Collapse of the Qing Dynasty: Was the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 an Immediate Reason?

From being a minority to building one of the biggest empires in the world, the Qings have left behind an impressive mark on not only the history of China but of the world. Although not all of it is glorious, the tale of how the Manchus came to be the Qings, the consolidation of power, and their humiliating final years after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 - surely is a spectacle.

If you missed it, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here.

A portrayal of the last Qing Emperor, Puyi. He became emperor at 2 years’ old.

China under Qing Rule

The Manchus were skilled warriors and had already been a formidable force during the Ming dynasty. After uprooting the rule of the Mings, they laid the foundation of an empire that boasted of being the fourth largest in the world at the time. The clan was born in 1636 but it was in the year 1644 that they came to be the ruling dynasty of China.

The seventeenth century was the golden age of Qing imperial rule. Under the Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong emperors, China prospered and the period is referred to as the High Qing or shengshi. The empire expanded to an unparalleled size. The rule of the Qianlong Emperor was praised in Europe (1). Art and literature proliferated with special attention towards poetry. The Peking Opera also developed during this era.

After the Qianlong Emperor, the dynasty began its descent into infamy.

The population had increased dramatically towards the end of the eighteenth century. This led to the drainage of revenues (2). Migrations occurred in huge numbers as the landless population shifted towards less crowded areas. These added to the government's predicament in effectively administering the people (3).

Groups like Hans, Manchus, Tibetans, Mongols, and Uyghurs formed a multi-ethnic population. But they did not exist in harmony. At times, the non-Hans suffered intolerance from both the people and the administration leading to conflicts (4). This diverted the focus on repressing the conflicts rather than working towards integrating their cultural differences. The rulers, who were Manchus, were still viewed as "outsiders". Throughout their reign, the Qings faced numerous rebellions and uprisings that sought to overthrow them.

The administration during the later Qing era was riddled with corruption. The government did little to encourage trade and modernization. Whatever efforts were done in that field were done by private investors who did not have much power (5). The ritual practices of the period also acted as an impediment to the process of modernization. The ceremonies were ostentatious and the state was reluctant to stop them for changes made in matters of tradition could prove to be disastrous (6).

The bureaucratic system granted excessive power to non-Han officials. Higher-up positions were reserved for Manchus so that they could keep their Han subordinates in check.

Moreover, there had been no attempts to centralize the military out of the fear of giving too much power in the hands of the Han officials (7) and repeating history. The Manchus had seized power from the then-reigning Mings (if the short-lived Shun dynasty is to be excluded). The Ming dynasty was the last dynasty of China to be ruled by Hans. This paranoia could have been a factor in the difficulties in effective management.

Some of the societal facets which existed before the coming of the Qings continued during their reign, somewhat emboldened even. For example, the tradition of the civil service examination that had commenced back in the sixth century by the hands of the Sui dynasty was used to fill positions in the administration. Voltaire applauded this system stating no government could be better than the one in China (8). While it served the noble purpose of hiring qualified people in the government, it also widened the gap between the elite and the commoners. The society was marked with strict demarcations dividing the "respectable" and the lower classes. Those considered inferior were not allowed to give the civil service exam. Many endeavors were made to assimilate the different sections of society but one thing still withstood these changes. The disparity between the high society and the common man prevailed.

At the advent of the 1860s, the world had begun witnessing important events like the American Civil War, the unification of Germany and Italy, etc. This period overlapped with China's failed attempt at restoring the dynasty's declining domination, known as the Tongzhi Restoration, engineered by the Empress Dowager Cixi (9).

The Unequal Treaties

Treaties have been a crucial part of international law. Whether they are signed to end wars or form an alliance, the important fact that's solidified with a treaty is that the states have entered into an agreement. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, several western powers made Asian and African states sign treaties that were unjust as they were advantageous for only one of the parties involved. It, however, has been argued that only the first three treaties were "unequal" and the later ones were more considerate toward China (10).

The Treaty of Nanjing, the first of the unequal treaties, gave extraterritorial rights to Britain by granting them Hong Kong. The Qing officials were ignorant of the meaning of these treaties. Apparently, they had no problem with the unfair clauses of the treaty and giving up their territories to a foreign country but were outraged that the name of their emperor was listed along with the monarch of the ‘barbarians' (11).

A major blow to the dynasty came with the Taiping Rebellion in 1850. Already undermined by their defeat in the First Opium War, the state of the Qing empire kept on deteriorating. During this period of political unrest, several rebellions ensued that weakened the integrity of the Qing rule even further. The emperor had to ask for help from regional leaders. These leaders had their own armies (12) and depended on the emperor for nothing, which questioned the superiority of the monarch.

For many years, imperial China had remained isolated. The people were not knowledgeable about the ways of other states, say of the West, that were busy colonizing. Russian officials saw an advantage in the tumultuous state China was in and used this vulnerability to acquire no small area of land along the Russo-Chinese border. The land they amassed was more than the size of Japan (13). Given all these circumstances, it was clear that the age of the High Qing was nearing its end.

After the First Sino-Japanese War

Anti-Manchu sentiments had started brewing since the end of the First Opium War but the defeat in the war of 1894 fanned it to an alarming extent (14). The dynasty had lost its glory earned during the High Qing era. The loss incurred by the empire by the Treaty of Shimonoseki was immense. Having to let go of the Liaodong peninsula in southern Manchuria, the homeland of the Qings, added insult to injury (15).

The political crises occurring in China distressed a scholar named Kang Youwei. Having lived in Hong Kong in his youth, he was impressed by the Westernization there. Taking the example of the modernization in Japan and Hong Kong he, along with Liang Qichao and some similar-minded people, advised the emperor to carry out similar reforms. In 1898, they started the Hundred Days' Reform but their suggestions were not to the liking of Empress Dowager Cixi. She declared herself regent and put the emperor under house arrest (16), thus putting a stop to the development of the movement.

A famine struck China in 1908 that took the lives of about 25 million people and was recorded as one of the worst in human history. This increased the people's dissatisfaction with the imperial rule. What followed was a series of revolts that would be called the Xinhai Revolution of 1911. Eventually, the Qing dynasty saw its last emperor abdicate in 1912 - putting an end to a reign that extended for about three centuries. While the war with Japan might have spurred the process of decline of the Qings but the fall of the dynasty was the culmination of years of resentment towards their rule.

What do you think of the impact of the War of 1894? Let us know below.

Now read Disha’s article on the Hitler Youth here.

Bibliography

Detter, Ingrid. “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1966): 1069–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/757143.

Fairbank, John K. “Introduction: the Old Order.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank, 10:1–34. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 11:70–141. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Paine, S.C.M. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Rowe, William T. China's Last Empire: The Great Qing. Cambridge, MA; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.

Smith, Richard J. The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015.

Wang, Dong. “The Discourse of Unequal Treaties in Modern China.” Pacific Affairs 76, no. 3 (2003): 399–425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40023820.

References

1 S.C.M. Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of the Old Order in China and Korea', 23-24

2 Ibid.

3 John Fairbank, “Introduction: the Old Order.”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 10, 16

4 Richard J. Smith, The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture, 'The Qing Political Order', 89

5 Ibid., 'The Late Qing and Beyond, 1860-2014', 390

6 Ibid., 391

7 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of the Old Order in China and Korea', 32

8 Ibid., 'The Reversal in the Far Eastern Balance of Power', 13-14

9 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 85

10 Ingrid Detter, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/757143

11 Dong Wang, “The Discourse of Unequal Treaties in Modern China”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40023820

12 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of the Old Order in China and Korea', 26

13 Ibid., 32

14 William T. Rowe, China's Last Empire: The Great Qing, 'Chinese Responses to Imperialism, 1895-1900', 236

15 Ibid., 'Imperialism in Fin de Siècle China', 234

16 Ibid., 'Chinese Responses to Imperialism, 1895-1900', 242

The Rise of Capetian Power and its Contribution to the Hundred Years War

The early Capet kings of France were kings without a kingdom; they inherited the Crown from the failing Karling/Carolingian dynasties who ruled as kings from 751 CE to 987 CE, with Hugh Capet being elected the king of the Franks in 987 CE. The first Caption King was the Duke of France, Count of Paris. He only ruled the lands around Paris surrounded by the mighty Dukes of Normandy and Counts of Flanders to the north and the Crown lands being boxed in by the county of Balos and champagne with the Count of Flanders to the East. The Capet dynasties were kings without a kingdom (Hallam & West, 2020). It would not be until the late rule of Philip I of France (1059 CE to 1108 CE), Louis VI of France [1108 CE to 1137 CE) and Louis VII of France (1137 CE to 1180 CE) that the Captions got control of their lands around Paris and started being more active under the lands under the dominion. However, the dynasty did lose Catalonia, which was initially part of the Frankish kingdom.

Here, Jonathan Riley starts his look at Capetian power.

Hugh Capet, King of the Franks from 987 to 996. As shown in the Chronica regia Coloniensis.

Capetian Power

This is relevant to understanding why the rise of Capetian power in France led to the beginnings of the Hundred Years War because conflict did not come from a vacuum. The early Capetian king’s royal authority was incredibly weak, the same with most realms in Europe since the collapse of Rome in the fifth century and the loss of administration and technological innovations (Higham, 2022). This meant, in practical terms, that the kings of France were merely territorial princes. However, the vital difference is that symbolic and practical power placed the Capet dynasty above the Dukes and Counts of France. The Capetian served as the arbitrators of justice and territorial disputes between its more powerful vassals; this would be the predominant state of the dynasty throughout its first two centuries of existence (Hallam & West, 2020).

The kingships of Hugh Capet, king of the Franks (987-996), Robert II the Pious (996-1031), and Henri I of Franks (1031-1060) were dominated by trying to expand or, more accurately, control their Royal domains around Paris. The administration systems were also so poor that they had to rely on their wives to do administrative work their signatures can be found on royal charters and other documents (Hallam & West, 2020). With this situation, Hugh and Henri, kings of the Franks, were dominated by battling the princes in northern France, with royal authority being non-existent in greater Aquitaine and Toulouse. Royal authority, if it even existed, was contained primarily around Paris. However, King Robert the Pious did manage to maintain loose connections by making royal progress throughout the southern parts of contemporary France to maintain these territories as part of the future kingdom of France - apart from Catalonia, which became part of the Kingdom of Aragon in 1137. With the expansion of royal authority under King Philip I of the Franks, which was due to the legacy of the first three Capetian kings and their long rules over the kingdom, even though they were surrounded by the more powerful Counts of Champagne and Balos there was never any serious threat to the dynasty. Odo, Count of Champagne, allegedly stated: “he wished to be the master of the King of Franks but not the ruler” (Hallam & West, 2020).

Royal Legitimacy 

With the establishment of royal legitimacy in the Royal domains and with the Dukes and Counts of France recognizing at least symbolically Royal authority, the Capet dynasty started to take steps to expand its authority outside the personal lands of the King. This started under the reigns of the early Capetian kings of France, with Robert the Pious and Henry of France establishing a royal cadet branch in the Duchy of Burgundy and ensuring that the holy Roman Empire would not absorb the province. This was done over 60 years of warfare and diplomacy. These actions made the Hundred Years War inevitable, starting with the conflicts between the Dukes of Normandy, who came to rule England after the Norman conquest in 1066. A brief understanding of these conflicts is essential to highlight that Louis V of France in the 940s tried to reclaim the dukedom for the Karling Crown. Henry I of the Franks went to war with Duke William II of Normandy in the 1250s due to his power increasing and becoming a threat to the French crown, having previously aligned with Duke William against the Count of Anjou (Bates, 2018). This may seem highly complicated and erratic with the alliance changing; however, from a territorial standpoint, the Kings of the Franks had no choice but to fight their lords to prevent them from becoming too powerful - and in the case of Normandy Rouen, the River Seine is one of the most significant rivers in France and is a direct route to a direct attack on the city of Paris. From a geopolitical standpoint, this a significant reason why the kings of France had to have the dukedom as part of the Royal domains (Zeihan, 2022). However, this was achieved in the early 13th century under the rule of Philip II of France.

Conclusion 

The expansion of Capetian power in the territories composing contemporary France made a clash between the kings of England, who had held continental lands since the Norman conquest of 1066 CE, and the French throne inevitable. What the Capetian kings had been progressively doing since claiming the throne of Franks in 987 CE is expanding their ceremonial, clerical and practical power throughout France. Their achievements in holding the throne, bringing the Duchy of Burgundy into the dynasties, and preventing the Aquitaine and Toulouse from becoming independent or joining the Spanish kingdoms like Catalonia were examined by the Eastern Roman Empire. This meant that the establishment of legitimacy and recognition put the descendants of William the Conqueror and Hugh Capet on a collision course because there could only be one king in France.

 What do you think of the rise of the Capetian power? Let us know below.

Bibliography

Brown, E. A. R. (2012). Moral Imperatives and Conundrums of Conscience: Reflections on Philip the Fair of France. Speculum, 87(1), 1–36. https://www.jstor.o rgld/stable/41409273?searchText=Philip%20iV%20of%20France&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPhilip%2BiV%2Bof%2BFrance&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A53cb91140781cd8dbcae9f5db0030351

Bates, D. (2018). William the Conqueror (The English Monarchs Series) (Reprint). Yale University Press.  

Gold, C. (2019). King of the North Wind: The Life of Henry II in Five Acts (Reprint). William Collins. 

Hallam, E. M., & West, C. (2020). Capetian France, 987-1328. Routledge.

Higham, J. K. (2022). Summary of Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages By Dan Jones. Independently published. 

Jones, D. (2014). The Plantagenets: the warrior kings and queens who made England. Viking Penguin Books.  

Jones, D. (2015). The Hollow Crown (Main). Faber & Faber.

King, A. (2016). Edward I (Penguin Monarchs). Penguin UK.

Morris, M. (2016). A great and terrible king: Edward I and the forging of Britain. Pegasus Books.  

Morris, M. (2016). King John: Treachery, Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta. RANDOM HOUSE.

Rothwell, H. (1927). Edward I’s Case against Philip the Fair over Gascony in 1298. The English Historical Review, 42(168), 572–582. https://www.jstor.org/stable/552416?searchText=French%20and%20English%20war%201294%20to%201298&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DFrench%2Band%2BEnglish%2Bwar%2B1294%2Bto%2B1298&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A39802e10c624f58a2f9bb666a21bdb4a

Strayer, J. R. (1956). Philip the Fair--A “Constitutional” King. The American Historical Review, 62(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1848510

Sumption, J. (1999). The Hundred Years War: Trial by Battle (The Middle Ages Series, Volume 1). University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Wood, C. T. (1979). The English Crisis of 1297 in the Light of French Experience. Journal of British Studies, 18(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1086/385734

van Gorp, D. (2011). Historical introduction: The War of Bouvines. Medieval Warfare, 1(1), 6–9. In- https://www.jstor.org/stable/48579318?searchText=Philip%20II%20of%20France&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPhilip%2BII%2Bof%2BFrance%26efqs%3DeyJjdHkiOlsiYW05MWNtNWhiQT09Il19&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A3364281838a88ad84064941ed698cf13

Zeihan, P. (2020). Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World (Illustrated). Harper Business.

Zeihan, P. (2022). The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization. Harper Business.

The Mexican War of Independence: Chaos and Confusion - Part 1

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 the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at the Jesuit roots of revolution and Hidalgo and Allende.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here.

A painting of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.

The Eve of the Revolution

New Spain on the eve of the Abdications of Bayonne in 1808 was a place of tension. The constant warfare in Europe meant that New Spain, as the wealthiest colony of Spain, was used as a source of money for Napoleon’s war machine. The Godoy government had been dedicated to extracting as much wealth as possible from the colonies. The people groaned under the financial burden.

Money was not the only cause of discontent. The example of the United States to the north was one of a free (slaves were ignored) federal republic that had thrown off their colonial masters and the king who ruled over them. Ideas from the French Revolution, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, were highly influential on the literate classes. The economic arguments of free enterprise and the removal of colonial trade barriers were wrapped into the political language of the Enlightenment of the brotherhood of man and the liberation of the soul.

A further cause of resentment was the social caste system in place in New Spain. Slavery existed in Mexico, but it was not exclusively African slavery, as in the United States. Many of the natives, or indios, descendants of the Aztecs, Maya, and others, were enslaved, either in law or custom, through the encomienda system. This system, in place since the conquests by Cortes, bound the indios to labor to a man granted the right to own that labor, an encomendero. There were African slaves as well, just not in the numbers seen to the north. Above the slaves were mestizos, or mixed Spanish and indio, but they faced many legal and cultural barriers to success. Above them were the criollos. These were people who did not have any Native or African ancestry, but because they were born in New Spain, they faced certain legal disabilities, and in practice were second-class citizens. At the top of the pyramid were the peninsulares, people who were born in Spain. Not only did the peninsulares have more legal rights than everyone else, but they also owned and controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth in New Spain. This added a large degree of economic resentment to the existing racial resentment.

Choices to be Made

In 1808, the news of the installation of Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain hit New Spain like a thunderbolt. Although there had been tensions between France and Spain, no one had expected something like this to happen. To whom was loyalty owed, to Spain? To the king? Who was the king, Carlos, or Joseph, or maybe it was the Infante, Ferdinand? These questions had to be answered. The person who had the responsibility for all decisions in New Spain was supposed to be the viceroy, José de Iturrigaray.

Iturrigaray had been viceroy in New Spain since 1803. He claimed to be a loyal servant of Carlos IV. The problem for him was, he was the viceroy for Carlos, and was Carlos still the king after the mess of Bayonne? What about Ferdinand, the heir and future king, was he legitimate? He was not appointed by Joseph Bonaparte, but many within the Spanish civil service did recognize Joseph and welcomed the Napoleonic reforms being enacted, including the ending of the Inquisition. Further, Iturrigaray was an appointee of Godoy, the ridiculously corrupt Spanish Prime Minister who was hated by nearly everyone in the Spanish domains. He knew that the Juntas would never accept him, as they were revolting against the existing Spanish government as much as against the French and King Joseph.

Thrown into the mix were those who saw this as a golden opportunity to attain, if not independence from Spain, then at least significant local autonomy. This group was primarily led by criollos who resented the privileges of the peninsulares and identified their country as New Spain. Many in this group believed that New Spain could remain loyal to the Spanish crown but be independent of Spain and the Spanish government. The situation was further complicated by the creation of the revolutionary Juntas in Spain in response to the invasion. The leaders in Spain were attempting to extend their authority over the colonies as well. If the Spanish leaders were able to solidify the loyalty of the colonies, that would eliminate any chance of New Spain achieving autonomy or independence.

When official delegations from two different Juntas, one from Oviedo, and one from Seville, arrived in the colony, it was the perfect excuse for Iturrigaray to delay. He announced that he would make no final decision on whom to support until September. In the interim, he had agreed to the formation of a Congress for the colony, ostensibly to learn the desires of the people.

Some were worried that Iturrigaray was thinking about declaring himself the leader of an independent New Spain, perhaps even as its king. To prevent this from occurring, a group of elites from New Spain organized and plotted to overthrow the viceroy. On September 15, 1808, just four months after the abdications of Bayonne, the conspirators removed Iturrigaray. Although the removal of the viceroy had been the action of a broad spectrum of elites, it seemed no one was happy with the situation. The new viceroy, Pedro de Garibay, was named by the Audencia, not for his ability or charisma, but because he was the highest-ranking officer in New Spain at the time. The pro-independence group wanted a definite break with Spain. The conservatives did not like how the coup played out, as the king was the only person who had the authority to appoint a new viceroy.

The overthrow of the viceroy was a watershed moment for one more reason that would only become clearer in the future. The revolutionary history of what would become Mexico started with a conspiracy overthrowing the legitimate government of the country. The lesson was not lost on those groups who would later compete for power: if you are not happy with the current government, just overthrow it. The English colonists revolted against taxes that barely impacted them. The peoples of Colombia and La Plata would revolt at far less provocation. Yet, the people of Mexico did nothing in the face of, what was essentially, a coup d’état. There was no mass uprising, nor did the independence-minded Creoles raise a voice. The prestige of the government of the colony suffered a blow that it would not recover from. This lesson learned in the cradle would be the curse of Mexico for generations.

The Jesuit Roots of Revolution

It would be odd to expect the main impetus for revolution to come from members of the clergy. Yet, in New Spain, the initial driving force for revolution came from priests. In an era with little formalized education, especially in far-flung reaches of the empire, families, especially creole families, which had a child who showed intellectual promise would send that child to receive an education with the church. It was within the lower orders of the church in New Spain that many of the enlightenment ideals from Europe found a receptive audience. These men were literate yet surrounded by illiteracy and what they saw as backwardness caused by oppression.

Many of the schools in New Spain by the mid-18th century were run by members of the Jesuit order. To the people of their areas, these priests offered spiritual comfort as well as education. Usually, the most learned people in their areas, the Jesuits would set up schools to spread their religion, but also to support and uplift the people, as they saw it. To the Spanish authorities, they were an organization with loyalties to the Pope, not to the king. In the era of the Bourbon reforms, when the Spanish government was attempting to centralize and gain a firmer grip on the empire, having this group of priests teaching the lower classes who knows what, as well as controlling a large amount of wealth and land in the empire, the Jesuits represented an existential threat (or a convenient scapegoat and source of wealth). In 1767, King Carlos III ordered the expulsion of the Jesuit order from the Spanish Empire.

Hidalgo

One such young man who received his early education from the Jesuits was Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. Hidalgo came from a wealthy family in Michoacán that sent him to the Colegio de San Francisco Javier. It was here that first learned of the philosophers of the enlightenment. When the Jesuits were expelled from the empire, he transferred to the Colegio de San Nicolás, later moving on to the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico, earning his degree and entering the priesthood. While conducting his studies, he also learned philosophy and French, allowing him to read the Enlightenment philosophers in the original language.

After becoming a priest, he became a teacher himself. Hidalgo, however, could not just ignore his beliefs in the enlightenment and against some of, what he saw, as the more obscuritan elements of Catholic theology. As a member of the faculty of the Colegio de San Nicolás Obispo, he was also the school’s treasurer. The church leaders did not want to bring attention to his heretical and liberal teachings, so in removing him, they cited financial irregularities and shipped him off to several small parishes. It was while ministering to these small, rural parishes that Hidalgo’s resentments toward the church hierarchy and the corrupt viceregal government in Mexico City bloomed.

Finally settling in the small town of Dolores, Hidalgo began the work of educating the people of the region. Unlike many in the leadership of the colony, Hidalgo did not care about social caste and would take everyone equally, including indios, who up until that time, were kept uneducated as a matter of policy. Hidalgo, always a believer in self-improvement, attempted to teach the native how to improve their lot. Instead of being subsistence farmers, Hidalgo believed that they should grow cash crops, earning more money. He attempted to teach the indios how to grow olives and grapes for wine. By improving their crops and their methods, the indios could be lifted out of poverty, and with the education and literacy he gave them, they could become prosperous.

It was not to be. Spanish law and the colonial authorities forbade the growing of certain crops to prevent competition from arising for Spanish producers. The local authorities came and cut down the groves that Hidalgo had directed to be planted. Knowing the stupidity of this action, Hidalgo’s resentment would only grow.

The Conspiracy Forms

In Querétaro at the same time, a group surrounding Ignacio Allende began forming. Allende was a captain in the royal army but had been mistreated by the viceregal government due to his New Spanish birth. Creoles were looked down on by their peninsulares comrades and had a very difficult (but not impossible) time rising to higher ranks. It proved very easy for Allende to recruit fellow members of the royal army into his conspiracy.

This conspiracy did not start with the goal of independence.  On the contrary, their goal was a New Spain under the crown of Ferdinand VII, just run by creoles. Allende wanted a bloodless coup, just like the one that unseated Iturrigaray. This required more than just lower-ranking officers, though. He knew he needed to reach out to all segments of creole society to gain a broader base of support. Allende just assumed that if he could recruit creole leaders, he would have the support of the mestizos and indios, as they would naturally follow the lead of their creole betters.

This is where Allende and Hidalgo come together. Both men resented what they saw as peninsulares corruption and fecklessness. Hidalgo, however, did not agree with Allende that a revolution should be led by a small clique of creole army officers. He wanted this to be a broad-based movement in which all elements of society had a place and would actively participate.

Any broad-based movement can be difficult to control. With more people brought into the conspiracy, word began to leak out that something was happening in Querétaro. The latest of Spanish governments, now a regency acting in the name of Ferdinand VII on the island of León, dispatched a new viceroy to New Spain, Francisco Venegas. Before he even arrived, however, the government in Mexico City wanted to consolidate its power. The conspiracy had to be broken up.

The Conspiracy Unfolds

The corregidor of Querétaro, Miguel Domínguez, was given the order to arrest Allende, Hidalgo, and the rest of the conspiracy. The problem was that Domínguez was part of the conspiracy. He was also a very indecisive man. With one foot in each camp, Domínguez needed to commit himself, but instead, he panicked. He even locked in the house his own wife, as she was also a member of the conspiracy.

Domínguez’s wife, Josefa Ortiz de Domínguez, would be one of the heroes of this first act of the war of independence. On September 15, 1810, Josefa figured out a way to contact her fellow conspirators and sent a message to Allende, informing him of the arrest order. Allende immediately went to Dolores to inform Hidalgo and formulate a plan.

At 2:00 AM on September 16, Allende arrived at Hidalgo’s house in a panic. He wanted to go underground with his fellow conspirators. Hidalgo, the local parish priest, exiled to a backwater due to being seen as dangerous, saw that the moment had come. His decisiveness instantly gave him leadership in this revolution. Allende’s plan for a bloodless coup was gone. A simple political change of regime would give way to mass social revolution. Hidalgo put on his boots and walked to the church, ordering the bell to be rung. The revolution was on.

What do you think of the start of the Mexican War of Independence? 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 1919-20 Palmer Raids in the US - And Who they Targeted

The Bolsheviks’ toppling of the Russian government during the Russian Revolution of 1917 led to 30,000 Russians coming to the United States. Then, in the late 1910s, a series of bombings that some called the ‘Red Scare’ ensued. The U.S. Attorney General retaliated with several actions, including what has come to be known as the Palmer Raids.

Janel Miller explains.

Men arrested in during the Palmer Raids are shown here on Ellis Island, New York awaiting deportation hearings in January 1920.

Bombs Sent to Politicians

To start with, in the days leading up to May Day (May 1), 1919, bombs were sent to at least 23 United States addresses. Some of the recipients were politicians. One of these attacks injured the housekeeper of a Georgia lawmaker.

Another round of bomb attacks on United States judges, politicians and law enforcement officials occurred about a month later. One of the attacks occurred on June 2 in front of the home of 1920 presidential hopeful and the U.S. Attorney General during part of Woodrow Wilson’s administration, A. Mitchell Palmer. The nation’s top lawyer immediately called for an investigation to determine who was responsible.

This investigation suggested that individuals often called radicals in the press were responsible. Subsequently, Palmer used that information, along with the 1918 Sedition Act (which limited free speech), to seek and persecute these individuals.

1919 Raids Targeted Radicals

The Kansas City Times reported that on November 7, with the intent of abating a nationwide plan "to defy governmental authority”, the federal government conducted raids and searches in roughly two dozen municipalities.

One of the raids that day took place in New York, where 200 people that federal authorities called radicals were arrested and another 50 alleged radicals were scheduled for deportation. Other raids, most of them with fewer arrests, took place around the same time in Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, and Philadelphia. At least some of these searches yielded printed materials discussing the nationwide plan, making bombs and/or producing counterfeit documents. In Johnstown, Pennsylvania, no arrests were made, but a group of business leaders banished two people said to be labor organizers from the city. These actions coincided with the second anniversary of the birth of the Bolshevik government that so many Russian immigrants had tried to flee.

Not convinced the threat posed by those he called radicals was over, Palmer called for a law that, among other things, would allow radicals to be arrested even if they acted alone (at the time of Palmer’s request, only radicals working in groups of two or more could be arrested). He also claimed some of the 222 United States newspapers published in foreign languages encouraged violent overthrows of the U.S. government.

Palmer also asked for enhanced Justice Department facilities and the creation of a parole board that would relieve some of the Justice Department’s work burden and he also oversaw the deportation of 249 radicals via the U.S.S. Buford on December 21.

Raids Also Occurred in 1920

On January 2, 1920, another round of raids occurred in large United States municipalities such as Philadelphia and Chicago, as well as smaller ones such as Cortland, New York; Nashua, New Hampshire; Olneyville, Rhode Island; and Lynn and Brockton, Massachusetts. These January raids resulted in 10,000 individuals arrested who federal authorities said were members of the Communist and Communist Labor parties.

The following month, in an essay Palmer authored titled “The Case Against the Reds,” he stated his actions would prevent the “horror and terrorism of bolshevik tyranny” that was underway in Russia from occurring in the United States. Soon after the essay’s publication, Palmer claimed that radical-led attacks would occur on May Day, 1920, just as they had the year before.

Palmer Had His Detractors

Support for Palmer’s actions was not universal. For example, Francis Fisher Kane, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, resigned rather than follow Palmer’s directives. Also, an essay published by future United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound discussed what the authors felt were the many legal problems with Palmer’s raids and other actions.

In addition, there were a few immigration inspectors who refused to follow instructions that Palmer authorized or approved. The Lewiston Daily Sun openly sought lawmakers willing to "expose the hollowness of the Palmer holler." The newly formed American Civil Liberties Union claimed Palmer’s actions were based on opinions, not laws.

The Des Moines News stated that the Attorney General was "intimating that the labor department was letting off the reds and failing to deport them.” The newspaper reported that in contrast, members of the Labor Department accused Palmer of "deliberately framing up cases upon perfectly innocent foreigners and endeavoring to make a record by wholesale arrests on the flimsiest kind of evidence and in many cases without proper warrants.”

The attacks of May Day, 1920 that Palmer predicted failed to come to fruition, further damaging his credibility. The one-time 1920 presidential hopeful received 267 nominating votes for president that year, but Republican Warren G. Harding was ultimately elected president and Palmer left office rather than serve with his administration. Although Palmer would remain active in Democratic causes for the rest of his life, his hopes of becoming United States president were never realized.

In Context

Parallels can be drawn between this chapter in United States history and several events that preceded and followed it. For example, four-year-old Dorothy Good faced accusations of being a witch during the hysteria known as the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690s because her mother was accused of witchcraft. In 2015, after the killing of a Californian woman by a man in the United States illegally, then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said that Mexico was sending the U.S. people with “lots of problems,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

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

References

“Russian Beginnings.” https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/polish-russian/russian-beginnings. Library of Congress. Accessed October 22, 2022.

Palmer Raids. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids. FBI. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Blumberg, Jess. “A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-salem-witch-trials-175162489/. Published Oct. 23, 2007. Accessed October 24, 2022.

Hennessey, Kathleen. “Trump Takes On Mexican Government In Comments On Immigrants.” https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-mexican-immigrants-20150706-story.html. Published July 6, 2015. Accessed Oct. 23, 2022.

“Nation Wide Hunt for May Day Bombs.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/837246919. Holyoke Daily Transcript, page 1. Published May 1, 1919. Accessed October 23, 2022.

Palmer Raids. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids. FBI. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Attorney General: Alexander Mitchell Palmer. https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/palmer-alexander-mitchell. U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Palmer Raids. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids. FBI. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Boyd, Christina L. “Sedition Act of 1918.” https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-act-of-1918. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Accessed October 11, 2022.

“’Reds’ In Raid Net.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/654292552. The Kansas City Times,  page 1. Published November. 8, 1919, Accessed October 22, 2022.

“Raid Radicals In 18 Cities.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/614412771. The York Dispatch, page 1. Published November 8, 1919. Accessed October 22, 2022.

“Must Have Laws to Curb Radicals Palmer Declares.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/825798158. The Macon Daily Telegraph, page 1. Published November. 16, 1919. Accessed September 28, 2022.

“Palmer’s Report on the Reds and Their Work.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/552827864. The Gazette and Daily, page 8. Published Dec. 9, 1919. Accessed September 28, 2022.

“Second Ark to Leave.” https://newspaperarchive.com/ogden-standard-dec-22-1919p-1/. The Ogden Standard, page 1. Published December 22, 1919. Accessed October 23, 2022.

Williams, David. “The Bureau of Investigation and Its Critics, 1919-1921: The Origins of Federal Political Surveillance.” The Journal of American History. (68): 560-579. Accessed October 15, 2022.

“100 More ‘Reds’ Taken In New England Raids.”. New York Tribune, page 2. Published January 4, 1920. Accessed Oct. 23, 2022.

“130 Raid Prisoners in Philadelphia District to Be Held For Hearing.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/78218686. New York Tribune, page 2. Published January 4, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“’Perfect Cases’ Against 2,616 Taken In Raids Is Claim of Federal Agents.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/542621138. The Muscatine Journal and News-Tribune, page 1.  Published January 3, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

Palmer, Mitchell A. “The Case Against the ‘Reds.’” Forum 63 (1920): 173–185. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4993/. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“Department of Justice Agents Chosen for Assassination.” https://newspaperarchive.com/biloxi-daily-herald-apr-30-1920-p-1/. The Daily Herald, page 1. Published April 30, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“Kane Quit Because of Palmer’s Raids to Catch Radicals.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/162305073. Evening Public Ledger, page 1. Published January 23, 1920. Accessed September 28, 2022.

NCC Staff. “On This Day, Massive Raids During the Red Scare.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-massive-raids-during-the-red-scare. The Constitution Center. Published January 2, 2022. Accessed October. 11, 2022.

Williams, D. “The Bureau of Investigation and Its Critics, 1919-1921: The Origins of Federal Political Surveillance.” The Journal of American History. (68): 560-579. Accessed October 15, 2022.

“Editorial.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/828299251. The Lewiston Daily Sun, page 4. Published January. 24, 1920. Accessed September 28, 2022.

ACLU History. https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history. American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed October. 11, 2022.

“Impeachment.”. https://newspaperarchive.com/des-moines-news-apr-23-1920-p-6/. The Des Moines News, page 6. Published April 23, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“On This Day, Massive Raids During the Red Scare.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-massive-raids-during-the-. The Constitution Center. Published January 2, 2022. Accessed October. 11, 2022.

Attorney General: Alexander Mitchell Palmer. https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/palmer-alexander-mitchell. U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Warren G. Harding. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/warren-g. whitehouse.gov. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“A. Mitchell Palmer.” https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1273/a-mitchell-palmer. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Accessed October 26, 2022.

Alexander the Great’s Greatest Victory? The Battle of Gaugamela

Warfare in the Classical World was typified by massed infantry assaults. Iconic is the image of the Greek Hoplite or Roman Legionary marching into battle in impressively synchronized formations to engage in gruesome hand to hand fighting. Cavalry battles tended to be rather rare in comparison. Elements of horse warfare were utilized but mostly limited to reconnaissance and exploiting pursuits of retreating adversaries.

The Battle of Gaugamela, fought in October 331 BCE, is often viewed as Alexander the Great’s greatest victory. It may have involved as many as forty thousand horsemen. It was here, on a level plain somewhere in modern day Iraq that two of antiquity’s greatest superpowers, the Achaemenid Persians and Ancient Macedonians, did battle, culminating in one of the most decisive victories in history.

Brian Hughes explains.

The Battle of Gaugamela by Jan Brueghel the Elder, 1602.

Prelude

Alexander the Third of Macedon, known to history as Alexander the Great, inherited the throne immediately following the assassination of his father, Phillip the Second. Phillip had previously spent several decades conquering the city states of the Greek Peninsula. This was made possible by his shrewd and diplomatic politicking and also the professional Macedonian army in which he almost single handedly reformed from the ground up, subsequently transforming it into the deadliest military force in the Hellenistic World. Alexander not only inherited a tried and tested army but also his father’s ambitious operation to cross the Hellespont and invade the Persian Empire, then the major world power.

Following his initial vanguard, Alexander traversed from Europe and into Asia with the bulk of the Macedonian army and proceeded to score in quick succession a series of audacious victories first at Granicus and then the Battle of Issus where he faced off against the King of the Persian Empire, Darius the Third. It would not be their final confrontation.

In the aftermath of Issus, Alexander chose to not immediately pursue Darius but instead secure his supply lines by marching his army down the Mediterranean coastline through the modern-day countries of Lebanon and Israel and in the process sacking the once thought impregnable fortress city of Tyre in the process. Darius meanwhile retreated into the heart of the Persian Empire in an effort to raise more men in preparation for the next showdown with the Macedonians. Envoys were soon sent to all corners of the Empire not yet taken by Alexander to the various Satraps (Governors) requesting the supply of men. Some even from as faraway as Sogdiana and Bactria, today Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Alexander would soon turn around and swing east from Egypt and Cyrenaica (Libya) and proceeded through Syria and Mesopotamia. The year was 331 BCE. The battle for the Persian Empire was about to reach its climax.

Preparation

The exact site of the battle is contested to this day. Darius assembled his army at a place called Gaugamela (The Camel’s House) today not far from the city of Mosul. They lay in the direct path in which Alexander and the Macedonian army had planned to take to Babylon. Nestled between the mountains and the Tigris River the plain itself stretched openly for miles granting a considerable advantage to Darius and his numerically superior forces, many of which would fight mounted on horse, chariots, and elephants. Ancient Historians grossly over exaggerated the size of the Persian army, some claiming it to be almost one million. Nonetheless, the army which Darius assembled at Gaugamela was not only enormous (somewhere between fifty and one hundred thousand men) but likewise maintained certain qualitative advantages over the comparatively small Macedonian Army. Intending to make full use of this upper hand Darius ordered his men to clear the chosen spot of battle of any terrain irregularities such as dips and rises so that his cavalry and war machines would have fewer blockers when the time arrived.

Once aware of the location of the Great Kings army, Alexander ordered his men to eschew much of their gear save for their weapons and prepare for a long night march. By dawn the opposing armies were placed only a few miles apart from one another as Alexander convened with his Generals at a council of war. The Macedonian Commanders vehemently argued over how to best negate the considerable Persian supremacy in manpower. Some like Parmenio, one of Phillip’s most trusted Captains had pressed Alexander for a surprise night attack on the Persian camp. This was easier said than done. Battles in and of themselves are exceedingly difficult to coordinate. Thus, a night attack in unfamiliar terrain on this scale in the darkness when it is difficult to distinguish friend from foe was quickly ruled out. Alexander as it would turn out did in fact devise a battle strategy which he believed would win the day. The order was soon given for the army to be fed and properly rested as he himself retired sinking into so heavy a sleep, it has been alleged, that he overslept the next day so confident he was of victory.

Battle

When the day of battle arrived both armies marched under a scorching sun onto the plain and formed up facing one another. It seemed as if the Persian army stretched endlessly as they lined up in two broad columns in which cavalry forces from across the empire with the chariots and war elephants formed the bulk of the center and wings. Darius positioned himself in the center as well, the traditional spot for the King of Kings. Alexander arrayed his men in an almost box-like formation with Parmenio commanding the left flank while the Phalanx and Foot Companions, the nucleus of the mighty Macedonian army formed up in the center. On the right Alexander took personal command along with his elite Hetaroi or Companion Cavalry in addition to other crack forces.

Alexander was determined to open the board with the first move. He proceeded to ride steadily to the right giving the notion of riding around the left flank of the Persian army. Darius was stunned. Did Alexander really intend to envelop his gargantuan force? Having faced this young conqueror before and being aware of his ability to defy the odds and achieve seemingly miraculous victories Darius chose to leave nothing to chance. He ordered Bessus the Satrap of Bactria to shadow Alexander with his lethal Cavalry from Bactria and Central Asia. While this was happening the Macedonian Phalanx in the center began to steadily creep toward the main Persian line. It was difficult for the Phalanx to maintain order over such a distance as the Persian chariots began to charge forward over the very ground leveled only days ago. Darius then committed the bulk of his forces against the increasingly vulnerable Macedonian left flank.

Shockingly, the chariots appeared to inflict minimal damage against the battle-hardened infantrymen who rehearsed tactics for dealing with such weapons. Meanwhile, on the Macedonian left, the situation became more and more desperate. Parmenio proceeded to maintain some semblance of order forming his line into an inverted horseshoe of sorts. This was meant to bog down Persian forces to buy time for Alexander and his companions to initiate a bold maneuver.

Having overextended the Persian horsemen Alexander abruptly wheeled back with his elite cadre and headed for Darius and the Persian center at full speed. Tying up the cavalry force sent to intercept him far to the right, it must have been inconceivable to Darius to see Alexander spearheading a charge and plunging straight towards him through a storm of shield, spears, and sword. Alas it was too much to handle. As his right and center columns began to fold Darius ordered his chariot to turn around and flee. The demoralized Persians seeing this quickly followed suit as most of the army began to collapse. Except on the Macedonian left. By now Parmenio’s small and beleaguered force was facing certain annihilation as the Persian swarmed past his flank nearly surrounding him and even raiding the Macedonian encampment. Alexander was then confronted with a dilemma. He could pursue Darius thus sealing the fate of the Persian Empire but lose his army in the process or come to the aid of his General. He chose the latter and brought to bear the full power of the Macedonian Cavalry slamming into the Persians in an awesome battle where thousands of men and horses fought savagely until it became too much for the hard-pressed Persians who then fled.

Aftermath

Gaugamela was a complete victory for Alexander and the Macedonians. The Persian army was utterly defeated as Alexander marched to Babylon and the heartland of the Persian Empire unopposed. The wealth and strategic advantage that would accompany these acquisitions would prove monumental as Alexander turned his gaze further eastward - it seemed virtually nothing could satisfy his ravenous ambition for glory and further conquest. Darius retreated deep into the vastness of his crippled empire, attempting in vain to raise further troops so that he might reclaim his throne. It would ultimately be to no avail as Bessus, who commanded the Persian left at Gaugamela led a coup betraying and assassinating Darius and then proclaimed himself Emperor in his stead. Alexander would eventually track down Bessus before executing him as he continued to push east only turning around several years later at the stubborn behest of his homesick army who would not follow him any further. By now Alexander had claimed the entirety of the Persian Empire and ruled from the Balkans to the border of India.

Alexander would likewise meet a premature death in June 323 BCE at the age of thirty-two. It is a mystery to this day as to how he passed, however.

Few in history have acquired the epitaph “The Great.” Alexander had proven himself to be one of the best military leaders in world history winning countless battles under all kinds of circumstances. Gaugamela remains his greatest victory in both its daring and outcome, so wrestling of control of the Persian Empire.

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

Sources

Alexander The Great, Philip Freeman: Simon and Schuster

Carnage and Culture Landmark Battles and The Rise of Western Culture, Victor Davis Hanson Random House INC.

Gaugamela (331 BCE) - Livius

The Anti-Suffrage Movement in the UK

In the study of the suffrage movement, historiographical focus has remained on individuals such as Emmeline Pankhurst and Millicent Fawcett. This focus on notable individuals and the dramatic actions of the suffragettes means that one aspect of this history has been largely under-researched: the anti-suffrage movement. The anti-suffrage movement was prominent throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century and was supported by high-profile individuals including the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and Octavia Hill, the co-founder of the National Trust. Contesting women’s right to vote and gaining both opposition and support, the anti-suffrage movement is an important historical event.

Isabel King explains.

An anti-suffrage postcard. Source: LSE Library, available here.

Why did the anti-suffrage movement develop?

The fight for women’s right to vote, otherwise known as the suffrage movement, began in the 1870s, and was a popular and well-supported movement by the early 1900s. Millicent Fawcett’s National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) and Emmeline Pankhurst’s Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) had both garnered great support and attracted a lot of attention to the cause. However, lack of media publicity and the slow-paced nature of the suffrage fight led the suffragettes to adopt the motto ‘deeds not words’ and they began a more militant approach to campaigning. The emergence of the anti-suffrage movement coincided with this increased militancy, as more and more people started to fight back against the idea of women voting.

Why did people oppose women’s suffrage?

Much of the negative sentiment towards women’s right to vote was focused on issues of ‘gender reversal’. In the early 20th century, there were strict gender roles – men went out to work and were responsible for financial and political decisions, while women stayed at home and took on domestic duties and childcare. Many people involved in the anti-suffrage movement were concerned that allowing women to participate in politics would result in a breakdown of these gender roles as women would spend too much time focusing on their political opinions and neglect their families. The concern over women entering the ‘masculine’ sphere of politics was intensified by the suffragettes’ ‘masculine’ militant campaigning. As well as worries surrounding the conflation of domestic and political spheres, some opponents simply thought women were not capable of making political decisions.

Anti-suffrage postcards

One of the main ways that supporters of the anti-suffrage movement spread their message was through postcards – a very popular method of dissemination in the early twentieth century. There were several features of anti-suffrage propaganda that appeared consistently. The postcards often focused on the subversion of gender roles, the physical and mental ridicule of women, the incitement of violence towards women, and fearmongering an imagined future. Postcards would warn people about how women would neglect their duties as mothers, how women were too stupid and weak to be politicians because of their maternal, feminine instincts, and would often threaten women who wanted the vote.

Did these postcards have much of an impact on the anti-suffrage movement? It’s difficult to tell, because though they were widespread and popular, so was suffrage propaganda. In fact, satirical postcards created by supporters of women’s suffrage often used anti-suffrage tactics in reverse to ridicule their opponents and gain support. Where anti-suffrage propaganda may show women who were interested in politics as embittered spinsters, postcards created by suffragettes showed women in as independent, but in ‘feminine’ contexts such as being a good wife and mother, but also involved in political activity. These tactics were used to emphasise that being feminine and a feminist were not mutually exclusive. These postcards and other anti-suffrage propaganda give us a lot of insight into the deep-rooted issues that women involved in the suffrage movement, and their supporters, faced during the struggles for women’s voting rights.

Why is the anti-suffrage movement not as well-known?

Many people won’t have even heard of the anti-suffrage movement, let alone been taught about it. Why? This is most likely because, put simply, the anti-suffrage movement (at least in the UK) just didn’t last. World War One had a large role to play in this – when the men went to war, and the women took over their jobs while they were away, women showed how capable they were of doing ‘masculine’ tasks. Following the war, the majority of women were expected to leave the roles they had filled during the war years as men returned, but socially, nobody could (successfully) deny women’s worth anymore. The war had shown that what anti-suffragists had been saying was wrong. Women had been doing men’s jobs, during a war no less, and still maintaining their family units and domestic duties. So, with women’s capabilities highlighted, and the ever-growing support for the suffrage movement across the country – from both men and women – the anti-suffrage movement began to suffer greatly. While groups such as the National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage continued to fight against the enfranchisement of women, once the Representation of the People Act 1918 had been passed – granting propertied women over the age of 30 the vote – it was clear that the anti-suffrage movement was a lost cause. A lot more change was to come for women, but the first step been taken.

Although it isn’t studied as much, or as well-known, the anti-suffrage movement was hugely significant. Looking at it allows us to see why people were concerned about women getting the vote and the obstacles that suffragists and suffragettes encountered along the way. Analysing opposition to the suffrage movement and the way in which those fighting for the vote rose above it highlights the great success of women (and their supporters) in the years leading up to 1918, without whom, millions would not be able to vote today.

What do you think of the importance of the anti-suffrage movement? Let us know below.

References

Linda Fleming, ‘Understanding the Opposition: The Anti-Suffrage Movement in Scotland’ https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/main-sections/understanding-the-opposition-the-anti-suffrage-movement-in-scotland/

Julia Bush, ‘The anti-suffrage movement’ (2018) https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/the-anti-suffrage-movement

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/kedleston-hall/features/no-votes-thank-you---lord-curzon-of-kedleston-and-the-anti-suffrage-movement

https://historyoffeminism.com/anti-suffragette-postcards-posters-cartoons/

Lauren Alex O’Hagan, ‘Contesting Women’s Right to Vote: Anti-Suffrage Postcards in Edwardian Britain’, Visual Culture in Britain, 21:3 (2020) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14714787.2020.1827971

Founding Father John Adams - Part 1: Patriot

This three-part series takes on one of America's most important founding fathers, John Adams. John Adams’ contributions to the founding, development, and success of the United States was unrivaled by others of his generation. In this series, I will examine John Adams’ life and contributions to the United States from three perspectives. First, John Adams the patriot. Second, John Adams the diplomat. Third, John Adams the Statesman.

Avery Scott starts part 1 below.

A 1766 portrait of John Adams. By Benjamin Blyth.

Introduction

John Adams' ascension to power was anything but smooth. He, unlike peers George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, was not born into riches. Rather, he was born to a working-class family in October of 1735. Adams was born in Braintree, Massachusetts to John Adams Sr. (Deacon John), a farmer and shoemaker, and Susanna Boylston. From an early age, Adams was a dreamer. He dreamt of being successful and prominent. Despite his dreams, Adams' weaknesses often hindered his ability to obtain his desired success. Frequently he complained of, “dreaming away the time” and wasting too much of his day on the frivolous. Fortunately for Adams, he was born in a time perfect for dreamers. Witnessing the French and Indian War, the effects of slavery, his time serving as a schoolmaster, and the oratorical and legal examples of men such as James Putnam played a major role in shaping the future president. Additionally, Adams' time at Harvard College enriched him, and provided him the liberal education that would become so necessary during his variety of roles in support of the United States. After Adams time at Harvard, he was struck with the decision of a career. Adams settled on the law, completing his legal education, and beginning his career in 1758. For some time he struggled, but eventually became a successful lawyer with a reputation for honesty, integrity, and hardwork. It is around this time in which Adams courts and marries Abigail Smith in 1764. This union would eventually produce six children - one being a future president himself. Unfortunately, the Adams family was not destined to enjoy a lavish lifestyle that would have likely occurred in other circumstances. Rather, at British Parliament's passing of the Sugar Act, Currency Act, Quartering Act, and the Stamp Act, they turned the reluctant to rebel Adams - into a Patriot.

The Patriot

After the passing of the Stamp Act, Adams began writing large political pieces in support of American rights. His first such writing titled, A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law, was one of his most successful. However, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, allowing for relative calm in the colonies for the next few years. Despite the temporary calm, it was not long before Adams was thrust into the biggest moment of his personal and legal career - the Boston Massacre.

Legal Career

One year before the Boston Massacre, in April of 1769, Adams defended Michael Corbett, a sailor aboard the Pitt Packet, after he killed Lt. Henry Paton of the British Vessel Rose. After he attempted to press Corbett and three other men into British service, Corbett lobbed a harpoon at Paton, killing him. Troops from the Rose took the sailor into custody, who was tried in Boston on murder charges. John Adams expertly defended his client, just as he would during the Boston Massacre in 1770. Thus displaying his expert legal mind, and his affinity for the rights of man.

On March 5th, 1770, a British guard was being taunted by a throng of Colonists, unhappy with his presence. Eventually, a small squadron of troops, and their captain Thomas Preston, appeared as reinforcements. The unfortunate event ended with the British troops firing into the crowd of protestors, killing five. As if the incident were not stressful enough on the young Adams, he was soon asked to provide legal defense for the British troops. Despite his concerns, Adams agreed to provide the services at no charge. Adams spared all of the troops any prison time, and only minor punishments for two soldiers. While it may seem odd that this fervent patriot would defend those he despited,  it displays the principles that the rebels were fighting for in action. They felt that freemen have rights that must be honored, and not least of these is the right to legal counsel and fair trials. Patriotism, in the eyes of John Adams, did not mean that he would disgrace those he disagreed with. Rather, he would work tirelessly to ensure that their rights were also upheld.

Beginnings of Revolution

In December of 1773, the Boston Tea party was orchestrated by the Sons of Liberty in retaliation for the taxes charged on tea, and the crown sanctioned monopoly by the East India Company. In the act, 342 chests of tea were destroyed and dumped into Boston Harbor - infuriating the crown.  Adams was ecstatic to hear about the act and what it meant for America, but knew that at that moment that war would be imminent. As retribution, the crown closed the port of Boston in 1774 as a part of the Intolerable Acts, until the tea was paid for.

In the same year as the intolerable acts, Adams was elected to the First Continental Congress. The first Continental Congress was not nearly as exciting as the Second Continental Congress. However, there were important measures taken that showed the colonists' willingness to submit to British rule under the condition that they were given their due rights. Also, the congress approved such measures as a non-importation and a non-exportation agreements  in an attempt to hurt the British economy. Eventually the First Congress adjourned in October of 1774, and shortly after in 1775 the Second Continental Congress was held.

The Second Congress

The Second Congress saw some of the biggest contributors to the revolutionary cause come together, to make some of the biggest decisions America has ever seen. First and foremost, Adams nominated George Washington to serve as Commander of the Continental forces. A decision that, despite Adams later comments about Washington, was one of the biggest of both their careers. A strong presence was needed to support the Colonies in their attempt to defend against British rule, and Washington fit the mold. Also, Washington was a Virginian, which was important due to Virgina being the largest and wealthiest of all the colonies. Congress felt that the leader of the United Colonies should hail from that state. Additionally, The second Congress also voted to outfit privateers, disarm Tories, and build frigates for a new Navy. Each of these was of major importance, and played a key role in the development of the war.  Finally, a committee of five, made up of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman, were appointed to draft a Declaration of Independence from Britain. After some planning and discussion, Jefferson was tasked by the committee as a whole to write the majority of the document with only input and minor changes from the others. After completion of the document, much debate ensued regarding the act of independence.  During the debate Adams displayed his true patriotic valor, defending the document and pushing for independence from Britain. There were many members of congress that were not yet ready to commit to independence, but Adams' resilience, passion, and hard work convinced many of the delegates that independence was necessary. And on July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress voted to approve the Declaration of Independence.

Once independence was agreed upon, some painful revisions to the Declaration were necessarily undertaken by Congress, at times decimating the document that Jefferson worked so diligently on. One of the biggest sections removed, and one that Adams felt the strongest about, was the chastizement of the King for bringing slavery into the Colonies. This section was removed at the urging of other members of Congress, because slaves and the slave trade were directly associated with the livelihoods and economic status of many members. It is in this debate, that we see the Patriot Adams stand to defend, not only white colonists, but also African Americans. Adams hated the thought of slavery, and never personally owned a slave. He felt strongly that people fighting for freedom should not be holding others in bondage. Unfortunately, Adams lost this debate and on July 4, 1776, the official wording and document was approved for publication. But it was not until August 2, 1776 that the document would be officially signed. Once independence was declared, a host of other issues became necessary to address. Questions of laws, governance, finance, arming of troops, and administrative duties had to be attended to. Just as Adams was a fervent patriot in fighting for independence, he fought the same for these issues.

What do you think of John Adams as a patriot? Let us know below.

Sources

John Adams by David McCullough

The Indispensables: The Diverse Soldier-Mariners Who Shaped the Country, Formed the Navy, and Rowed Washington Across the Delaware by Patrick K. O'Donnell

Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow

A Brief History of Policy Towards Minorities in China

Minority groups in China have frequently found their way into the news cycle in the last several decades and especially in the last few years.  These issues are not new and have their roots in the major changes in the way China organized itself over a century ago.  Despite the massive Han majority, China is not an ethnically homogeneous country and has had to continually address issues of cultural and ethnic diversity.  Integration of ethnic minorities into China has ranged from open embrace to violent resistance for much of the 20th century.  What follows is a quick history of minority policy in China that has led to some of the contemporary issues that make their way into the news cycle.

Jonathan Moody explains.

A Uyghur prince. Source: Tilivay, available here.

The Qing Dynasty

To find the roots of contemporary minority policy, we must travel back to the end of the Qing dynasty.  The Qing stormed their way into power in the 17th century and succeeded in both conquering the Ming Empire and expanding the borders and influence of their empire to encompass the vast majority of East Asia and large sections of Central Asia.  On a map, the Qing Empire is a giant but drawing geographical borders around historic political entities with contemporary map standards can be deceiving and is often more of a reflection of modern ideas of the way states look. The Qing, like their predecessors and many contemporary political institutions of the time, was an empire and not the modern version of a state that much of the world lives under today. ‘Modern states’, while obviously not all the same, have embraced a high degree of political uniformity (i.e. passports, laws, national militaries , etc.) within set boundaries that often border other politically autonomous states.  Unlike a modern state, territories under Qing control could vary vastly in how they were governed or exactly how much control Beijing was able to wield and the line between Qing territory and non-Qing territory was not always clear.  For example, most eastern parts of the empire were full provinces with viceroys and the full application of the Qing law while in the peripheries (Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, etc.), Beijing would give titles to local leaders and rely on these leaders to keep the peace.  Beijing’s involvement was not uniform in many of these areas but, in general, Qing law and influence was limited to almost non-existent depending on the place.  Also, unlike many states today, uniformity of political control was not a main priority.  Attempts to make periphery areas into full provinces only happened at the tail end of the dynasty from fears of outside influence and most of the periphery was highly, if not completely, autonomous.  This loose or lumpy system was by no means utopian but for most of the life of the empire, it worked to both bolster the dynasty’s political power in the center and co-opt potential threats in the periphery to become nominal allies.

Modern China

When the Qing fell, the Republic of China claimed these disparate territories and pursued bringing them into the fold of a new modern state that had stronger centralized control over its territory.  Part of state creation for the early republic was determining who was a member of a Chinese nation-state and what their position was in that state.  For many outside of China, words like Chinese people and Chinese language can be deceptively oversimplifying in the diversity they cover.  The majority ethnic Han population is classified as a single ethnicity but many Han dialects are mutually unintelligible and there is plenty of cultural diversity across the Han regions.  The non-Han ethnic groups speak a variety of languages (Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, etc.) and have their own cultural diversity as well.  One of the problems faced by the early Republic of China was how to incorporate the politically and ethnically diverse empire of the Qing into a state that did not want to continue the loose relationships of the past, especially when regions like Tibet and Mongolia rejected any political connection with the Republic and pursued a more independent path. The Republic, under the Kuomintang (KMT), eventually embraced a policy that there was only one ethnicity in China, the zhonghua minzu. The zhonghua minzu were compared to a tree where the Han were the trunk and other ethnicities were merely branches that grew from the Han tree.  The KMT dominated Republic of China avoided questions of diversity with this program and embarked on Sinicization programs to teach the branches how to embrace their true national identity.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other hand, took the exact opposite approach, especially early in the life of the party.  With a combination of Marxists/Leninist/Stalinist ideologies and later time spent among non-Han communities, the CCP rejected notions that Tibetans or Mongolians were nascent Hans and promised recognition of various ethnic groups and specialized policies for these ethnicities.  The party even embraced the idea of self-determination for these regions early on but backtracked by the time they took power in 1949. Self-determination gave way to fostering patriotic minority identities that allowed for a non-Han identity loyal to the state.  

CCP

After 1949, the CCP adopted an approach to minority populations that had strong Soviet influences (i.e. titular or recognized nationalities/ethnicities) and was aimed at incorporating these people into a modern socialist state while allowing varying degrees of autonomy in specified national minority areas.  Much of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century can be seen as a mixture, and at times conflict, between hardline and accommodationist approaches.  Accommodationists have advocated a slow and welcoming approach to minorities by offering special benefits, at times with the opposition from some of the Han population, to convince hesitant minority populations that inclusion in the PRC is more beneficial than independence.  These policies have included exemptions from the one-child policy and preferential placements in the competitive university process.  Hardliners have been less sympathetic toward differences and have advocated an approach that has little space for dissent and exemptions. Many of the issues we see today have been as a result of hard liners pushing policies that take a more forceful approach to minority incorporation.

Most countries today have consider ethnic diversity and how to include different populations in one political entity. China is no exception and has been dealing with this issue with varying levels of success. The issue of minorities in China very much stems from a change in the way the state was organized and how different groups fit into this modern vision of a state. This change in state organization and vision renegotiated looser affiliations and has led to many of the issues that make their way into the news today.

What do you think of minority policy in China? Let us know below.

Further reading

Goldstein, Melvyn C., and Gelek Rimpoche. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2007.

Khan, Sulmaan Wasif: Muslim, Trader, Nomad, Spy. China's Cold War and the People of the Tibetan Borderlands. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015.

Westad, Odd Arne. Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750. Basic Books, 2015.

Women in the Warzone: Disguised Soldiers in the American Civil War

Popular accounts of the Civil War describe the horrors of the battlefield, from the mass casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg to the starvation and freezing temperatures at Confederate camps in New York and Georgia. These documents highlight the poor quality of life of Union and Confederate soldiers, highlighting their tremendous historical value, but they rarely mention the experiences of women. Most commonly, women contributed to the war effort by providing medical aid on the battlefield and managing the homefront, but some even disguised themselves as men to join the military. To appear more masculine, these women dressed in layers or loose clothing–both efforts to hide their breasts–and sported short haircuts. These attempts to blend in with the rest of the soldiers generally succeeded, with their gender identity typically remaining a secret.

Brooke Keys explains.

Sarah Rosetta Wakeman, a disguised female who served in the US Civil War.

Context

At the dawn of the Civil War, the Union and Confederate armies recruited masses of young men to improve their chances of defeating the other side. Because of this desperation for soldiers, the armies failed to enforce strict requirements for enlisting. So, although the Union and Confederacy preferred that their ranks consisted of young men, ideally above eighteen years old, they still recruited a vast amount of adolescents. Not only this, but many lied about their ages to ensure that the army accepted them. After all, many people in the North and South maintained strong, oftentimes opposing, opinions on slavery, incentivizing them to support either the Union or Confederacy with their military service. 

This lack of strict requirements aided many men in the enlistment process. Unfortunately, it never helped the women, who the armies strictly banned from enlisting. By violating such a widely-known, highly-enforced rule, the women who disguised themselves as men demonstrated true bravery. They not only risked their lives, but they also risked severe punishment if caught.

Women in the Union Army

One woman who disguised herself as a man was Private Sarah Rosetta Wakeman. She constitutes one of hundreds of women who performed this feat, though many of their names have been lost to history. Intrigued by the monetary bonus offered to enlistees, Wakeman joined the 153rd New York Infantry Regiment on August 30th, 1862. Under the pseudonym Lyons Wakeman, Sarah joined the ranks and successfully blended in with the other recruits.

She traveled with the Union army to the Washington, DC area, where she operated as the provost. After a couple of years, the 153rd New York Infantry Regiment experienced a shift in leadership, eventually falling under the authority of Major General Nathaniel Banks. One month later, she and her fellow soldiers marched to Louisiana. Many of them died on the journey. When Wakeman reached Louisiana to participate in the Red River Campaign, she finally engaged in active combat. Prepared for battle, Wakeman fired at the Confederate soldiers at Pleasant Hill. Unfortunately, the Confederates prevailed, prompting the Union to retreat. Wakeman’s final battle occurred at Monett’s Bluff in late April. Shortly after, she found herself extremely ill. When Sarah Wakeman died on June 19, 1864, she died with the secret that she was actually a woman. Thanks to her family members who preserved her letters from the battlefield, however, Wakeman’s memory lives on.

Women in the Confederate Army

Although women in the Confederate army fought to preserve a morally-bankrupt institution, their stories remain important, at least from a historical standpoint. Their experiences illuminate the prominence of misogyny in the Antebellum, Civil War, and Reconstruction eras, and their rejection of gender roles proves worthy of examination.

One woman who disguised herself to fight for the Confederates was Lieutenant Loreta Janeta Velazquez. With Texas’s 1861 secession from the United States, Velazquez felt inspired to join the Confederate army with her husband. However, he refused to aid her in the enlistment process, so she adopted the name Harry T. Buford and joined the army anyway.

Velazquez then embarked on an eventful journey as a disguised soldier, even declaring herself a lieutenant and personally commanding a regiment. However, she ultimately abandoned this post and joined the Confederates in the Battle of Bull Run and the Battle of Ball’s Bluff. Shortly after her brush with combat, Velazquez abandoned the battlefield and served as a spy for the Confederacy. Because of the information she provided to them, they allowed her to join the detective corps.

Unsatisfied with her role as a spy, Velazquez joined a regiment in Tennessee and participated in the Battle of Fort Donelson, where she sustained a foot injury that prompted her to return to New Orleans. In New Orleans, authorities arrested her and accused her of spying for the Union. While Velazquez avoided those charges, she was reprimanded for impersonating a man and eventually released. To rejoin the Confederacy, she traveled back to Tennessee and found the regiment that she originally commanded. Together, they fought in the Battle of Shiloh, where Velazquez experienced an injury that required medical attention. Doctors quickly realized that she was a woman, meaning this injury symbolized the end of her journey as a soldier.

Intent on contributing to the war effort, Velazquez once again served as a spy for the Confederate army, and she later wrote her memoir, The Woman in Battle: A Narrative of the Exploits, Adventures, and Travels of Madame Loreta Janeta Velazquez, Otherwise Known as Lieutenant Harry T. Buford, Confederate States Army. According to historians, the information in this text remains contested, though it certainly contains some historical merit.

Conclusion

These accounts illustrate a new reality of life during the Civil War. Yes, women overarchingly remained in the domestic sphere and occupied a lower position than men, but some individuals refused to conform. Private Sarah Rosetta Wakeman and Lieutenant Loreta Janeta Velazquez are just a couple of women who, despite their gender, greatly influenced the sociopolitical landscape of a country torn apart by war.

What do you think of female soldiers in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

Further Reading

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-women-who-fought-in-the-civil-war-1402680/ 

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-1.html 

​​https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/sarah-rosetta-wakeman 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/loreta-janeta-velazquez 

What Alcohol did the Vikings Drink? The Importance of Alcohol in Viking Culture

Alcohol was very important to Viking culture, and it was not uncommon for some people to drink every day. Here, Zack Ward tells us what alcohol the Vikings drank, the uses and prevalence of alcohol, and references in Norse Mythology and Sagas.

A Faroe Islands stamp depicting life in Viking times.

Most of the alcohol consumed by the people of Scandinavia in the Middle Ages consisted of ale, mead, and wine, with ale being the most common of the three. Beekeeping was not brought into the mainstream until the later part of the Viking Age, meaning for much of the period, mead would have mostly been enjoyed by the rich and ruling peoples. Ale at the time was made from barley, which was one of the staple crops. Barley could be eaten, as well as fermented, making it a very useful crop for the majority of people living in Scandinavia. Making ale from barley only requires yeast, gruit (a herb mixture used for flavoring beer) or hops, water, and malt, and the entire process only takes about a week.

Uses of Alcohol

Alcohol was a necessary component of feasts and various religious gatherings and sacrifices. During “entrepreneurial feasts” an abundance of alcohol and food was used to build and maintain friendships between groups as well as raise spirits during hard times. “Patron-role” feasts were a way for chieftains to show off their wealth and solidify loyalty from their followers. Large cult feasts took place in Uppsala in Sweden as well. Nearly every person in Sweden would attend these events every nine years which culminated in the sacrifice of nine of all kinds of living males, including humans, to the gods.

Alcohol was often used as an offering to the gods. Ibn Fadlan (a member of an embassy sent to the Volga River area by the caliph of Baghdad) detailed his encounter with a group of Rus (Vikings that had settled roughly in the Slavic territories) merchants. He wrote that immediately after arriving at the trading station, they gave an offering of bread, meat, onions, milk, and alcohol to a type of totem that symbolized Odin, and several smaller figurines that were likely images of the other gods. This was done in the hope that they would have their god’s help in selling merchandise.

Alcohol also played an important role in burial ceremonies before the mass conversion to Christianity in the area. Fadlan noted that when a rich man dies, his belongings were split into thirds, one-third for his family, one for his funeral garments, and one for the purchase of alcohol to drink on the day he was cremated. During the ceremony, he was placed in his ship with alcohol, food, several animal sacrifices, and his slave girls before they were all burned. The slave girl spent days preparing for the ceremony drinking, singing, having fun, and being waited on by two other slave girls. Before being killed, she would chant over two separate cups of alcohol, and then drink them both, which was only one step in a fairly complex funeral procession that mostly focused on her, and the tidings she would bring to her master upon their reunion.

Prevalence of Alcohol

Drinking was a daily activity for most of the people living in Scandinavia before the conversion to Christianity. The practice was so widespread that Fadlan went so far as to say that every Rus he met was addicted to alcohol. This statement carries inherent bias, being from a different culture, but it also means that their collective drinking habit was enough to leave an impression on a foreigner; an impression strong enough that he felt compelled to write it down and preserve it in his manuscripts.

References in Norse Mythology and Sagas

The Viking Sagas and Mythology are ripe with references to alcohol and provide insight into their attitude surrounding it. In the Volsung Saga, Borghild attempts to kill Sigmund by poisoning his ale. Sigmund’s father keeps taking the drinks because he is suspicious of Borghild’s intent, but after having his manhood insulted over and over for not drinking, Sigmund takes the ale and is killed. This shows that it was considered abnormal, or even shameful to deny alcohol at a feast.

Snorri’s Prose Edda gives several insights into the Norse people’s reverence for alcohol. In the story, The Fooling of Gylfe a giant named Utgard-Loke challenges Thor and his companions to prove their worth, and Thor chooses a drinking competition. He is handed a drinking horn and after three draughts he fails to empty it. Later it is revealed that the horn was connected to the oceans and that Thor had emptied so much that it created the tides. The Norse were seafaring people and had respect for the ebb and flow of the ocean. Thor was the everyman’s god and his hammer was one of the most widely used symbols of protection in their society. The connection between his love of drinking and the tides of the ocean speaks volumes about their feeling surrounding alcohol consumption.

The same story contains a description of Valhalla. It reveals that Odin does not require food. He gives his share of the daily feasts to his two wolves and instead lives entirely on wine. In this story, Ganglere asks Har if the people in Valhalla are drinking water and Har finds this laughable. He then explains that there is a she-goat that eats the leaves from the world tree Yggdrasill and that because of this she produces so much mead from her teat that every warrior in Odin’s great hall can drink as much as they want. This shows that the Norse believed a great man, one worthy of Valhalla, should be rewarded with as much food and mead as he wants. Not only are they promised alcohol, but mead in particular, which was a luxury item at the time, and a large step up from the ale that was consumed regularly.

What do you think of alcohol in Viking culture? Let us know below.

References

The Saga of the Volsungs. Translated by Jesse L. Byock. 1st ed. California: University of California Press, 2012.

Trans. Montgomery, James. “Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyya.” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies. 3 (2000): 1-25.

Roesdahl, Else. The Vikings. Translated by Susan M. Margeson, and Kirsten Williams. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books, 2016.

Serra, Daniel & Tunberg, Hannah. An Early Meal: A Viking Age Cookbook & Culinary Odyssey. Chronocopia Publishing AB, 2013.

Somerville, Angus, and McDonald, Andrew  The Viking Age: A Reader. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014.

Sturluson, Snorri. The Prose Edda. Translated by Rasmus B. Anderson. Project Gutenberg, 2006.

Zori Davide, Byock Jesse, Erlendsson Egill, Martin Steve, Wake Thomas  & Edwards, Kevin. “Feasting in Viking Age Iceland.” Antiquity Publications 87. (2013): 150-165.