older buildings helps to restrict the impact of climate change. The most environmentally friendly building is the one that has already been built, preventing the extraction of resources and pollution of the atmosphere.

In that way, preservation of old buildings is, in itself, preservation of the environment and the urban landscape. These buildings are the key to ensuring that history is preserved and that a little extra is done to combat climate change. The difficulties of achieving this are certainly worth addressing for the payoff.

What do you think of the need to preserve historical buildings? Let us know below.

Why Could you be Sent to an ‘Insane Asylum’ in 19th Century America?

‘Insane asylums’ were the 19th century forerunners of today’s psychiatric hospitals, but people were sent to them for sometimes quite different reasons to today. Here, Casey Hakenson looks at some disturbing cases of why and how people, including women, African Americans, and Native Americans, were sent to ‘insane asylums’ in 19th century America.

Elizabeth Packard, who was sent to the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane in 1860.

Before the 19th century, the only options to institutionalize a person with mental illness were jails and almshouses, where the conditions were often disturbing and dehumanizing. So, in the 19th century, ‘insane asylums’ came along. These institutions were created by reformers to be positive places where ‘lunatics’ could be cured, and ‘idiots’ taught. Yet, almost immediately, people began to be confined to these homes for some of the most benign symptoms. As these ‘homes’ rose in popularity throughout the 1800s, the number of people committed continued to rise as fewer and fewer patients were ever able to leave.

Elizabeth Packard

Let’s begin with one of the most famous instances of imprisonment. Elizabeth Packard was married to a Calvinist minister named Theophilus. Everything seemed to be going well until Elizabeth became interested in popular religious beliefs, such as Swedenborgianism, perfectionism, and spiritualism. These differences resulted in explosive arguments that culminated in her standing up in church while he was preaching and announcing she would be attending services elsewhere. Theophilus began to question his wife’s sanity (or at least claim he did) and had a doctor, J.W. Brown, visit their home disguised as a sewing machine salesman to diagnose Elizabeth. Brown concluded Elizabeth was insane because of her hostility towards her husband and her unorthodox beliefs. Elizabeth Packard spent three years at the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane (from 1860-1863) until her oldest son turned 21 years old and was able to release her. 

The truth of the matter was that in the 19th century, it was often quite easy for a man to institutionalize his wife or daughter. In some U.S. states, the man did not have to present any proof; he only needed the consent of the superintendent of the asylum. Many women were locked up for such erroneous reasons as over-education, PMS, being unmarried, or displaying what was considered over-sexual behavior such as masturbating.

One example of this was Alice Christina Abbot, committed to Taunton State Hospital in Massachusetts in 1867 for allegedly poisoning her stepfather. A bit of background: 17-year-old Alice had recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse, an allegation that the courts dismissed. The defenses’ primary evidence against her? She didn’t seem upset that her stepfather was dead. (Hmmm. I wonder why…)

African Americans and Native Americans

Yet, of course, women weren’t the only group that were institutionalized for pseudo-scientific reasons. When the U.S. Civil War ended, there was an uptick in the institutionalization of African Americans, who many claimed would delve into insanity caused by their new freedom. African American people, like women and other disenfranchised groups, could be committed for basically any reason. A white employer or community member could claim an African American person was insane, and the accused had little resource to defend themselves in court. In fact, at Central Hospital in Virginia, an all-African American mental asylum, there were no records of anyone willingly institutionalizing themselves. Making matters even worse for the inmates, some doctors claimed that African American people needed to do hard labor to stay mentally sane. For example, at Central, they were put to work on the asylum’s large farm and performing domestic chores. (Sounds like a certain something that had just been outlawed…) And, like many who were confined to these hospitals, a large percentage died from illnesses contracted from overcrowding. 

Native Americans were prone to a similar fate since they were often diagnosed and committed by the white reservation agents who were put in place by the government - men who usually had little to no medical training. Native Americans, too, could be confined for an array of offenses, such as refusing their government’s assimilation tactics, or in one man’s case, a 1913 accusation of ‘horse-stealing mania.’ Native Americans, like other asylum patients, were often treated to conditions akin to torture, sterilized, experimented on, and usually died in these places of ‘healing’. 

A few more examples from a ‘reasons for admission’ list from Weston Hospital in Lewis County, West Virginia were:

-Bad Company

-Bad Habits

-Business Nerves

-Crime

-Death of Sons in the War

-Deranged Masturbation

-Desertion by Husband

-Disappointment 

-Domestic Trouble

-Doubt about Mother’s Ancestry

-Feebleness of Intellect 

-Female Disease

-Hard Study

-Imaginary Female Trouble

-Laziness

-Medicine to Prevent Conception

-Menstrual Deranged

-Novel Reading

-Parents were Cousins

-Political or Religious Excitement 

-Suppressed Masturbation

So, what could you get institutionalized for in the not-so-distant past? Anything, really. 

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

References

Brice, Anne. “How the U.S. Government Created an ‘Insane Asylum’ to Imprison Native Americans.” Berkeley News, 19 Nov. 2020, https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/11/19/ using-disability-to-imprison-native-americans/. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

Charleston, L.J. “Outrageous Ways to be Admitted to an Insane Asylum in the 19th Century.” News.com.au, 18 Aug. 2019, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true- stories/outrageous-ways-to-be-admitted-to-an-insane-asylum-in-the-19th-century/news-story/e590c54e3469606d1b2330a52c3d8f6b. Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“Elizabeth Packard: Advocate for the Rights of Married Women.” History of American Women, https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2013/01/elizabeth-packard.html.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“How Victorian Women were Oppressed through the Use of Psychiatry.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/netflix-2017/how-victorian-women-were- oppressed-through-the-use-of-psychiatry/1607/. Accessed 1 July 2021.

“Packard, Elizabeth (1816-1897).” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/packard-elizabeth-1816-1897.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

Peterson, Britt. “A Virginia Mental Institution for Black Patients, Opened After the Civil War, Yields a Trove of Disturbing Records.” The Washington Post, 29 March 2021,  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/black-asylum-files-reveal-racism/2021/03/26/ebfb2eda-6d78-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html. Accessed 1  July 2021. 

 Tabler, Dave. “125 Reasons You’ll Get Sent to the Lunatic Asylum.” AppalachianHistory.net, 4 December 2008, https://www.appalachianhistory.net/2008/12/125-reasons- youll-get-sent-to-lunatic.html. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

“The Growth of the Asylum.” Historic England, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1832-1914/the-growth-of-the-asylum/. Accessed  1 July 2021. 

Four of the Most Eccentric Scottish Dukes of Hamilton

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

Hamilton Palace around 1880.

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

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

The Dueling Duke

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

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

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

A Curtain Ring Wedding

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

The Hamilton House Dance

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

The Proudest Man in England

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

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

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

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

Ilana writes at The Haunted Palace Blog here.

Four Times a European Queen Married Two Different Kings

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Here we will look at four women in particular.

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

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

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

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

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

Did they really have a choice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To avoid a life in religious obsoletion 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting the life of her sons

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

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

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

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

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

To protect her own inheritance

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

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

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

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

Retaining power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

What do you think about these four queens?

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

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

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

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

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

[v] Keynes, Emma [Ælfgifu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khazar Origins

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

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

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

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

Khazarian Life, Culture, and Trade

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

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

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

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

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

Emergence of the Jewish Khazars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fall of the Jewish Khazars

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

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

What happened to the Jews?

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Icon of a New Age

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

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

Space Crusader

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

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

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

From Satire to Scholarship

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

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

A man whose allegiance

Is ruled by expedience

Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown

"Nazi, Schmazi!" says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical

Say rather that he's apolitical

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

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

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

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

Voices of Protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V-1 Flying Bomb

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

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

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

V-3 Artillery Gun

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

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

XXI U-Boat

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

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

Fritz X Guided Bomb

A further Nazi “Wonder Weapon” was the Fritz X Guided Bomb. The Fritz X Guided bomb had a warhead which weighed 3,085 pounds (21). The Fritz X was launched from a bomber aircraft and was guided to its target by the bombardier who used a joystick inside the bomber aircraft (22). The radio command system of the Fritz X was codenamed E30 Kelhl- Strasbourg (22). 

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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