The 216BC Battle of Cannae: An Un-Cannae Defeat

Whether the pun in the title made you laugh or cringe, it is fitting for the event that this article is about, the Battle of Cannae—indeed an uncanny defeat. Here, Nathan Richardson explains what happened in the 216BC battle between the Roman Republic and Carthage, part of the Second Punic War.

The Death of Aemilius Paulus at the Battle of Cannae. A 1773 painting by John Trumbull.

In 216 BC, the Roman Republic faced not only defeat, but the possible dissolution of their empire. The foreign armies of Carthage, Rome’s rival from across the Mediterranean on the North African coast, tread on Italian soil. Hannibal Barca, one of history’s most renowned and daring generals, and Carthage’s best hope of victory, cowed Rome’s allies and threatened Rome herself. Having traveled from the Iberian Peninsula, through southern Gaul (modern-day France), across the nearly-impassable Alps, and down into Italy, Hannibal rampaged into the very heart of the burgeoning empire of Rome. Hannibal smashed three Roman armies in quick succession: the Battles of Ticinus (in 218 BC) Trebia (also in 218) and Trasimene (in 217) (Goldsworthy, 22-27). The Carthaginian general, whose father had reportedly made him swear eternal enmity for Rome, seemed undefeatable (Goldsworthy, 15). Each battle the Romans fought brought them closer to complete destruction. Each time the Roman army faced the Carthaginians in the open field, Rome’s vital manpower was further depleted. Each defeat, additionally, began to erode the various Italian cities’ confidence in Rome to defend them. In the north of Italy in the Po River Valley, many recently-conquered Gauls living there flocked to Hannibal’s side and threw off the Roman yoke (Keppie, 25-6). Rome stood determined still, yet the question remained whether Roman resilience would outlast Hannibal. Rome buckled under these crushing defeats, yet far darker days lay ahead.

Fabius’ Plan

In response to this crisis, the Romans elected a dictator to see them through the trials ahead—a man named Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (in the future, simply Fabius). Fabius realized that Hannibal would likely defeat the next hastily-prepared Roman army just like the last three. He saw no point in throwing another army of untested Romans against Hannibal’s experienced and hardy mercenaries and allies. Therefore, Fabius resolved to keep his army in being, and carefully avoided pitched battles with Hannibal—all the while shadowing the Carthaginians and attempting to disrupt their supplies. Hannibal, no doubt, preferred to annihilate one hastily-assembled and ill-trained set of legions at a time—until Rome was forced to sue for peace. Yet Fabius did his best to not do Hannibal the service of fighting him in the open. If Fabius could keep this up, he would slowly deprive Hannibal of food and wear down his multi-ethnic army (Goldsworthy, 27-32). Hannibal, after all, was quite vulnerable. He was an invader in a foreign land, and many of his men would only fight so long as they were paid and taken care of (Goldsworthy, 46). If the Romans haunted Hannibal’s steps, kept him from properly resupplying, and provided Hannibal’s men no source of spoils, their morale would eventually decline, and Hannibal could possibly be destroyed or driven out of Italy.

However, the Roman people soon began to tire of Fabius’ strategy, interpreting them as hesitancy or even cowardice. Cunctator (“the Delayer”) was the moniker the people soon gave him (Keppie, 26). According to the Greek historian Plutarch, Hannibal, aware of Fabius’ unpopular strategy of non-engagement, purposed to further discredit Fabius. To do so, he sacked and burned the lands surrounding Fabius’ personal holdings, yet left Fabius’ property untouched—going so far as to post guards around Fabius’ property to ensure it stay unmolested. When word of this reached Rome, Fabius’ reputation took a serious downturn, and slanderous rumors of treason circulated around Rome (Plutarch, 217). Once his six-month term as dictator expired, Fabius left the army and returned to Rome (Goldsworthy, 31). Not only did Fabius leave office deeply unpopular, but his strategies would be disregarded by his successors.

With the dictator out of power, Rome again appointed two Consuls to lead her through this crisis. These two Consuls were Paullus and Varro. Responding to the impatient voices of Rome, the two Consuls hastily raised a new army, this time made of eight legions and troops from various allies of Rome (probably in the form of light infantry and cavalry), and set forth to meet Hannibal. This army that Paullus and Varro led was indeed massive, numbering around 75,000 men. Their army outnumbered Hannibal’s force nicely, which numbered only 40,000 men (Keppie, 26). If all else were equal, an army with such a numerical advantage must surely win a pitched battle. However, Hannibal’s skill as a tactician, as well as the Roman consuls’ poor decisions, would hobble Rome in taking full advantage of her superior numbers. Additionally, Rome’s hastily formed force, man for man, was far from the Carthaginian’s army’s equal.

The Battle

The Romans and the Carthaginians met by the Aufidus River (now called the Ofanto) near the town of Cannae in southeast Italy. The ground chosen by the Romans favored the Roman situation, since the Aufidus running on the Roman right and rough land on Roman left limited the space open on either flank for Carthaginian cavalry (which was superior to the Roman’s) (Goldsworthy, 99). Additionally, the ground offering little room for maneuver complemented the Roman tactics for this battle. Their plan was blunt: they would launch a full-frontal assault and attempt to use their enormous numbers to brute-force their way through the Carthaginian line. However inelegant it might be, the plan’s lack of complexity did not ask too much of the poorly trained and hastily organized army the Roman’s fielded (Goldsworthy, 113-16).

Between the two Consuls, Varro is typically depicted as the braggart fool who bumbled his way into Hannibal’s trap, and Paullus as the martyred prudent commander. Though it is difficult not to blame the day’s commander for the calamity about to befall the Roman army, especially since Varro was most certainly the bolder of the two commanders, this characterization is likely an exaggeration at least (Goldsworthy, 84, 72-3). However, it must be remembered that neither consul had ever commanded such a massive force (this was one of the largest armies Rome would ever put into the field), and both consuls were entirely outmatched by Hannibal in generalship (Goldsworthy, 66, 64).

Hannibal’s arrangement of troops was key to the Carthaginian success. Contrary to the Roman’s expectations (and possibly good sense), he placed his least experienced and least reliable troops (the Celtiberians from modern-day Spain) as his center in the battle lines. He also arrayed these troops in an arc, bowing out towards the Roman lines. These troops provided a very tempting focal point for the Roman charge. So, with a deliberately weak center, Hannibal posted his best troops, his Libyan heavy infantry, on either flank (Keppie, 26). On each far flank, both sides posted cavalry on either side. Though vastly outnumbered in terms of infantry, Hannibal did possess more cavalry and of higher quality than the Romans mustered. This equestrian superiority would become another key element of Hannibal’s victory (Keppie, 26).

In typical ancient warfare form, the battle commenced with light infantry of both sides armed with javelins, bows, or slings running forward and attempting to break up the enemy’s formations with projectiles. The light infantry also served another purpose: they helped to screen the movements of the main army from the enemy’s view. If the Roman commanders had been able to see Hannibal’s arrangement of troops, they may have realized what kind of trap lay in store for them. Thus, light infantry assisted in blinding the commanders on either side from having a complete picture of their enemy’s designs (Keppie, 26). Further, Plutarch states that a strong wind blew sand into the eyes of the Romans during the battle, giving the Carthaginians a further edge over the Romans (Plutarch, 223).

Trap

Paullus’ and Varro’s army blundered forward, intent on smashing through the weak Carthaginian center. While this drama played out in the center, the Roman and Carthaginian cavalry engaged in a heated melee on the flanks. The cavalry situation was less in Rome’s favor. On the Roman right, Hannibal’s allied Celtic cavalry beat the Roman cavalry on that side, and forced the Romans to flee. Meanwhile, on the Roman left, the Roman cavalry managed to hold off Hannibal’s Numidian cavalry. But the Roman left soon broke and fled when the victorious Celtic cavalry, abandoning their pursuit of the Roman right’s horsemen, turned against the Roman left’s cavalry (Keppie, 26). Thus, the Roman cavalry on either flank were beaten and driven off, leaving the Carthaginian cavalry unopposed.

While the Roman cavalry fought and fled the field, the Roman infantry, though still superior in numbers, pushed themselves further and further into Hannibal’s trap. As the Romans pressed forward, Hannibal’s center fell back and began to break, inverting the arc that the Carthaginian line formed. However, this arc did not break. Instead, the formerly concave arc turned convex. Every step forward the Roman center made was one step farther into Hannibal’s trap. As Hannibal’s center fell back with the Roman push, the Libyan infantry, on the extreme ends of the line, began wrapping like tentacles around the Roman flanks, eventually transforming the orderly host of Roman infantry into a disorganized mass of men, where all semblance of formation disappeared, and the enemy were suddenly present on three sides—Celtiberians in the front and Libyans on either flank (Keppie, 26).

The Roman Legions’ fate was sealed with Hannibal’s final move: the victorious Carthaginian cavalry charged the Roman rear. With just-victorious Carthaginian cavalry nipping at their heals, the Roman infantry in the rear began to melt away. The poor Romans in the very front did not flee—they could not. The veteran Carthaginian infantry bore down on them, and a massive noose, encompassing tens of thousands of Romans, began to tighten. They were pushed into a tighter and tighter mass, so much so that the legionnaires could not properly use their weapons. Many men were forced to stand and wait for all the men in front of them to be hacked down before they met their own end (Goldsworthy, 177). Only about 10,000 managed to escape the slaughter and limp dejectedly back to Rome. The rest, over 50,000 Romans, were slaughtered where they stood or as they fled (Goldsworthy, 183). Among the lucky survivors was Varro, the impatient Consul who fell for Hannibal’s trap so nicely. Paullus, on the other hand, died with his men.

Aftermath of Defeat

The defeat Rome suffered at Cannae was colossal. A large proportion of Rome’s men of fighting age had been slaughtered. A defeat such as Cannae would have been the end for almost any other empire. Yet, Rome was not like other empires. Rome did not sue for peace. A galvanized Senate and People of Rome were more determined than ever to rid Italy of Hannibal and the world of the hated Carthage (Goldsworthy, 197). New armies were raised, and the Fabian strategies resumed (Keppie, 28). Hannibal, having doubtlessly suffered heavy casualties at Cannae (though light compared to the Romans), did not follow up his victory with a march on Rome, against the advice of his more aggressive generals. One of his generals is recorded by Livy as having told the great Hannibal, “Truly the gods do not give everything to the same man: you know how to win a victory, Hannibal, but you do not know how to use one” (Goldsworthy, 189). Instead, Hannibal focused on trying to turn more Italian cities (allies of Rome) to his side in order to get the men and supplies he needed. Though many flocked to his banner after Cannae (notably, Italy’s second-largest city, Capua), not enough of them did. Rome still held firm, and so would many of Rome’s allies (Keppie, 28). The war continued in Italy for over a decade more. In 204 BC the famed Roman general Scipio Africanus made an invasion of North Africa from Sicily, with the intent of assaulting the city of Carthage itself. He was not known as Africanus then, but his upcoming campaign in North Africa would soon earn him that title. In response to this threat, Hannibal was recalled from Italy to defend the seat of the Carthaginian empire (Goldsworthy, 202). In total, Hannibal and his army had ravaged Italy for nearly fifteen years—fifteen years of brutal, bloody conflict across many battlefields. Yet, Cannae would be the one battle that Rome remembered the clearest as one of their darkest days—though a dark day that was not the end of Rome.

Influence of Cannae

Hannibal executed a near-perfect encirclement of eight Roman Legions by the Aufidus River in southeast Italy. In awe of this achievement, generals throughout history have attempted to replicate it. The “double-envelopment”, “Pincer movement”, or simply “encirclement” became the dream of every ambitious general. German General von Schlieffen planned (unsuccessfully, as it would turn out) to achieve a double-envelopment of the Allied forces in the First World War. So too did US General Schwarzkopf in the Gulf War. Hannibal’s double-envelopment was and is the ultimate winning-stroke that many commanders throughout history have sought for, yet rarely achieved. Many generals throughout history have looked all the way back, over two thousand years ago, to the Battle of Cannae for inspiration (Goldsworthy, 205-6).

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

Portugal During World War I

The Western Front of World War I conjures up images of trenches, bunkers, and an artillery scarred no-man’s-land. On one side was the German Empire, on the other was France, the British Empire, and, eventually, the United States. It has long been forgotten that there was another Allied nation that fought in the trenches of Northern France and Flanders. Two divisions of the Portuguese Army fought in the British sector of the line from April 1917 to April 1918. This is not even to mention the equally large number of troops sent to fight in Angola and Mozambique against German colonial troops. Tens of thousands of Portuguese soldiers would serve in the trenches of northern Europe and in Africa. They would fight in major battles, and yet the role of Portugal in World War I is generally not acknowledged or understood.

Matt Lowe explains.

Portuguese troops going to Angola during World War I.

Revolution and a New Republic

On October 5, 1910, the Kingdom of Portugal ceased to exist. A republic was established in its place, one of only a handful in Europe. The Portuguese monarchy had been gradually weakening for decades, with numerous incidents highlighting its shortcomings at home and abroad. Notably, a disagreement over colonial boundaries in southern Africa in 1890 led to diplomatic humiliation at the hands of Britain, Portugal’s oldest ally. On February 1, 1908, King Carlos I and his heir Luis Filipe were assassinated by militant republicans. The king’s second son thus ascended to the throne as Manuel II at only 18 years of age. The monarchy was on its last legs by this point, and it was Manuel’s poor fortune to reign during such turbulent times. When the revolution finally came two years later, Manuel was forced into exile in Great Britain. A devout Portuguese patriot until his death in 1932, he would never return to his homeland. Unsurprisingly, the new republic proved to be politically unstable with a revolving door of governments over the next several years. Many Portuguese politicians wanted to prove to the rest of Europe that Portugal was no longer a political and cultural backwater. When war broke out across the continent in 1914, there was finally an opportunity to show the world that the republic was strong and that Portugal had entered the modern age politically and militarily.

A Global Conflict Begins

When the First World War began on July 28, 1914, a series of alliances rapidly brought most of the
European great powers into conflict with one another. Although Portugal did not formally join the war at this point, the war came on its own to the Portuguese colony of Angola. German South West Africa (modern day Namibia) lay directly south of Angola, and it became a battlefield as soon as news of the outbreak of war reached it from Europe. South Africa, a major British possession, had around 40,000 troops stationed there, a much larger military force at its disposal than the roughly 3,000 men of the Schutztruppe plus lower quality militia in German territory. The fighting in German South West Africa would take place mostly in the southmost parts of the colony against South African forces. Notably, however, the German military commanders in the region learned that a Portuguese expedition was being sent near the southern Angolan border. This combined with the knowledge that Portugal was Britain’s ally made them believe that this was going to lead to a Portuguese invasion from the north in conjunction with the British one in the south. Thus, the German commanders decided to send a portion of their forces to the north to launch a preemptive strike against the incoming Portuguese expedition before it could do the same to them. What they did not know, was that Portugal had no intention at the time to do anything of the sort, with the expedition’s primary role being to secure the border from German incursions and local rebel activity.

Portuguese metropolitan and colonial troops had seen intermittent fighting in southern Angola for decades and there was a fear that the war could spillover into Portuguese territory and potentially ignite a new wave of fighting. The German decision to attack was therefore almost a self-fulfilling prophecy of bringing Portugal into the war. Starting in October of 1914, a series of small battles were fought in southern Angola, most of which were won by the better trained German forces. Virtually all of these skirmishes were too small to ever be given names by either side’s historical records. The largest battle occurred on December 18 at a town called Naulila near the border, which ended in a hard-fought German victory and involved around 1500 Portuguese and 600 German troops. Ultimately, the Germans were able to occupy parts of southern Angola until July 1915, before withdrawing as the rest of South West Africa began to collapse and surrender to South African forces. As the Portuguese government predicted, there was an uptick in local rebel activity in southern Angola after it was re-occupied by Portuguese troops, due in part to the Germans distributing weapons to such groups in an effort to destabilize the region. Still, Portugal chose not to formally join the war, because, as of yet, there was more to be gained by using its neutrality to keep it safe while aiding Britain in more indirect ways.

Portugal’s Strategic Situation and Entry into the War

In spite of the 500-year-old alliance between Portugal and the United Kingdom, Portugal itself did not immediately join the war. This was largely at the insistence of the British government, as it viewed neutral Portuguese ports and shipping as more valuable assets than Portuguese troops on the battlefield. The British had a long history of exploiting its weaker ally, and the first half of World War I was merely a continuance of this trend. Between the revolution in 1910 and its formally joining the war in 1916, Portugal experienced a rapid succession of short-lived governments of different persuasions, although they were all pro-republic, they differed on their stances on formally joining the war. One of the reasons various Portuguese leaders at the time favored joining the war was to use it as a way to legitimize the republic to the rest of the world as it would fight against the arch conservative Central Powers and show that Portugal was no longer some culturally backward relic. As mentioned above, there was also a very real concern about maintaining security further from home in the African colonies. In spite of these motivations, it was not seen as being overall beneficial to fight and Great Britain exerted its not-so-subtle influence on the country. The ports of Lisbon and Porto were of great strategic value, while the Portuguese armed forces were of dubious quality at best. British diplomats knew the Portuguese would not act without the approval of the United Kingdom, and thus kept Portugal on a short leash. With Portugal officially neutral but decidedly oriented towards British interests, the United Kingdom would reap the most benefits without needing to invest many of its own resources.

This could not remain the situation, however, as the war continued to consume more and more British lives, material, and money. Most importantly, British merchant ship losses were constantly increasing. The neutral Portuguese ports offered a unique opportunity. There were dozens of German merchant vessels that had anchored in Portuguese waters early on in the war to avoid being captured by the Royal Navy. The British government made a formal request to the Portuguese Republic to confiscate these ships and hand them over for British use. Portuguese leaders had been waiting for this request and proceeded to take control of the German ships on February 24, 1916. Germany was understandably upset at this sudden violation of supposed neutrality and went on to declare war on Portugal on March 9. Portugal was now at war, although it would be several months until Portuguese troops would see combat in Mozambique and over a year until they would see combat on the Western Front.

The Portuguese Expeditionary Corps Arrives in France

The declaration of war from Germany did not translate into the immediate sending of Portuguese troops to the Western Front. Although Portuguese leaders had been seeking this outcome and the army had been mobilized since 1914, it would still take time before the necessary units could be gathered and trained sufficiently. The British, French, and Portuguese planners met to hammer out the details for how the Portuguese army would be equipped and where it would be stationed on the front. Ultimately, it was decided that the Portuguese would fight alongside the British in Northern France and Flanders. The infantry would be supplied with British arms and equipment to ease logistical concerns. A separate artillery unit would be supplied by the British as well, but it would operate under French command in a different sector. The first Portuguese troops landed in France on February 2, 1917, nearly eleven months after formally entering the war. After further training and equipping, the first units of the Corpo Expedicionário Português (CEP) would take their places in the front lines on April 3. Over the following year, the CEP would grow to two divisions with a total of 55,000 men, initially under the command of General Fernando Tamagnini de Abreu.

The section of the front the Portuguese occupied was relatively quiet. This was on purpose as it allowed the British pull out two of its divisions to use elsewhere. That is not to say that the sector was safe or inactive, however. The first Portuguese fatality on the Western Front was António Gonçalves Curado, who was killed by mortar fire on April 4. Portuguese troops treated their assignments seriously and sought out opportunities to take the fight to the Germans. The Portuguese patrolled often and conducted trench raids to capture prisoners and gather intelligence on enemy displacements. Throughout the rest of 1917 and first months of 1918, the Portuguese proved to be competent soldiers when trained and equipped properly. The primary problems that would torment the CEP, however, came from back home. Political instability had become the norm, and a de facto military junta came to power when army officer Sidónio Pais became prime minister in December 1917. In spite of the army having immense political influence, public opinion had never been strongly in favor of joining the war in the first place, and each successive government (including the junta) found it easier to ignore the problems that come with organizing and supplying a military campaign far from home. Over time, reinforcements began to dwindle, and the amount of time units spent at the front grew to ridiculous lengths. Whereas their British counterparts would cycle in and out of the front line trenches every few weeks, Portuguese soldiers had to stay for months at a time. The Portuguese logistical situation was poor and there were simply not enough spare men to go around. For their part, the British did very little to help and did not offer to replace the CEP in the line to allow for rest and refitting until spring 1918. The timing could not have been worse, because the battle that was coming would prove catastrophic for the British and the Portuguese especially.

East African Campaign

Meanwhile, the war was also being fought thousands of miles away in East Africa. German East Africa (modern day Tanzania) had been the location of major fighting since the war began, and by the time the Portuguese had formally joined the war, the German troops in the colony had begun a successful guerilla campaign against the British and Belgian invaders from the neighboring colonies. Once Portugal had formally joined the war in 1916, it sent an expedition of 4,500 metropolitan troops to Mozambique in July to shore up the colonial garrison of around 5,000 African askaris. Minor efforts were made to cross the southern border of German East Africa by Portuguese troops, but these were unsuccessful. By September of that year, the Germans had been pushed to the southern third of their colony by British and Belgian advances from the north and west respectively. At the forceful encouragement of the politicians back in Lisbon to take a more active role in the campaign, Portuguese troops launched a larger attack across the Rovuma River into the German colony. After some initial success, this attack too was pushed back across the border in October. The border area between the Portuguese and German colonies remained relatively quiet for a year. Portuguese leaders were doubtful of the value of their African colonial units and instead relied disproportionately on the metropolitan units sent all the way from Portugal. In fact, Portugal was the only country involved in the East African campaign to send significant numbers of European troops to the region. Regardless of where the Portuguese troops originated from, the German-led colonial units proved to be more effective than virtually all of the Portuguese units that fought against them. After the failed offensive, another expedition was sent from Portugal to reinforce their depleted units during the first half of 1917.

As the Allies in the north continued to press the Germans into a smaller pocket of their colony, the German commander Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck decided to invade Mozambique to acquire supplies and some breathing space for his troops. In late November 1917, the Germans attacked across the Rovuma and routed the Portuguese defenders for very few losses. With few exceptions, the Portuguese faired very poorly and the Germans captured vast quantities of food supplies, clothing, and weapons that they would put to good use for the rest of the war. British-led troops were landed on the northern coast of Mozambique to reinforce their Portuguese allies, but this only partially stabilized the situation. Von Lettow-Vorbeck’s forces remained at large in Mozambique until late September 1918 when they crossed back into German East Africa and then on into Northern Rhodesia (modern day Zambia). The war ended a month and a half later with the German forces in East Africa being the last Central Powers troops to surrender on November 25, 1918. The Portuguese performance during the East African campaign was their worst showing of the war. Poor leadership, insufficient training, low morale, and ill health all contributed. The only territorial gain awarded to Portugal for its participation in the war was the Kionga Triangle at the mouth of the Rovuma River. It was a small, economically insignificant area of muddy land that seems to be symbolic of Portugal’s poor fortunes during the campaign.

The German Spring Offensives and the Battle of the Lys

On March 21, 1918, the first phase of the German Spring Offensives began, with the primary aims of pushing the British army back towards the sea and gaining a stronger position before the arrival of significant American forces on the front could tip the balance in the Allies’ favor permanently. The Lys Offensive, or Operation Georgette, would be the second major effort of the offensives, and focused on the Franco-Belgian border area. By April 1918, the 1st and 2nd Divisions of the CEP had been at the front without break for nine and five months respectively. The 1st Division had been scheduled to start cycling out of the line in March, but the German attacks further south delayed this for nearly three weeks. The 1st Division was finally pulled out of the line on April 6, but it was not replaced by any British units. This left the 2nd Division to spread itself thin to cover several miles of the front lines by itself in the meantime. Three days later, on April 9, Operation Georgette began. Twelve German divisions attacked the weakest sector of the line, that was held by the Portuguese 2nd Division and the British 40th Division. The Germans had not specifically targeted the sector because it was held by the Portuguese, but they could not have picked a better time to take advantage of its particularly weak disposition. The British and Portuguese units in the area fought back as hard as they could but were quickly overrun and those that could began to retreat. That day thousands of Portuguese soldiers were either killed or captured and, after a year of frontline operations, the CEP had effectively ceased to exist as a unified fighting force.

Although the German Spring Offensives of 1918 were ultimately unsuccessful, they did provide a severe shock to the Allies and showed that the German army would be a very difficult opponent in the coming months. The entire British line had been defeated during the early days of Operation Georgette, and the generals looked for a reason. A convenient scapegoat was found in their Portuguese allies. False claims were made that the Portuguese troops had fled without fighting and left the British units on their flanks dangerously exposed. This had not been the case, and, if anything, the Portuguese had fought as hard as any of the men that were unfortunate enough to be at the front that day. Unfortunately, the British unit histories from the time maintained the narrative that the Portuguese had shamefully faltered and condemned their allies to an ignominious defeat. The fact is that the CEP had been neglected by its government at home and its allies at the front. There was no lack of courage in the average Portuguese soldier, but this can only go so far. It was inevitable that they would not be able to hold in the event of a major attack. The Portuguese army, although still based in France, would not contribute any significant forces to frontline operations for the remainder of the war.

Conclusion

History has not been kind to the fighting men of Portugal during World War I. The memory of their exploits, limited as it is, has been defined by their failures. The burden of the most spectacular of these failures, as previously described, was unduly placed on the CEP in order to save the reputation of a supposed ally. The fact of the matter is that the Portuguese contribution to the First World War was a mixed bag. Its performance in the African theaters was mediocre at best and shambolic at worst. The performance of the CEP on the Western Front, however, was of a much higher quality. In spite of the considerable failings of the British and Portuguese leadership, the CEP was generally better led, equipped, and motivated than their countrymen further afield. Over the course of a year, the Portuguese soldiers in northern France proved that they were perfectly capable of fighting in the full complexities and horrors of modern warfare. The CEP was in the wrong place at the wrong time and has paid for this unfortunate circumstance for over a century. Overall, Portugal lost approximately 8,700 European and colonial troops during the war: 657 in Angola, 2,103 in France, and 5,961 in Mozambique (mostly due to illness).  One can only hope that the legacy of the Portuguese war effort can be rehabilitated now that it is clear that its poor reputation was largely manufactured by British historians during and immediately after the war. Today, there are a handful of solemn reminders of the sacrifice of the Portuguese soldiers. Most, of course, are located in various cities throughout Portugal. There are two, however, in France. One is a memorial sculpture outside the Catholic church in the town of La Couture in northern France, not far from the Belgian border. The other is located in the nearby town of Richebourg. Here is the Portuguese Military Cemetery, where almost 2,000 Portuguese soldiers are buried. Although these sites are small compared to the many other Great War monuments scattered throughout the region, they at least offer a quiet dignity to the men so long maligned and forgotten.

What do you think of the role of Portugal in World War I? Let us know below.

Now read about Portugal during World War II here.

References

Abbott, Peter. “Armies in East Africa 1914-18.” Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing, 2002.

Barroso, Luís. “A Primeira Guerra Mundial em Angola: O Ataque Preemptivo a Naulila.” Relações Internacionais, September 2015, pp. 127-148. http://www.ipri.pt/images/publicacoes/revista_ri/pdf/ri47/n47a07.pdf

Duarte, António Paulo, and Bruno Cardoso Reis. “O Debate Historiográfico sobre a Grande Guerra de 1914-1918.” Nação e Defesa, 2014, pp. 100-122. https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/17732/1/ICS_BCReis_Defesa_ARN.pdf

Pyles, Jesse. “The Portuguese Expeditionary Corps in World War I: From Inception to Combat Destruction, 1914-1918.” University of North Texas, May 2012. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc115143/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf

Tavares, João Moreira. “War Losses (Portugal).” 1914-1918 Online, April 2020. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/pdf/1914-1918-Online-war_losses_portugal-2020-04-20.pdf

London Pollution in the 19th Century: The Rise of Environmental Activism

Pollution, climate change and air quality have grown increasingly important in our everyday lives. The idea of air pollution as a danger to our health is not a new phenomenon, but has developed gradually over time since the industrial revolution. This article will explores the Victorian urge to find resources other than coal as a fuel source and how their awareness of the health, social and environmental impact coal was having on society developed throughout the nineteenth century.

Amy Chandler explains.

A London Fog, from The Illustrated London News in 1847. The fog is the result of pollution.

Internationally, air quality differs depending on temperature, industrial production and seasons. Generally, the advice for countries experiencing bad air quality is to avoid excessive exercise, avoid opening windows and wear masks when travelling outside. As many countries experience extreme weather conditions, the need to tackle the changing climate and find new energy resources is becoming apparent. Throughout history, society has adapted to changes and events such as war, environmental changes and disease that have encouraged the thinkers of the day to find new solutions to old age problems. The impact that industry has on our climate is not a new concern but one that was considered during the nineteenth century too.

The rise and fall of coal

The industrial revolution, 1750-1850, established Great Britain as a major power in Europe during the nineteenth century and allowed the British Empire to expand. The 1851 Great Exhibition held at Crystal Palace demonstrated the latest inventions and innovations in science and technology to showcase to the world Britain’s strength. The exhibition was a political move designed by the Prince Consort Prince Albert, husband to Queen Victoria, to showcase the wealth of natural resources Britain had access to such as coal and iron, industrial design and new inventions that, according to Liza Picard, would lead to improvements in public taste and in technical education, these were areas Britain needed improvement.(1) The exhibition was split into several categories; raw materials, machinery, manufacturers, fines arts and miscellaneous.(2) While this exhibition demonstrated innovation, it did not foresee what the impacts of continual industrial progress would have on the environment and public health.

During the early nineteenth century, the understanding of science and health was still working on the Miasma theory stating that disease was caused by bad smells in the air. Therefore, the idea that smoke created by burning coal was damaging their health and the environment was a difficult concept to understand. Some people felt that pollution was good for their health, with the acids and carbon in smoke filling the air somehow disinfecting the environment.(3) By the late nineteenth century, this idea gradually changed with scientific advancement, cities and towns throughout Britain were becoming filled and covered with thick, dark fog that was hard to ignore as health problems increased, coinciding with terms like smog, and pollution becoming common phrases. In 1859, Robert Angus Smith coined the term acid rain caused by the burning of fossil fuels.(4) The health impacts of the situation became more apparent in 1873 when a fog lasted three days and caused 700 deaths, 1880 and 1892 another fog caused around 2000 deaths from poor air quality.(5) A cartoon published in Punch in 1880 entitled Old King Coal and the Fog Demon illustrated the growing health concerns caused by pollution, where death was personified as a fog demon that spread illnesses throughout London.

Parliamentary concern

The Parliamentary debate for the Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Bill of 1853 explored the growing concern with pollution and the use of coal. The problem of smoke was described in this Parliamentary debate as something that “affected the comfort not only of their Lordships, but of everyone in the metropolis, and every class of society”.(6) The Marquis of Lansdowne stated in this debate the impact of pollution and coal, as one that was visible and inevitable, but the full extent of the impact was not taken as seriously as it should have been. Pollution was described as a “gradual encroachment, not of an invisible enemy, but of an enemy who was perfectly obvious to any one, but whose approaches were so gradual that the whole extent could hardly be appreciated; and that at this moment, and for years past, they had been living, not under the canopy of heaven, but under one of their own creation.”(7)

The Marquis of Lansdowne’s statement emphasised the silent threat that pollution was having on public health and the environment, became more apparent. At a time where the British Empire was growing strong and industrial innovation and strength was being showcased in all industries, the consequences of such progress were being ignored by Parliament and society. The “canopy of heaven, but under one of their own creation” suggests that while many in Parliament, aristocracy and even the working classes found ways to benefit from the industrial revolution, they were living under a canopy that hindered progress and they became trapped in a situation of their own making.

In 1872 the East London Observer published an account of a meeting of the Committee of Bakers to discuss the negative impact and injustice Parliament’s smoke abatement acts were having on their businesses as it “was preposterous to call a baker’s oven a furnace”.(8) The members attending the meeting built a case that their work did not create nuisances as other industries did e.g continual smoke, and they felt it was a “great oppression” since 1864 to suffer heavy fines or even imprisonment.(9) While the bakers tried to find solutions to create fires that consumed their smoke, they ultimately failed. The act outlined measures to “prevent a continuous of smoke” instead of smoke created from lighting a fire to bake bread.(10) The baking trade was seen as integral to daily life and many bakers felt that if they closed their shops in the morning and did not serve the public it would cause “great inconvenience and distress”. This meeting is an example of how Parliament legislation was not thought through in how each industry created smoke and how much of a ‘nuisance’ it was to society as a whole.

Smoke abatement societies

Towards the end of the late nineteenth century, many social reformers and environmental activists became increasingly aware of the issues surrounding coal. Many social reform activists worked within existing voluntary societies, such as the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science  (abbreviated to Social Science Association), established in 1857. This group focused on educating the public about sanitation through sponsored exhibitions throughout Britain in the 1870s.(11) Furthermore, specific groups were set up that wanted to reform the problem of smoke in various cities throughout Britain. One society called the Manchester and Salford Noxious Vapours Abatement Association (MSNVAA) 1876, focused on reducing coal smoke and chemical emissions in the local area. The smoke problem was caused by a combination of smoke produced by industry and domestic hearths (a place were the fire is kept and used as a source of heat). By the 1860s, a moral concern emerged where many Victorians considered how long coal would last, and if they did not reduce the amount they used, Britain would cease to be a strong nation in the empire.(12)

During the 1870s and 1880s, concerns around the use of coal and the impact of smoke were starting to gain substantial momentum, the MSNVAA organised public lectures, classes and publications intending to educate the public on the benefits of clean air and the promotion of gas cooking and appliances instead of coal fires.(13) The majority of smoke was created from domestic hearths and the roaring coal fire of the “homely hearth” was a symbol of safety, warmth and integral to the familial life as a source of light, heat, food and boiled water.(14) For many, the move towards alternatives to coal was uneasy as the market dictated the price of coal as a cheaper option than wood. Coal created a lot of wealth for many, causing the move toward less polluting fuels to be difficult, especially as coal was also seen as a source of Britain’s industrial and economic strength.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a cleaner alternative to coal emerged as a smokeless version of coal called coke. Although coke had been used for centuries, it was difficult to use and ignite in domestic houses.(15) Furthermore, many Victorians disliked the colour that coke caused their fires to turn, as it was not aesthetically appealing to the stereotypical roaring hearth.(16) Gas was commonly used for street lighting from 1809, but this type of resource was expensive and not accessible to the majority of society. By 1880, gas production changed from its focus on generating light to creating heat. This gave fuel to the fire for smoke abatement societies to encourage an alternative to coal and improve public health. MSNVAA established campaigns aimed at local councils cutting gas rates and smoke abatement societies soon received funding from gas and electricity companies.(17) These partnerships attempted to promote a cleaner way of living in a smokeless city.

The Exhibition of Smoke Abating Appliances, 1881

On 30 November 1881 – February 1882, an exhibition at the Royal Albert Hall curated by the Fog and Smoke Committee (1880) decided to organise an exhibition dedicated to educating the general public on the impact of smoke from coal emitted from private houses and industry. The leaders and frontrunners of the committee were environmental activists and reformers Ernest Hart and Octavia Hill. The exhibition focused on smoke preventing cooking and heating appliances as an alternative to coal and smoke-powered items. The organisation received backing from the Lord Mayor of London, Sir William McArthur and received a great deal of press coverage before, during and after the exhibition. Hart and Hill had two clear aims for the exhibition to increase public awareness and education on air pollution and demonstrate smoke-preventative appliances.(18) Hart’s view remained that industry combined with kitchens on domestic premises were the cause of the smoke problem.

The exhibition allowed many inventors and manufacturers to create and display a variety of smokeless appliances for visitors to test and use. The exhibition was not designed to indoctrinate the visitor to use gas products, but to educate them to make their own rational decision to choose the least polluting appliances. In the first week, the exhibition had 13,000 visitors, and opening hours were extended to allow more attendance. The committee were successful in demonstrating the alternative of gas appliances, despite the gas appliances emitting a bad smell that was off putting to many visitors.

Many years later, the committee’s work and activity slowed down and differed in opinion on how to proceed after their successes in 1881. Members differed on whether the committee spent too much time focused on education and not enough pressure on governmental reform.  Therefore, the committee’s exhibition highlighted the need to educate the general public to better inform their judgements and ideas on gas instead of coal. However, if legislative reform does not keep pace with the change in popular opinion, there will always be limitations to progress.

Conclusion

This event in history illustrates how we need to continually find new solutions to old problems as the world changes around us. As science and technology advance, we need to use this information to adapt how we live and operate to acclimatize to an advancing and changing environment through continual education on other alternative ways of conducting our daily lives. While the 1881 committee failed to think laterally and encourage legislative reform, rather than focusing on the education of the general public, they still managed to change popular belief towards coal and focus on gas cooking and appliances. Across the world, there is a desire and urgency to find better, cleaner and cheaper energy sources that protect our green spaces, health and future proof how we adapt and live in the future.

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

Now read Amy’s article on the Great Stench in 19th century London here.

Bibliography

Basdeo, S. ‘Old King Coal’, 4 September 2019, The Victorian Web <  https://victorianweb.org/science/environment/basdeo.html >.

HL Deb 16 August 1853, vol 129, col 1752.

Hudson, J. ‘Acid rain and the rise of the environmental chemist in 19th century Britain’, 22 August 2014, Chemistry World < https://www.chemistryworld.com/culture/acid-rain-and-the-rise-of-the-environmental-chemist-in-19th-century-britain/7670.article >.

Old King Coal and the Fog Demon. John Tenniel, artist. Swain, engraver. Punch, 13 November 1880, Internet Archive online version of a copy in the University of Michigan Library <  https://victorianweb.org/periodicals/punch/publichealth/5.html >.

Picard,L. Victorian London: The life of a city 1840 – 1870 (London,Phoenix,2006).

The London Bakers and the Smoke Nuisance Abatement Act, 13 April 1872, East London Observer.

Thorsheim, P. Inventing Pollution: Coal, Smoke, and Culture in Britain since 1800 (USA, Ohio University Press, 2017).

References

1 L.Picard, Victorian London: The life of a city 1840 – 1870 (London,Phoenix,2006),p263.

2 Ibid.

3 P. Thorsheim, Inventing Pollution: Coal, Smoke, and Culture in Britain since 1800 (USA, Ohio University Press, 2017), ch.1.

4 J. Hudson, ‘Acid rain and the rise of the environmental chemist in 19th century Britain’, 22 August 2014, Chemistry World < https://www.chemistryworld.com/culture/acid-rain-and-the-rise-of-the-environmental-chemist-in-19th-century-britain/7670.article > [accessed 15 Aug 2022].

5 S. Basdeo, ‘Old King Coal’, 4 September 2019, The Victorian Web <  https://victorianweb.org/science/environment/basdeo.html >[accessed 15 Aug 2022].

6 HL Deb 16 August 1853, vol 129, col 1752.

7 HL Deb 16 August 1853, vol 129, col 1752.

8 The London Bakers and the Smoke Nuisance Abatement Act, 13 April 1872, East London Observer.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Thorsheim, op.cit., ch.7.

12 Basdeo, op.cit.

13 Ibid.

14 Basdeo, op.cit.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Thorsheim, op.cit., ch. 7.

How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 3 - Fidel Goes to the US

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at Castro’s visit to the US in 1959 and how Castro had consolidated his anti-American rule by 1960.

If you missed it, read part 1 on Cuba before the revolution here, and part 2 on when Fidel took power here.

Fidel Castro in Washington, D.C. in 1959.

In the provisional government set up by the revolutionaries, calm heads appeared to prevail. Castro also promised elections in eighteen months. The cabinet included José Miró Cardona as prime minister. This distinguished lawyer had fought with Castro for years. Once installed as prime minister on January 6, 1959, he began working to move Cuba towards a constitutional democracy. But in a move reminiscent of dictators, Castro ended up with Cardona’s job less than two months later when Cardona resigned. "I cannot run my office while another man is trying to run it from behind a microphone," Cardona complained. Ultimately, the environment in Cuba became so toxic for anyone daring to express opposition to Castro’s policies that Cardona fled Cuba. On March 3 the Castro government began a policy of nationalization and expropriation.

By the time of Castro’s visit to the United States that April, Castro’s anti-American rhetoric, his publicly stated intentions to nationalize the Cuban economy, including foreign property and his association with extreme leftists such as Che Guevara continued to sound alarm bells. The Eisenhower administration, in fact, came close to canceling Castro’s first visit. This option was discussed at a meeting of the National Security Council at Washington on March 26, 1959, just prior to Castro’s arrival in the US. On the one hand, ugly signs of an imminent dictatorship were noted. Castro’s tendency to  fall back on public tirades to galvanize support, rather than taking sound administrative steps. The opinion of the CIA was that Cuba’s new leader was “moving toward outright dictatorship.” Additionally, communists were now playing an ever greater role in the new Cuba. Further dire warnings were delivered by eyewitnesses. Castro took such actions as jailing old comrades who resigned in opposition to the growing influence of communists in the revolutionary Cuban government. The day before the meeting a telegram arrived from Gonzalo Facio, the former Costa Rican Ambassador to the US. Facio had gone with José Figueres, former president of that republic, to Havana in March. He related that in Figueres’ view Castro’s policies were characterized by “extreme, unreasoning nationalism including anti-Americanism and communism.” At the NSC meeting various options were discussed: including a refusal to allow Castro entry into the country or goading the OAS into action against him. It was decided, however, that the negative impact of these measures would outweigh the benefits.

Washington

Controversy continued to swirl about the charismatic revolutionary upon his arrival at National Airport in Washington on April 15, 1959. Senator Smathers of Florida accused Castro of supporting violent revolutionary movements. Raphael Del Pino, a one-time supporter of Castro, now hurled accusations of dictatorship and sought to alert Americans to the danger of a “Communist-controlled beach head within 90 miles of the United States mainland.” Many Americans worried about the executions going on in Cuba, Castro’s ambitions and rumors that he intended to nationalize and confiscate American investments and holdings in Cuba., Richard Roy Rubottom, Jr. called him a “dangerous nationalist” and expressed "grave doubts concerning the character and motivation" of their celebrated visitor. Reports of on-going executions and Castor’s refusal to hold elections began to generate criticism and finally drove some. Democratic media such as The Atlantic and the New Republic to join the chorus questioning the genuineness of Castro’s assertions that he was a democrat.

None of this seemed to dampen the excitement of his whirlwind tour, though. Castro was feted everywhere and given free reign to make his case. To many, it looked like we had made a friend; he placed a wreath at George Washington’s tomb and the Tomb of the Unknown soldier. He sampled such staples of Americana as hot dogs and hamburgers at Yankee Stadium. Fidel publicly projected an image of moderation. He said nothing in support of the Soviet Union and repeatedly denied that his movement was even affiliated with communists. He even declared publicly, “We are against all kinds of dictators  . . . That is why we are against communism.” A highlight of Castro’s visit was a one-on-one session with Vice President Nixon. He met with Castro privately and concluded that Castro was “either incredibly naive about communism or under communist discipline — my guess is the former.” Unfortunately, these sentiments were not a matter of public record and, upon Castro’s return to Cuba, American policy was still miserably uncertain. This uncertainty would not last for long.

Back in Cuba

The actions of Castro himself in the next few months began to dissolve any remaining doubts about the dynamic Cuban leader and the worst fears of U.S. officials began to be realized. If not a communist by name, he imitated one very well. He continued to show no sympathy for the middle class, a steady stream of which headed to Miami rather than live in Cuba. Middle class disenchantment stemmed from many causes: a crackdown on religion, including confiscation of church property and the jailing of clerics and the banning of various religious expressions. On May 17, the First Law of Agrarian Reform began the process of land expropriation.  In July the communist lawyer Osvaldo Dorticós replaced Manuel Urrutia as president.  By that Fall, it had become dangerous to question the regime. For example, Huber Matos, who had fought alongside Castro. opposed the drift of the regime towards marxism. For this he found himself jailed for 20 years.

By the end of that year, Castro's cabinet had been purged of moderates. These had been replaced with communists or communist sympathizers. In addition, moderate critics found themselves in prison. Cuba began openly courting the Soviet Union. US policy gradually hardened in opposition, but it was not until March 1960 that US policy called for outright removal of Castro. By then, his power was probably too firm to be uprooted without an all-out invasion.

What do you think about Fidel Castro’s trip to the US in 1959? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.

Hitler Youth: The Attempted Foundation for the Future of Nazism

The Hitler Youth was established by the Nazis in pre-World War II Germany. It was set up to indoctrinate children in Nazi ideology. Here, Disha Mule tells us about the group and its methods.

Hitler Youth members. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-5592-14A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

If you keep up to date with Google Doodles, you’d be aware that this year on June 25, it commemorated 75 years of Anne Frank’s diary. The Diary of a Young Girl is one of the most important pieces of Holocaust literature. Despite facing several censorship issues, it still occupies a respectable spot in the list of books most widely read around the world. The book provides various insights about life during the gruesome period. There’s no doubt that it is an eminent source of study. But at heart, it remains the diary of a teenager.

Anne’s innocence, humor, and insecurities are reflected through her entries, making the reader empathize with her. Aside from all the complications of transitioning from a child to an adult, teenage life is full of hope and vivacity. It is the time when an individual is driven to prove their worth and bring about some change. If this zeal is corrupted by a race-obsessed dictator, things are bound to get dark and the rest is history.

Hitler

The German defeat in World War I was a sore spot for Hitler and played an important role in forging his strategies. Being particularly good with words, his passion showed in his speeches. His ideas and promises brought hope to the people who were still reeling from the effects of the Great Depression and the failure of the Weimar Republic. He presented his ideologies under the guise of utopic versions of Germany. At the peak of his popularity, he was hailed as the savior of the country. An extremist politician had become the Fuhrer.

The fame helped in the proliferation of his beliefs but workings to spread them across the country had already begun since the time anyone hardly knew who Nazis were. Among these endeavors was the formation of an organization for German youth. What started as the Youth League of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, in 1922, later came to be known as the Hitler Youth(1).

“The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It's the Jew who prevents everything. When I think about it, I realise that I'm extraordinarily humane.”(2)

In a bid to revolutionize German nationalism, Hitler imposed various measures - the extermination of Jews being an important one. He saw the Jewish killings as a means of progress. For fulfilling his ambition of the Third Reich, it was convenient if people began viewing his ideas as their own. It would be helpful if the public were convinced that Hitler’s actions were for their betterment. And what would be more effective than targeting the most susceptible part of the population?

He set up the Hitler Youth which made the upsurge of Nazism all the easier. It was compulsory to be a part of the organization. Parents had to serve prison sentences if they objected or refused to send their child for this training(3). Some parents were proud to send their children for national service. The youth was moved by his propaganda to such an extent that they began considering these atrocities as a necessity and their service to the Fuhrer nothing short of prestige.

Beginning of a Gloomy Future

Hitler wanted to internalize the Nazi ideology in the minds of ‘pure’ Aryan children as young as three years old. According to Robert Ley, the head of the German Labor Front, the children were given a small flag to wave as soon as they started to think. This was followed by school, the Hitler Youth, and military service. Later they were taken under the front and served till death, even if unwilling.

First of all, Jewish children were segregated from the ‘desirable’ children.

“I was accepted to the Jewish Lyceum on a conditional basis. I was supposed to stay in the seventh grade at the Montessori School, but when Jewish children were required to go to Jewish schools, Mr. Elte finally agreed, after a great deal of persuasion, to accept Lies Goslar and me.”(4)

The Jewish Lyceum was the school where Jewish pupils were sent after the summer holidays of 1941. In addition to these children, those of Catholic or Protestant belief also had to attend different schools if they had Jewish blood (5).

Right around the time of Hitler’s rise to power, young Germans were failing to set high standards academically. The fact that ten Jews were awarded Nobel prizes by 1931 (6) did not help. As a result, the curriculums were changed and an extremely demeaning education system was introduced.

The study of “racial sciences” was promoted and German physics, German mathematics, etc. began to replace the erstwhile taught subjects(7). Teachers and professors also faced the consequences of this new system. Jews were forbidden to teach. While others had to swear their loyalty to Hitler under the Civil Service Act of 1937(8). There came a time when serving in the S.A. or the Labor Service or the Hitler Youth was a must to be eligible for teaching(9). All of this was done to strengthen nationalism. But that’s not the worst part. Some professors were in favor of these changes and openly endorsed anti-Semitism(10).

Training

The process of creating future Nazi soldiers started early. Boys aged six to ten were required to complete an initial training period. They would be tested in camping, athletics, and history (tampered by Nazi beliefs, of course) after which they were transferred into the Jungvolk(11). Hitler wanted them to be bold and stoic. The task for which they were being recruited had no place for the weak-hearted. Being sensitive and compassionate was seen as a flaw.

Girls, too, were organized into groups like Jungmaedal and the B.D.M. Though they went through the same training as the boys, being docile, giving birth to healthy children, and nourishing them were made their priorities(12). At eighteen, the boys joined the Labor Service and the Army whereas girls did one-year farm service while they were still in the B.D.M.(13).

The older members of the Hitler Youth also served to inspire preteens. In rooms filled with propaganda posters and the greetings of “Heil Hitler”, meetings were held for teaching the recruits how great Hitler was(14). Seeing how enthusiastically their seniors supported Hitler and his cause, the organization’s younger members blindly followed them. These senior members could be considered ‘influencers' in a way. The cakes and sweets provided at these meetings could also play a role in deciding who was a good person(15) given that the decision makers were barely ten years of age.

A very interesting point to note is that these boys and girls were not chosen from a specific background. Even if they were taught to hate a sect of people on baseless notions, discrimination was absent in case of their recruitment. Once they turned ten, whether their parents were peasants or wealthy merchants, it was mandatory to be a part of the Hitler Youth. They were trained together and ordered to carry out the same tasks. It’s odd how a sense of solidarity was instilled in these children with such delusional ideas and heinous crimes in the foreground.

Leaders of Tomorrow

Baldur von Schirach was an important name in this youth propaganda. His case seems to be an appropriate example to demonstrate the importance of good influence during adolescence. He was so mesmerized by Hitler that he even composed flattering poems about his heroism(16).  While he was at Munich University, he joined National Socialist German Students’ League and helped in increasing its votes in the student elections(17). As a result, he was made the Youth Leader of the German Reich and reported to no officer or ministry but the Fuhrer(18).

Creating new leaders was as important as creating new soldiers. After an incident with his teacher at Steyr, Hitler decided that things should not be run like a Jewish school - like an anarchy.

Adolf Hitler Schools, under the Hitler Youth, sought out twelve-year-old brilliant students in the Jungvolk and subjected them to undergo six-year-long training in leadership. They were later eligible for higher education in universities. There were two other types of schools established - the National Political Institutions of Education and the Order Castles. The Order Castles were at the top with all the creme de la creme of the Hitler Youth. High achievers from the other two institutes were sent to these Order Castles where they stayed for another six years. These students were prepared to devote themselves to Lebensraum.

After the end of the Nazi regime, the Hitler Youth was evidently dissolved. The members were not convicted as they were still children. Nevertheless, studying how this entire generation was brainwashed into believing what they were doing was a great service to the nation is both pitiful and mortifying.

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

References

1 Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin Press, 2003), 261

2 Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations, trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens (Enigma Books, 2000), ‘119 - 23rd January 1942’, 235

3 William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (RosettaBooks, 2011), 333

4 Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl, trans. Susan Massotty (Doubleday, 1995), ‘SUNDAY, JULY 5, 1942’

5 Anne Frank House, “Jewish children are made to got to separate schools”, https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/217/jewish-children-are-made-to-go-to-separate-schools/

6 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 328-330

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., 333-334

12 Ibid,

13 Ibid.

14 Karen Truesdell Riehl, Helga: Growing Up in Hitler’s Germany (Karen Truesdell Riehl, 2014), Treats and lies

15 Ibid.

16 Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, 262

17 Ibid., 262-263

18 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 332-333

19 Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 192

20 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 335-336

21 Ibid.

Bibliography

Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Press, 2003.

Frank, Anne. The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition. Edited by Otto H. Frank and Mirjam Pressler. Translated by Susan Massotty. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Hitler, Adolf. Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Enigma Books, 2000.

“Jewish children are made to go to separate schools | Anne Frank House”,

https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/217/jewish-children-are-made-to-go-to-separate-schools/.

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. RosettaBooks, 2011.

Truesdell Riehl, Karen. Helga: Growing Up in Hitler's Germany. Karen Truesdell Riehl, 2014.

Tchaikovsky and Nadezhda von Meck – An Unusual Friendship

The name Nadezhda von Meck may not be familiar to many but without this wealthy widow’s generosity some of the finest classical music of all time may never have been written. Here, Caroline Baker explains Nadezhda von Meck and Tchaikovsky’s relationship.

Nadezhda von Meck.

Following the death of her rich and successful husband in 1876, forty-five year old businesswoman Nadezhda van Meck became a social recluse and even refused to attend her own children’s weddings. Her passionate love of music was her only source of joy. Although she had, in essence, removed herself from society, she continued to clandestinely attend her beloved concerts, ensuring that she sat far apart from the rest of the audience.

Finding herself with a surplus of income, and keen to put it to good use, Nadezhda offered ongoing financial support to a composer named Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky whose music she greatly admired.  This annual allowance enabled him to resign from his day job to focus full-time on his beloved music.

Pyotr, an incredibly talented young musician, was a lonely and troubled soul. His parents had forced him to attend boarding school at the age of ten; an experience that he found traumatic and never fully recovered from. He found it painfully hard to be separated from his mother, and her death when he was only fourteen years old devastated him.

Oddly, Nadezhda stipulated that her role as benefactor was conditional on them never meeting. They did, however, correspond by letter and this relationship provided great emotional support and encouragement to Pyotr. Over a thousand letters were exchanged between them over a thirteen-year period. Pyotr even described her as “his best friend”.  Although they never officially met one another, they did catch sight of each other on occasion and it is reported that they even physically bumped into each other one day during a walk. Even then they did not interact with each other.

When her son Nikolai married Pyotr’s niece Anna, Nadezhda did not attend the wedding; adamant that they should not alter the status of their friendship.

End of the friendship

The relationship came to an abrupt end in 1890 when Nadezhda regretfully informed the composer that she would no longer be able to support him. She paid him a year’s allowance in advance with the understanding that there would be no more payments and no more contact. The true reasons for this were not disclosed to Pyotr, but by this time he was a successful composer and no longer needed the financial support that his patron had provided him with.  The sudden loss of the emotional support, however, upset him greatly and he persisted in writing to her. Regrettably the letters were returned to him unopened.

Historians suggest that Nadezhda’s children had long been unhappy about the increasingly intense relationship that had developed between their mother and the composer, not least due to the rumors of Pyotr’s homosexuality. Squabbles within the family regarding money were also identified as a possible reason for the sudden cessation of the patronage. There were also reports that Nadezhda was suffering from atrophy of her arm which would have made writing letters difficult. Due to the intimate nature of their correspondence, it is unlikely that she would have felt comfortable dictating them to another person.

Death

Pyotr sadly died only three years after the relationship ended. His official cause of death was listed as cholera but there were rumours at the time that it may have been a suicide.  He was only fifty-three. Nadezhda died only a few months later from tuberculosis at the age of sixty-two.

Thanks to Nadezhda von Meck’s financial and emotional support, Pyotr’s outstanding musical accomplishments of 169 pieces including ballets, symphonies, operas and concertos, have resulted in him becoming one of the world’s most famous composers of all time. Some of his greatest works, including Swan Lake, The Nutcracker Suite and the 1812 Overture are recognised and loved all over the world.

In Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s final letter to Nadezhda he wrote:

“..you probably yourself do not suspect the full immensity of your good deed!”

What do you think of the relationship between Tchaikovsky and Nadezhda von Meck? Let us know below.

Sources

https://www.californiasymphony.org/composer/tchaikovsky/the-woman-behind-tchaikovsky/

Holden, A (1995) Tchaikovsky: A Biography. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-420064

https://www.mfiles.co.uk/composers/Peter-Ilyich-Tchaikovsky.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/oct/21/tchaikovsky-where-to-start-with-his-music

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

Spain in the New World: Francisco de Miranda’s Travels in America and Europe

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. Here he looks at Francisco de Miranda’s travels across America and Europe, including his time in revolutionary France.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, and Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here.

A painting of a young Francisco de Miranda. By Georges Rouget.

Having played a small part in the triumph of the American colonies in their revolution, Miranda wanted to see the society that the Americans were building. It was a natural choice for him. He already seemed to be developing his ideas for the independence of the Western Hemisphere from Europe. A society built upon liberal, enlightenment principles fit into his worldview. Being a highly literate man, Miranda would keep a diary during his travels. This record of his impressions and observations of the early United States is invaluable to any researcher and is one of Miranda’s best historical legacies.

On June 10, 1783, Miranda landed at New Berne, North Carolina. He would travel throughout the United States, seeking to meet not only the biggest players in the revolutionary saga but also the common folk as well. He was impressed that the lower-class whites and the wealthy would mix at common events (he did not mention what the views of the slaves at the events were). From the south, Miranda would journey north to visit the American capital Philadelphia. While in the city, he would insist on staying at the Indian Queen Inn, the same inn where Jefferson supposedly wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Armed with letters of introduction from those he met in the south, Miranda would put his natural charm and wit to work to ingratiate himself into Philadelphia high society. Since word of his status with the Spanish government had not caught up with him yet, he was wined and dined by members of the American government as well as foreign ambassadors and prominent citizens looking for Spanish contacts. Encountering George Washington, Miranda would say that he could not make a firm judgment on the man, due to his “taciturn” disposition. Lafayette, Miranda would find to be overrated. Leaving Philadelphia, Miranda would go to New York and meet two people who would influence his later life: Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton. Paine will become important later. Hamilton and Miranda were very much alike. Both men were bursting with energy and ideas. Both men believed that they had a destiny to lead their respective peoples. Both were highly intelligent and literate. Until Hamilton’s death, Miranda would continue to think of Hamilton as a friend.

After touring upstate New York and New England, Miranda’s past was beginning to catch up to him. Word from Spain had begun to filter into the United States. Instead of being an innocent victim of slander that Miranda had passed himself off as, he was in fact a deserter who was sentenced to lose his commission, pay a fine, and face exile. Miranda could no longer pass himself off as a lieutenant colonel of the Spanish Army. This change of status proved to be liberating in a way. When Miranda arrived in Boston, he used his letters of introduction to meet General Henry Knox, the future first Secretary of War under the Constitution. Miranda, Knox, Samuel Adams, and other men of the Boston merchant community would become intimate friends and form a discussion group. Over brandy, Miranda would spellbind these men with his ideas for the liberation of South America from the Spanish. Once Miranda saw all he thought he could see, as well as met all who were worth meeting, it was time to leave. While Miranda wanted to see the great experiment in action, he knew that at the present time, the United States was utterly incapable of furthering his plans for an independent South America. For this, he had to go to Europe.

Miranda Tours Europe

The Grand Tour was a trip around Europe that many upper-class people took as something like a right of passage after their schooling had been completed. It gave the young person a sense of worldliness and provided exposure to the cosmopolitan nature of 18th and 19th-century European upper-class society. Miranda, being a colonial, had not had the chance to go on the Grand Tour. He would rectify his missed chance. After reaching London, he would set out for the Netherlands and see the Continent.

As a man with command of many languages and being extremely well read, Miranda was able to ingratiate himself with the high society of each country he went to. His good looks and high wit were also helpful. He seemingly met everyone from Frederick the Great to Catherine the Great. He toured seemingly every city and historical location from Stockholm to Constantinople. Composers, philosophers, writers, and princes were all enthralled by him. He even allegedly had an affair with Catherine the Great, although this was never confirmed.

These contacts were not merely social for Miranda. It was a learning experience, yes, but he was also searching for support for his cause, the independence of Spanish America. Needing money, he would take financial support from them, then commonly called “patronage.” When he would inevitably (in his mind) strike for that independence, he wanted a network of supporters in Europe with their hands on the levers of power and money to give him their support when the time came. He was not simply playing the part of the international playboy gallivanting across the courts of Europe. There was a political dimension to this as well.

During his travels, Miranda would have to keep one eye always open. The Spanish government was still plotting to have him arrested. Through the Spanish intelligence network in Europe run through their national embassies and consulates, the Spanish would constantly attempt to arrest Miranda and bring him back to Spain. They knew what Miranda was doing, undermining their rule in the New World. In the end, the Spanish would fail to capture him due to a series of fortunate escapes as well as the influence of powerful friends. To protect Miranda, Catherine the Great would even make him a member of the Russian diplomatic service, thereby extending him diplomatic immunity.

For five years, Miranda would travel Europe. His travels would leave an indelible mark on those he met. In 1789, he traveled to France. Seeing the country, he despised what he saw as the backwardness of the peasantry. He wrote about visiting Versailles and feeling humiliated as he was forced to kneel upon seeing King Louis XVI. Miranda was not a fan of the French governmental system, and seeing it firsthand only made him despise it even more. He would leave France and return to London to begin lobbying the British government to support him.

Revolutionary Times

Miranda had a great deal of admiration for the British people and the balanced constitution of Great Britain. Although Miranda would remain a committed republican throughout his life, he would always recognize the inherent genius of the British governing system. Much of his admiration of the system itself would be tempered by seeing that system operate up close in his dealings with British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger.

Miranda would bombard Pitt with plan after plan and scheme after scheme to liberate South America from Spanish rule. All he would need, he would tell Pitt, was money…and men…and arms…and ships, etc. Miranda was the ideas man, the brains of the operation. All of the material support would have to come from elsewhere, and where better than the richest government on the planet, the British. Pitt would always keep Miranda close enough to use him. Occasionally throwing out hope to Miranda would keep him around just in case war with Spain would break out and he might in some way be useful. For over a year, Miranda would act out the same song and dance with the British government until he could bear it no longer. He decided he would go back to France.

Why go back to France, a country Miranda held in little esteem? Because, during his time in London, the French Revolution had broken out. The people had limited the powers of the King and were overthrowing society through the National Convention. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, authored by his friend Thomas Paine, captivated him. Here was a revolution, freeing the people and ushering in the glorious millennium of human freedom.

Arriving in 1791, Miranda would find France at war with almost all of its neighbors. The powers of Europe found the prospect of a revolutionary and trending radical republican France upending hundreds of years of tradition, as well as the balance of power on the continent, terrifying. The revolutionaries needed anyone with military experience to help secure the revolution from foreign powers whose stated goal was to overthrow the Convention and restore the powers of the king. Miranda had military experience and was made a general and ordered to take command of troops as part of the Army of the North.

With the Allies coming over the Rhine and looking to take Paris, the French needed victory. The Battle of Valmy, while being little more than an artillery duel, led to an Allied retreat. This victory was blown up in republican propaganda and was the victory that saved the Revolution. All the men involved became heroes and were declared military geniuses, and this included Miranda.

With his military reputation sky-high, Miranda was given command of a wing of the Army of the North. He was ordered by the commander, General Dumouriez, to invade the Austrian Netherlands (roughly modern Belgium) and the Netherlands. He would take Antwerp and exact a £300,000 “loan” on the city. With Dumouriez in Paris, Miranda was ordered to occupy Maastricht by the National Convention. An Allied counterattack would lead to a rout on the part of Miranda’s army. Dumouriez would return to try to salvage the situation, but it was beyond saving. Miranda had suffered a humiliating defeat. Dumouriez, however, believed the situation could be turned around. He would reorganize his forces and counterattack. At the Battle of Neerwinden, Miranda was in command of the left wing of the army. He was ordered by Dumouriez to attack the Austrian right wing. The Austrian commander, the Prince of Coburg, reinforced his position and the battle went back and forth for several hours. When the cavalry of Archduke Charles was sent in to press the attacks home, Miranda’s command was broken, and the men began to flee. Despite all of his best efforts, Miranda was unable to rally his men. Dumouriez, learning of the shattering of his left wing, ordered the army to retreat.

The Radicals Turn on Miranda

For Miranda, the defeat at Neerwinden was very ill-timed. The Revolution was taking a dark turn. The siege mentality of the National Convention was turning into political paranoia as the different factions were turning on each other. The faction he was associated with, the Girondins, was in decline, while their rivals, the Jacobins, were ascendant. In April 1793, Miranda was arrested. His old commander, Dumouriez, recognizing the cut-throat nature of revolutionary politics, denounced Miranda and stated that the blame for the defeat in the north could be laid almost entirely in Miranda’s lap. Miranda was accused of criminal incompetence and cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Then the situation became even more confused. Dumouriez, seeing the way the Revolution was turning, decided to try to overthrow the Convention and restore a previously discarded constitution. Counting on the loyalty of his troops to himself personally, Dumouriez negotiated with the Austrians to stop their advance in order to free up the Army of the North to march on Paris and suppress the Convention. As it turned out, the troops were not loyal to Dumouriez personally, and he was forced to flee across enemy lines and defect to the Coalition. Back in Paris, the first reaction amongst the radicals was that of course, Miranda had supported his old commander Dumouriez in his treason. This flew in the face of all logic since it was Dumouriez who was trying to destroy Miranda’s reputation. Despite this, the paranoia of the Jacobins, and their leader Robespierre, knew no bounds. Miranda would be brought to trial for both sabotaging Dumouriez’s chances at victory as well as allegedly supporting the same man’s treason.

On April 8, 1793, Miranda was interrogated by the Convention’s War Committee. The questioning of Miranda and his fitness for command as well as his actions gave him the opportunity to address the committee and state his case. All of the learning, literary training, and military studies that Miranda had focused on his entire life led to this moment. Against all odds, he was able to defend himself so well before the War Committee that he was able to escape the guillotine. He showed the logic of his actions, proved the accusations of cowardice to be false, and attacked the judgment of Dumouriez. He even commented on Dumouriez’s negative opinions of the members of the Convention, just for good measure.

In May 1793, Miranda appeared before a Revolutionary Criminal Tribunal, which again investigated the charges against him. Witness after witness would appear before the tribunal to support Miranda. Even Thomas Paine would take the stand in Miranda’s defense. The defense attorney, Chaveau-Lagarde, would point out to the jury all that Miranda had sacrificed for the freedom of the French people. He showed that Miranda was a man with an international reputation for integrity and was known as a lover of mankind and a freedom fighter. The letters of introduction from men such as George Washington, Joseph Priestly, and Benjamin Franklin were introduced to prove Miranda’s devotion to republicanism. Although the process would take too long in the judgment of Miranda, he was acquitted on all charges and released. The jury had unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty.

In Revolutionary France, no one was truly safe. In July 1793, the most radical leaders of the revolution began to consolidate their power in the lead-up to the Great Terror. On July 5, Miranda was arrested again, this time at the order of the Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobins were determined to destroy their Girondin opponents, and Miranda was one of the most prominent. This time, imprisonment would not be the same. Whereas before, Miranda had been incarcerated for only a few weeks, this time, he would sit in prison for much longer. Even after the fall of the Committee of Public Safety and the defeat of the Jacobins, Miranda was still not released. Only after a year and a half, in January 1795, would Miranda finally be let out of his dungeon.

During his time in prison, Miranda had begun to lose faith in the Revolution. He would begin to write and speak to his contacts about how the Revolution had lost its initial ideals. He opposed “spreading the revolution” through military conquest and expressed his skepticism of the French government. He would write a pamphlet calling for the reformation of government to create more checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and tyranny. Given Miranda’s international connections and reputation, it could not escape the French government that he had to be taken seriously. On October 21, 1795, the Convention ordered Miranda to be arrested yet again. Although this order would be rescinded, the French government was growing very tired of Miranda.

Returning to His Roots

In 1797, the French government was prepared to deport Miranda to Guiana. He knew his time in France was up. Before he would leave, however, he would take the opportunity that being around other revolutionary exiles afforded and held what was later called the “Paris Convention.” This meeting between Miranda, José del Pozo y Sucre, and Manuel de Salas drafted an Act of Paris which set out points that would guide the South American independence movements. Independence and friendship with Great Britain and the United States, repayment to Britain for services rendered to the revolution, commercial concessions to Britain, and recognition of Miranda’s leading role in the military aspect of the revolution. These men knew that the South Americans would have a hard time freeing themselves. They needed British support.

With the Act of Paris complete, Miranda prepared to leave France. He came to the country and was filled with disgust for the absolutist French. Seeing the Revolution, Miranda became a convert to the French cause and put his life on the line to defend it. The repayment he received was accusations and imprisonment. Coming full circle, Miranda would leave France bitter against both the country and its people. He had always favored British and American models, but his experiences had only reinforced his early views.

In January 1798, Miranda would leave France and arrive in Britain. Now, at 47 years old, having seen much of the Western world, met many of its leading lights, and had his star rise, fall, rise, fall, and rise again, Miranda would now turn back to the primary thought driving his life, the freedom of Spanish America from colonial rule. No more diversions, it would now be all-encompassing.

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda’s time in America and Europe? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

The Earliest Revolutionary in the New World?

When people think of revolutionary fighters in the Americas they often think of George Washington, Toussaint Louverture, or Simón Bolívar. However, the first revolutionary fighter attempting to liberate the New World from European colonialism did not live in the 18th or 19th century but instead lived almost 200 years before. Here, Nick Bobertz explains the story of Lope de Aguirre.

A depiction of Lope de Aguirre.

In the year 1561 a group of Spanish conquistadors set out on an expedition to discover the lost city of El Dorado somewhere in the Amazon jungle. One of these conquistadors was a man named Lope de Aguirre who would go insane in the jungles of the Amazon, seize power over the Spanish expedition, and attempt to liberate all Spanish colonies in the new world.

This is the story of how one conquistador became mad with power and attempted to seize complete power over the Spanish colonies in the Americas. Much of what we know about Aguirre comes from a handful of sources, the primary of which is a letter he sent to King Phillip II renouncing his reign and declaring war on Spain.

Lope de Aguirre In Spain

As historians we know very little about the youth and upbringing of Lope de Aguirre. He was born in northern Spain sometime around the year 1510. More than likely his family was of lower noble birth in the Kingdom of Navarre. We believe this is the case because Lope de Aguirre was fairly literate for his time and his family name indicates a heritage from Northern Spain.

Sometime in his 20s Aguirre would migrate south to Seville. It is perhaps that Aguirre decided to move here in search of riches and adventure in the Spanish Reconquista which ended in 1492 with the fall of the Nasrid kingdom of Granada.

It is assumed that while living in Seville Aguirre would have seen Hernando Pizarro returning on January 9th, 1534 to a hero's welcome after having conquered the Inca Kingdom. Aguirre would have seen Pizarro being given substantial land in the new world by King Charles of Spain. This undoubtedly had an impact upon the young conquistador as only 3 years later Aguirre was somehow in the former Inca capital Peru.

Lope de Aguirre In The New World

While in the New World Lope de Aguirre became known for both his violence against the natives as well as his hatred for the Spanish Crown. On top of this Aguirre was known to be a person who acted before thinking, which led to a series of ill thought out plans. One of which was that in 1544 Aguirre attempted to free the new Spanish viceroy of South America from imprisonment with a handful of men but failed drastically.

In 1551 when Lope de Aguirre was arrested in Potosi on charges of excessive violence against the natives. In court Aguirre stated that he was a member of the Spanish gentry and that as such he was immune by law to public humiliation. The judge didn't agree with Aguirre and had him publicly whipped in the city streets.

Lope de Aguirre was a man driven by greed, ambition, and most of all pride. This became apparent after his public humiliation by Judge Esquivel. After Aguirre was flogged in the streets of Potosi he would track Judge Esquivel across the Spanish colonies in the new world for 3 years before finally killing him.

Because of this stunt Aguirre became known as a mad man who would stop at nothing to accomplish his goals. In 1559 Spanish conquistador Pedro de Ursua began to assemble a group of explorers to go into the Amazon rainforest in search of the legendary city of El Dorado. Lope de Aguirre was of course going to be a part of this.

1560 Expedition

Sometime in 1560 a now middle aged Lope de Aguirre would set out on an expedition with around 300 conquistadors and hundreds of natives to serve as cooks, guides, and a baggage train. Besides himself Aguirre would bring a few conquistadors loyal to him and his daughter on this expedition.

The Voyage That Ended In Two Mutinies, Hundreds Dead, and Aguirre The Crazed Conquistador In Charge

This expedition left Lima and crossed the Andes mountain range. Their initial plan was to make rafts on the Maranon River and float down into the Amazon River and out into the Atlantic. However, something happened after they crossed the Andes mountain range.

The story is that the expedition leader Pedro de Ursua refused to allow Lope de Aguirre to bring his mistress on the expedition. Further, it appears that Pedro de Ursa noticed that the expedition was not prepared properly for the harsh climate of the Amazon basin and wanted to turn around. This gave Aguirre the pretext to begin to plot an assassination and mutiny against Pedro de Ursua on the grounds that he was leading the expedition astray.

After the death of Pedro de Ursa the conquistadors built a series of makeshift rafts and elected a young noble from Seville called Fernando de Guzman. Over the next month Aguirre and Guzman would argue over the course of the voyage and Aguirre would then assassinate Guzman. After this Aguirre was in charge and would start to remove people who did not agree with him. All together Lope de Aguirre claimed to have killed 15 people in order to seize power over the expedition.

After successfully taking control over the expedition Lope de Aguirre was in charge of only a handful of conquistadors. Over the next year they would wander around the Amazon River Basin completely lost and looking for the mythical city of gold, El Dorado. The river, disease, and famine ended up causing the expedition to dwindle to only a few men along with Aguirre.

After about 100 days of drifting Aguirre and his crew made it to the Atlantic ocean. In all they had managed to survive on rafts for 100 days and covering more than 1,300 miles.

War On Spain

Aguirre would come out of the Amazon river basin in the delta of the Orinoco river. Something happened on this voyage that made Aguirre believe that his enemy was none other than the king of Spain.

With his ragtag group of conquistadors Aguirre would then turn north and sail another 300 miles on his rafts to the nearest European settled Island. This was the Spanish held Island of Margarita which is on the coast of modern Venezuela.

On the northwest side of the Island there was the port city of Pampatar which was founded in 1536. This is where Aguirre would attack in 1561. We don't have much details of the event but in the end Aguirre would seize control over the island and have his men declare him the Prince of the new world.

While on this island Aguirre would institute a series of changes. The governor of the Island spoke out against these changes and was killed. On top of this Aguirre had a man from Germany executed because he was a Protestant. That is all we know of Aguirre's couple of months as ruler of the island as he would immediately leave to attempt to start a revolution in Panama.

In the winter months of 1561/62 Lope de Aguirre would die after being surrounded and defeated at Barquisimeto, Venezuela. However, in this time he had begun to gain a following across the population as a revolutionary who was fighting against Spain.

So how do we as historians know all of this happened?

Aguirre's Letter

After taking control over the Island of Margarita Lope de Aguirre would write a letter and send it to King Phillip II of Spain. In this letter Aguirre outlines exactly what he did on his voyage, what the king did to him, and how he was going to free the Spanish colonies from European possession. (I highly suggest you read the letter that you can find by clicking here.)

As historians we can piece together exactly what happened in the mad mind of Aguirre. He seized the expedition, killed all those who opposed him, promised his men freedom, and then captured the Island of Margarita.

What is interesting is Aguirre's justification for declaring war against King Phillip of Spain. There is one passage from this letter that presents Aguirre's justification for rebelling against the King of Spain. The important thing to remember when reading this passage is that kings were divinely mandated, and as such simply better then the average person.

"Illustrious King, we do not ask for grants in Cordoba or Valladolid, nor in any part of Spain, which is your patrimony. Deign to feed the weary and poor with the fruits and proceeds from this land. Remember, King and Lord, that God is the same for all, and the same justice, reward, heaven, and hell."

This passage demonstrates that Aguirre is rebelling because he feels as though the King of Spain and his servants have been unfair to the common person in the New World. They take nearly all of the resources and leave nothing for the lower conquistadors and natives.

The most telling part here however is the end. That "god is the same for all, and the same justice, reward, heaven, and hell." This is very interesting because at this point in history people were taught that the nobility of the land was born with a divine reason for being better.

Aguirre here is destroying this idea and presenting libertas or that all people are created equal. This idea of liberty and the creation of equality among people regardless of birth can be seen in other revolutionary documents, namely the Declaration of Independence.

As such, we can look at Aguirre as a revolutionary fighter. In 1561 a man and a group of men attempted to seize control over the colonies of New Spain. These revolutionary fighters had the idea of liberty and self-governance long before the revolutionary wars of the 19th century.

Conclusion

Aguirre’s is a fascinating story. Many people are not aware of him and his ill fated voyage which turned into a revolution.

For much of history people have thought of Aguirre as a mad man who committed horrendous acts to seek personal glory and wealth. While this is the case he also can be considered the first revolutionary fighter in the Americas.

What do you think of Lope de Aguirre? Let us know below.

I hope you enjoyed this article. My name is Nicklaus Bobertz and I hold a master's degree in History from the University of Central Florida, have published in Cambridge University Press, and presented research at The University of Toronto.

I also run, write, and manage my own history blog where I give simple answers to history's hard questions. You can find me at TheHistoryAce.com.

Was Bloody Mary Really so Bloody?

It is rumored in folklore that if one were to say “Bloody Mary” thirteen times into a mirror, a screaming ghostly apparition will appear, covered in blood. While there is debate over whether this myth is truly inspired by the Tudor monarch Mary I, it is for certain that Mary is vilified in popular culture, yet was she really as bad as many believe? Jeremiah Puren explains.

Mary I or Bloody Mary in 1554. Painting by Hans Eworth.

The case for a ‘Bloody’ Mary I

To understand why Mary is viewed as a tyrant, a brief context of the Tudor period prior to her coronation must be understood. Mary’s father, Henry VIII had famously (and infamously) broken with Rome in 1534, severing England from the control of the Catholic church, and introducing Protestant ideas from the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the English population. Thus, many began to view the Catholic church as a greedy and corrupt institution. Included among those raised on Protestant ideas was Henry’s son, and Mary’s half-brother, Edward VI, who ascended to the throne on February 20, 1547 at the age of nine following Henry VIII’s death. Edward had little control of the nation due to his young age, yet he managed to further the Protestant transformation of England with the help of adamant reformer and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Edward approved of and legally enforced Cranmer’s new Protestant liturgy, “The Book of Common Prayer”, which allowed traditionally Latin prayers to be read in English and removed much Catholic dogma surrounding marriage and baptism. This was in line with Protestant ideas that everyone should have access to heaven through faith alone, and that everybody should be free to interpret and access the bible, as Latin was not spoken by the common people. Edward unexpectedly died at the age of 15 on July 6 1553, allowing Mary to gain the crown the same year following a brief competition for ascendency with the Protestant Lady Jane Grey.

With this religious timeline of the Tudor period in mind, it is now possible to see how one may believe Mary was truly regressive. Mary had never been convinced by the Protestant ideas sweeping the nation and desperately wished to revert England to what she perceived as the one true faith: Catholicism. One could argue that, by attempting to suddenly undo her predecessor's changes, she was thrusting England into a state of religious instability. In her first year on the throne, Mary passed her first Act of Repeal, undoing all legislation passed under Edward enforcing Protestantism in an attempt to reinstate the Catholic tradition. However, when ideas settle into certain hearts and minds, it is not a simple endeavor to strip them away. Despite Mary’s legal attempts at flushing out Protestantism, Church services continued in English, Books of Common Prayer continued to circulate and notable Protestant figures continued to preach. This led to Mary resorting to harsher measures. During her short reign of five years, over 300 Protestants were executed by being burned at the stake, with large crowds amassing to witness their dying screams. Most notable of all the executions was the aforementioned Thomas Cranmer, the former Archbishop who had been the architect behind the English Reformation, who dramatically announced: “as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine” before being set alight. It is for this perceived injustice that Mary has been most hated throughout history, and is the justification used for her title of “Bloody Mary”.

Was this truly the case?

Throughout medieval history, executions were far from uncommon. Monarchs tended to execute potential rivals and dissidents upon their ascension to preemptively solve potential issues in their reign, as well as to display power and strength. Mary I especially needed to show such strength, as it is important to note that she was the first female monarch of England in a heavily patriarchal society. Thus, the execution of Protestant dissenters, while seemingly unjust by today's standards, was justified at the time, and Mary's subjects would have been largely indifferent considering public executions were a common affair. For example, over the course of the Tudor period, there were roughly 80,000 executions, with nearly 60,000 being during the reign of Mary’s father, Henry VIII. This puts into perspective the normality of executions in this period and shows us that Mary’s burning of Protestants was relatively tame compared to other Tudor monarchs. Mary was also surprisingly lenient with those she persecuted. She gave those she executed numerous chances for repentance of Protestantism, and many were given the opportunity to leave England for mainland Europe. It was only those who stoically stuck to Protestantism such as Cranmer who faced being burned, yet Mary gave more chances than other Tudors.

While one could argue Mary’s policy was ruining years of religious change, causing disarray among the lower classes who had become accustomed to Protestantism, it is necessary to note that the majority of the population were not theologians. The rapid reversion to Catholicism would not have caused chaos among the peasantry, who were the bulk of churchgoers, as while it is true that the ability to read Latin would not be found among this social class, the ability to read English would be similarly rare. The common weekly attendee of the Church would not care for the theological disputes, and thus would not have cared about Mary’s religious policy. In fact, the Protestant attacks on the church, such as Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, which had stripped Churches of wealth and deconstructed many places of worship, caused great social discontent, as the Church was the center of local communities in this period. It not only acted as a place of worship but a social space, a charity and school simultaneously. Mary’s refusal to continue the dismantling of this institution would have thus been regarded as positive by commonfolk.

Interpreting history

The question then arises: why do we think of Mary as so Bloody? This is a question with an answer which has a scope expanding beyond Tudor studies. For hundreds of years following the Tudor period, much of British historical study was done under the ‘Whig’ tradition. ‘Whig’ historians viewed history as a story of Protestant progress towards freedom and parliamentary democracy. It makes sense then, that these historians would defile the Catholic Mary, as they looked to clearly biased sources as evidence for Mary’s flaws, such as John Foxe’s work of Protestant propaganda circulated in Mary’s successor Elizabeth I’d reign, the “Book of Martyrs”. Foxe’s work included sensationalist rhetoric and twisted the events to ensure all of those killed were seen as martyrs, being killed by an autocratic and immoral Catholic queen. Such a defamation project by historians is incompatible with the evidence previously mentioned that Mary was no worse than other Tudors, shining light on the common mistake made by historians: letting personal views and hindsight hinder the pursuit of the truth. One would hope this no longer happens, and history is viewed from an objective perspective, yet it begs the question. Is it possible to interpret history without an agenda?

What do you think of Bloody Mary? Let us know below.

References

Hanson, Marilee. "Archbishop Thomas Cranmer Death By Execution" https://englishhistory.net/tudor/thomas-cranmer-death/

Heather Y Wheeler. “How Many People Were Executed by the Tudors?” https://www.tudornation.com/how-many-people-were-executed-by-the-tudors/

How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 2 - Fidel Takes Power

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at US assessments of Fidel Castro just before he took power, the 1958 Cuban election, and the early days of Castro in power.

If you missed it, read part 1 on Cuba before the revolution here,

Fidel Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos in Havana in January 1959.

Enter Earl Smith. This non-Spanish-speaking businessman with no diplomatic experience took over duties as American ambassador in Havana in June, 1957. On the urging of his staff, Smith did some traveling in Cuba to get a better feel for the country. Based on his experiences and observations, Smith developed firm views on Castro and the anti-Batista movements, which views were not completely in accord with the CIA. The ambassador did not omit to inform Kirkpatrick that in his view, the CIA mission had allowed itself to fall under the sway of the July 26 movement. Smith urged the CIA to stop giving any encouragement to them. He furthermore accused the CIA of greatly underestimating the strength of the Communist party and its influence in Cuba. The CIA official responded by basically denying Smith’s charges with a bland recital of recent CIA operations, which he characterized as above reproach.

The new ambassador decided to conduct his own investigation into Castro’s background and what he found alarmed him. Smith conducted an intensive process of interviews including a multitude of people, many of whom had known Castro since his youth. He was careful to include those who were anti-Batista, representing different segments of Cuban society. According to Smith “No matter how anti-Batista these people were, they believed Castro would be worse for Cuba than Batista.” Among other reasons, those Smith interviewed stated that Castro was “an unstable terrorist.” Smith's ultimate conclusion was “It was becoming more and more obvious to me that the Castro-led 26th of July Movement embraced every element of radical political thought and terrorist inclination in Cuba.” But despite Smith’s position as ambassador, some personnel in the American Embassy continued to support Castro and relay messages to the State Department indicating that the Castro movement was nothing to fear. Not only that,  in early 1958 Radio Moscow broadcast its support of the effort to overthrow Batista. They continued especially supporting the 26th of July Movement. The State Department was informed of this by Ambassador Smith.

It was only when some rebels, under the command of Raul Castro, began kidnapping Americans that the State Department began to direct the CIA to prevent Castro from attaining power. The CIA then attempted to cultivate an alternative leader, without success.

Democratic process

Another possible solution lay in the democratic process. In 1958, after six years of military dictatorship under Batista, Cuba held a free election and began preparing the way for a peaceful transition of power. Three main candidates vied with each other for the presidency; Andrés Rivero Agüero of the Progressive Action Party, Carlos Márquez Sterling of the Partido del Pueblo Libre. The elections represented an opportunity to get rid of Batista but the US remained non-committal about which candidate to support or what official policy to adopt towards the on-going armed rebellion. Castro seemed to be a viable option. In his first speech on Radio Rebelde on April 14, 1958 Castro repeated many of the cherished ideals of classical liberalism; freedom of the press, republicanism and constitutionalism. He went out of his way to deny his association with communism, “These dictators will not tire of repeating the lie that we are "communists." He began the speech, in fact, with a withering attack on government censorship.  “As hateful as tyranny is in all its aspects, none of them is so irritating and crudely cynical as the absolute control that it has imposed on all the media for disseminating printed, radio and television news.”

On July 16 the American embassy passed along to the State Department the views of one of the opposition candidates, Dr. Marquez Sterling. Sterling communicated to the American Embassy that, in his view, the political situation was the most dangerous the Island had ever encountered. He claimed that the insurrectionists, unable to win on their own, were seeking to create conditions of anarchy that would allow them to seize power. He called Castro “mad” - not the first person to do so. Additionally, ambassador Earl T. Smith, vocally opposed any possible support of Castro. He declared openly that Castro was not someone with whom the US could trust or work with. Despite these warnings, the US did not take a firm position on Castro or the election.

The American embassy in Cuba's attitude was crystal clear, in contrast to the vague official American policy. The embassy represented a valuable front-line perspective which should have guided US policy. On October 3, 1958, just weeks before the election, an embassy dispatch entitled: “1958 Elections; Electoral Outlook Six Weeks Prior to Elections” arrived in Washington. After a thorough analysis of the political situation in Cuba, the embassy urged the following course of action:  "Though the coming Cuban elections will not meet all the standards of an ideal democratic election, they are the best that can be had under the circumstances now prevailing. They are in the Embassy’s view infinitely better than a violent overthrow of Batista and far better than no elections at all. It is therefore in the interest of the United States to encourage them." In other words, the embassy opposed any of the armed opposition, which Earl Smith viewed as illegitimate.

Election

Despite such information, ambivalence continued to mark the US official attitude toward the bearded rebel. There were, however, more red flags. First, there was Castro’s attitude toward the election. Although  he repeatedly proclaimed himself as a proponent of democracy, during the 1958 election he issued repeated calls for a general strike and death threats against all candidates for political office as well as Cubans who wished to participate. As a result, in regions under the control of the insurrection, voter turnout was negligible. Insisting that the election was a US/Batista farce, the rebels issued the “Total War Against the Tyranny Manifesto.” In the uncompromising language of the fanatic, the Manifesto simply ignored the elections and declared “war” on the Batista regime.

The elections took place on November 3rd with Progressive Action candidate Andrés Rivero Agüero winning 70% of the vote. Within days of his victory he met with the US ambassador and expressed his commitment to restore legitimacy and constitutional government in Cuba. The US was prepared to support him with military aid against insurgents. He would never get the chance. The Batista government was in the process of disintegration at that moment and would collapse within weeks. Agüero’s ambitions to restore the Cuban government were thwarted when Batista threw in the towel and fled Cuba on January 1, 1959, leaving the Island to anti-Batista forces.

When the rebels took Havana, a wave of euphoria swept Cuba. Most were hopeful that Castro and his fellow revolutionaries would establish a liberal democracy as he had stated many times. Castro and his revolution also captured the attention and hopes of many foreign observers. Although some uttered dark warnings about the bearded militant, others, mainly in the American media, helped to sway much American opinion in Castro’s favor. They denied Castro’s communism and actively promoted him as an acceptable leader of Cuba. After Castro’s arrival in Havana, American companies continued to act as if nothing would change. Investment in Cuba hit a record high of $63 million. One corporate executive remarked that the responsibilities of leadership would force Castro to “become conservative.”

Optimism

Everyone was caught up in the excitement. Immediately after Castro's entry into Havana, Ed Sullivan journeyed to the island and met the enigmatic rebel. Arriving at about two in the morning, Sullivan conducted and filmed an interview with Castro lasting about six minutes. Sullivan introduced the filmed interview with the comment “Somebody has said that ‘Freedom is Everybody’s Business.’ In the interview Castro came across as a soft-spoken, freedom-loving, responsible leader. Sullivan expressed great optimism about his subject and what it meant for the future of his suffering nation as well as Cuban-American relations.

Not long after Sullivan’s encounter with Castro, The popular show Face the Nation journeyed to Havana to expand on the entertainer’s brief conversation. Their purpose was to have a more serious and thorough opportunity to find out what this new Latin American hero was all about, and if indeed, the revolution was something to be worried about. Again, Castro emphasized his democratic ideals and opposition to communism. The main wrinkle in the generally hopeful mood was over the on-going executions. Once the anti-Batista forces took control of Havana, Batista followers were rounded up and hastily tried.  Summary executions took a gruesome toll as the revolutionary government took terrible revenge against Batista followers.for “crimes a./m gainst the people.” By the end of February 500 had been executed. The “trials” fell far short of American or European standards of justice. At one trial, a lawyer asked that the case against his defendant be dismissed due to lack of evidence. The prosecutor replied, “He has to be shot anyway as a measure of social health.” Horrified observers reacted with concern. When questioned about the executions, Castro’s responses betrayed a complete lack of understanding or sympathy for Western concepts of justice guaranteeing a fair trial. His closest associates, in fact, dismissed these ideals as “bourgeois concepts of justice.” Castro was actually surprised at the international outcry over the executions. “These men are assassins,” he declared, “We are executing murderers that deserve to be shot.” He justified denying due process of law to Batista men, declaring that the evidence was obvious and that simple accusations were all that was needed.

Anti-Americanism

The Consulate at Santiago continued to advise the State Department about conditions in the immediate aftermath of Castro’s ascension to power. They described a rising tide of anti-Americanism, encouraged, in part, by “the pronouncements of Fidel Castro.” An attempt to show films from the United States Information Service was shut down when a member of the audience rose and lectured them on “United States oppression of Cuba.” The consulate also took the opportunity to report the increasing influence of the communists. They were now accepted as a legal party, communist newspapers began to be reestablished and individuals with PSP backgrounds had been appointed to public office.

Time magazine also issued a frank assessment. The opening lines of an article of the January 26 issue warned; “The executioner’s rifle cracked across Cuba last week, and around the world voices hopefully cheering for a new democracy fell still. The men who had just won a popular revolution for old ideals—for democracy, justice and honest government—themselves picked up the arrogant tools of dictatorship. As its public urged them on, the Cuban rebel army shot more than 200 men, summarily convicted in drumhead courts, as torturers and mass murderers for the fallen Batista dictatorship. The constitution, a humanitarian document forbidding capital punishment, was overridden.” The article went on to luridly describe the executions, sounding more like descriptions of Einsatzgruppen activity rather than tribunals of real justice.

What do you think about Fidel Castro’s early days in power? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.