Just What Were the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages? Part 1: Introduction

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

Pope Gregory IX, who started the Papal Inquisition.

Introduction

Medieval historians will be the first to tell you that what they believe about the period is not what occurred. Monty Python movies are not an authentic source! There are numerous subjects on which we are misinformed. These inaccuracies paint a darker and more dreadful picture of medieval European society than what really existed. Common stereotypes involve superstitious monks, tyrannical kings, mistreatment of women, bloodthirsty and racist Crusaders, bigotry against outsiders, and rampant disease and death. In contrast, we tend to view our modern society as superior, enlightened, and advanced. Today's society has undoubtedly progressed in sanitation, medical care, and many modern conveniences. However, we have also experienced a loss of valuable things like personal freedom, self-rule, satisfaction, leisure, celebrations, strong community bonds, family, morality, connection to God, and much else.

In the 13th century, Europe began a significant transformation that marked the end of the Middle Ages.[1] The way of life for peasants and lords in the mid-14th century was vastly different from what it was at the beginning of the 12th. Whenever I refer to the Middle Ages, I am referring to this period, the era I describe as "Christendom," spanning from approximately 700 to 1300 A.D. A main focal point of my book Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty was to dispel many myths we hold regarding medieval kingship and the political systems of the medieval period in general. Other topics are also addressed, such as life expectancy, health, the condition of serfs, and the work rate of peasants, but there are still many issues that need to be clarified about the period.

 

The Medieval Inquisitions

The modern American perception of the Inquisitions is a myth! Professor and historian Edward Peters wrote, “the myth was originally devised to serve variously the political purposes of a number of early modern political regimes, as well as Protestant reformers, proponents of religious and civil toleration, philosophical enemies of the civil power of organized religions, and progressive modernists, but the myth remained durable, widely adaptable, and useful.”[2]Protestants were all too eager to exaggerate the evils of medieval Catholicism and believe lies and exaggerations that seemed to justify their separation from the Catholic Church.  and modern secular, democratic societies seize on the chance to portray preceding, "unenlightened" cultures as inferior to their own. Moderns, says Edwards, are often influenced by movies such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, historical novels, past propaganda and inaccurate journalism, and thus still hold on to the many myths and misconceptions surrounding the Inquisition. Among scholars, though, there is no dispute about the Inquisition; it is well-known and researched.[3] However, these myths serve a function in a secular society. Professor Rodney Stark wrote, “Great historical myths die hard... writers continue to spread traditional myths... even though they are fully aware of the new findings. They do so because they are determined to show that religion, and especially Christianity, is a dreadful curse upon humanity.”[4]

The Inquisitions are often erroneously thought of as a medieval phenomenon. Although they did exist then, they were not as frequent or deadly as the later and more infamous Inquisitions of the Renaissance era, such as the Spanish Inquisition. As medieval scholar and professor Thomas Madden stated, "Our understanding of heresy and inquisition is not really in sync with the way things were in the Middle Ages. It has much more to do with the early modern concept of Spanish inquisitions which is a completely different thing."[5] Likewise, the witch hunts occurred almost wholly during the "Age of Reason." Nevertheless, I will discuss the Medieval and Spanish Inquisitions (in a later article) to highlight their similarities and differences and clarify misunderstandings of them.

In the medieval era, the Church generally had a different approach to handling heretics than in later times. It's important to note that the Inquisition only had jurisdiction over former Catholics and not Jews or Muslims, who could not be accused or put on trial.[6] Initially, their response towards individuals who previously held Catholic beliefs but had now adopted heretical views was to convince them through discussion and argumentation.[7] Professor Rosemary Morris wrote, "The response of the western Church authorities to heresy was, at first, to mobilize the forces of persuasion." The 12th century Saint Bernard criticized the people of Cologne for killing heretics, stating that faith cannot be forced upon them and must be born of persuasion.[8]

When the Pelagian heresy that was "blasphemous against the grace of Christ" was converting Catholics in Britain, the medieval scholar Saint Bede records that in response bishops from Gaul came to the land "and the word of God was by them daily administered, not only in the churches, but even in the streets and fields, so that the Catholics were everywhere confirmed, and those who had gone astray, corrected."[9]As a result, the heretics were forced into hiding and out of public areas where they once preached. Eventually, they did return to public discourse, and were allowed to make their case by the Catholic priests. The priests responded to the heretics in front of people during the debate and refuted the heresy once again. This helped the people to judge fairly, and the heresy was defeated.

In part, there was little persecution of heretics because the early heretics were less evangelistic, they kept to themselves and thus avoided the wrath of the Church. In the 9th century, Agobard of Lyon wrote that recently the heretics "no longer practice their wickedness in secret, as others do, but proclaim their error publicly and draw the simple and weak to join them" and due to their misleading the simple, those heretics and their supporters, says Agobard, should be under "anathema" only.[10]

Severe Inquisitors

The excessively severe Inquisitors were thoroughly examined and, if necessary, dismissed.[11] In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council condemned bishops who became heretics and removed them from their position.[12] During the "dark ages" of Christendom, heretics and other religions were tolerated more than they were by eastern Byzantines; and it wasn't until the 13th century, when secular Roman law returned, that heretics were punishable by death.[13] In 1162, Cathars were sent to Pope Alexander III, who refused to condemn or persecute them, stating, "it was better to pardon the guilty than to take the lives of the innocent."[14] In 1216, during the fourth Lateran Council, the Church condemned unrepentant heretics to excommunication but not death.  Professor Edward Peters informs us that during the medieval period, "patience, instruction, and toleration" were applied to manage "religious dissent."[15] Further, during Christendom a centralized Inquisition suppressing opposition never existed.[16] Before the 13th century, it was up to each local bishop to handle heretics. There was no widespread effort to counter heresy. The heretics' persecution increased in the 13th century when Pope Innocent III cited Roman law and the Church (and, due to the return of Roman law in governance, society as a whole) centralized, weakening the power of local bishops.

The Inquisition was not a medieval or even Christian invention. Instead, it utilized Roman law and practices, such as torture, which were widely adopted during the 13th century.[17] The origin of the inquisition is often attributed to the Catholic Church, but it actually stemmed from secular law, not Christianity. As historian Thomas F. Madden explains, "The Inquisition itself is a product of Roman law. And that means a legal code that had nothing at all to do with Christianity. That developed over many centuries before Christ was even born."[18] Not especially devout secular leaders, such as Emperor Frederick I, were known to be ruthless towards heretics.[19] And, as Catholic apologist Steve Weidenkopf wrote, "The death sentence was handed down and carried out by the state. The church itself never executed any heretics."[20]

Sorcery

Likewise, before the 13th century sorcery received little attention and was only practiced in remote regions. In the 9th century, the bishop Agobard of Lyon came across some locals who believed that humans could produce hail and thunder through witchcraft.[21] He described their beliefs as foolish and crazy, stating that they were utterly ignorant of God. In response to this belief, Agobard suggested using proofs from Scripture to judge the matter and allow Truth itself to overcome the most foolish errors. In 906, Regino of Prum said the locals were "beyond a doubt infidels" who returned to pagan beliefs, claiming witches could travel via midnight rides through the air and that sorcerers could transform people into animals.[22] C.S Lewis wrote, "There was very little magic in the Middle Ages; the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic."[23]

During Christendom as I define it, practices such as sorcery, magic, and witchcraft were rare. The British Isles had its first Inquisition in 1309, with no convicted individuals.[24] The first witch was not burned at the stake until 1275. She was accused of having sex with a demon among other abominable practices. Professor Richard C. Hoffmann wrote, "early medieval Christian authorities debunked such superstitions and reserved all power to God alone.”[25] It wasn't until the 13th century that the Church began associating sorcery with heresy.

During the Middle Ages, the church had a more laid-back approach towards certain superstitious practices that didn't directly impact church doctrine or individual salvation. They were more accepting of pagan "magic" and sorcery, and even universities taught occult practices and astrology.[26] The Anglo-Saxon Dooms, written between 590 and 975, instructed witches and other groups to be expelled from the land, not killed or tortured, but only sent away.[27] It is likely that most of Europe, perhaps three quarters of it, never experienced witchcraft or a witch hunt. These practices seemed to be robust in some areas and non-existent in others.[28]

The significant reaction to the heresy of the medieval period occurred in 1209 in southern France. During the early 13th century, the Albigensian Crusade was launched against these heretics in southern France. It was falsely attributed to the Inquisitions, but it was actually called in response (in part) to the murder of papal legate Peter of Castelnau.[29] Professor Burman wrote, “the spark that set off the so called Albigensian crusade was the murder in January 1208 of Peter of Castelnau...Peter was more than a mere legate – he was ‘an alter ego of the Pope.’”[30]Heretics denied the divinity of Jesus and claimed that a phantom was on the cross. The Cathars believed that sex, children, and marriage were evil, and they sanctioned homosexuality, bestiality, abortion, and suicide.[31] They believed the material world was evil and that our souls were trapped inside our physical bodies, thus suicide freed the spirit from its prison. They believed that the Old Testament God was evil and created matter to trap souls. According to them, the purpose of life was to free oneself from the corrupt physical body. The Church responded by holding councils and condemning the false teachings, but this did not stop the spread of the heresy. The Popes sent missionaries to the areas to preach and teach the truth, but when a papal legate was murdered in response, the Pope called a Crusade, not an Inquisition. While many heretics were killed during the crusade, others were massacred by locals who had no tolerance for their beliefs. The Church and the Pope, who called the crusade, were unable to prevent this happening.[32] The heretics attempted to replace Catholicism rather than coexist with it. The purpose and desire of the Pope in calling the crusade was to reform the heretical clergy and lay people.

Persecution of witches

The persecution of witches did not begin in earnest until the second half of the 15th century with the papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus and the publication of the "Hammer of Witches."[33] The witch craze and witch hunts did not originate in the medieval period but emerged during the 16th and 17th centuries and occurred at the same time as the rise of modern science and nationalism.[34] The first execution for witchcraft in England was in 1563. The first trial in Scotland was in the second half of the 16th century.[35]The witch hunts were conducted as much by secular as by religious authorities, and were supported by significant thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin.[36] Even later, during the witch craze, skeptics of some of the claims of witchcraft said they really saw "visions or dreams, for frantic men think they see marvelous things, such as beats and other horrors, when in actual fact they see nothing."[37]  According to Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger in the Hammer of Witches holy men are not deceived like the "maniacs" are.[38]

In the following article, we will cover myths surrounding the Inquisitors themselves and the origins, purpose, and results of the Inquisitions.

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

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

 

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] (Smith 2024)

[2] (Peters 1-2)

[3] (Peters 295, also see 308)

[4] (Stark)

[5] (Madden)

[6] (Holmes 1988, 203)

[7] (Tierney and Painter 362-363) (Durant 1950, 67) (Pernoud 1950, 113)

[8] (Pernoud 1950, 114)

[9] (Bede, Book 1 chapter 17)

[10] (Agobard of Lyons and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);)

[11] (Wickham 169)

[12] (Schroeder)

[13] (Durant 1950, 776-777) For the return of Roman law during the period see cite monarchy

[14] (Burman 25)

[15] (Peters 46)

[16] (Peters 3, 68)

[17] (Wickham 157-158) ((Burman 31) (Peters)

[18] (Madden 2008)

[19] (Pernoud 114)

[20] (Weidenkopf 2017)

[21] (Agobard of Lyon translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);)

[22] (Smith 2023 103)

[23] (Smith 2023 101)

[24] (Burman 98)

[25] (Hoffmann 339)

[26] (Burman 119)

[27](Thatcher)

[28] (Weidenkopf 2017)

[29] (Tierney and Painter 359-360)

[30] (Burman 27-28)

[31] (Carroll 1993, 165)(Tierney and Painter 355-356)

[32] (Peters 50-51)

[33] (Burman 123)

[34] (Burman 115-116) (Durant 1950, 567) (Durant 1950, 567)

[35] (Kors and Peters 303, 318)

[36] (Weidenkopf 2017, 131)

[37] (Kors and Peters 201-203)

[38] (Kors and Peters 201, 237)

A New Look at the 1770 Boston Massacre

On March 7, 1770, a contingent of British soldiers were on patrol in the streets of Boston and were directed to respond to an incident involving a British soldier who had been taking the brunt of harassment from a group of colonial protesters. Still years away from the start of the American Revolution, tensions across the 13 colonies were at a boiling point due to unfair taxes, land restrictions, and presence of the British military. Suddenly they were confronted with a mob of angry colonists.

Here, Ryan Reidway gives his take on the Boston Massacre.

The Boston Massacre. By Paul Revere. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. Russell Sage, 1910, here.

Outnumbered, far from home, inexperienced, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, the Redcoats under the command of Captain Thomas Preston fired upon the crowd. Tragically five colonists in the mob ultimately died. Among the dead was an escaped slave Crispus Attucks who is often considered by historians as the first casualty of the American Revolution.

In the trial that followed John Adams, founding father and the second President of the United States, participated in the legal defense of Captain Preston and eight of the British soldiers in court. With the odds against him and without public support, Adams and his legal team successfully argued for their innocence and release from imprisonment of Captain Preston and six of the eight soldiers. The two other soldiers were branded on the thumb with an M for Manslaughter and then ultimately released. In his closing arguments Adams argued this:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defense; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offense of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause. The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady, undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men.”

Legal case

Adams and his legal team that consisted of Robert Auchmuty Jr., and Josiah Quincy Jr. were the only ones willing to take on  a case like this due to the rising opposition and public outcry against Preston and his men. Ironically the reason there was so much outrage in the colonies was due to the response to the incident by Adams' cousin and leader of the Sons of Liberty Sammuel Adams.

For years Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty had been stirring up anti British sentiment in Boston for what they considered to be a series of  unfair regulations and taxes. Paul Revere who would later become famous for his famous Midnight Ride in which he is quoted “One if by land and two if by sea”, before the battles of Lexington and Concord, and founding member of the Sons of Liberty, created and distributed the illustration above throughout the 13 colonies.

After careful examination of the illustration one will notice that none of the colonists portrayed in the image have a variety of weapons or objects such as oyster shells, snowballs, or rocks in their hands or around their bodies. And yet this clearly is not how it happened. From both Preston's account written only hours after the altercation and the closing legal arguments of John Adams, the mob had the means if not the intention to cause bodily harm to Preston and his men.

Massacre?

This image, forged from anger after the event, was distributed first in the city of Boston, and then around the rest of the 13 colonies. Revere even proclaimed his depiction as the “Bloody Massacre on King Street.” However Revere was not present to witness the event first hand and yet was the first one to call it a Massacre. Webster Dictionary defines Massacre as the “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.”

So to call it a Massacre may have been a bit of a stretch. Tragic loss of life? Yes. An unfortunate and upsetting incident? Indeed. But from the very definition of the word it is very clear that there are two reasons why Revere had no business calling it a massacre. The first reason is implied: intention. Did Captain Preston’s soldiers set out that night with the intention of killing those colonists?

No. There is no historical evidence anecdotal or otherwise to show that was what those men were thinking or planning to do.  They were caught in a bad situation that was compounded by the fact that most were inexperienced, perhaps not in the art of being a soldier, but as a quasi police/occupational force. The second and arguably more evident, is the fact that the definition points out that victims of massacres are usually unarmed. We know for a fact that the colonial mob was not unarmed. Perhaps at a disadvantage in terms of fire power (ie: rocks vs. muskets) but armed nonetheless. 

Neither of these points were ever present in the narrative surrounding Paul Revere's depiction of the event and still it was sold to the public as yet another example of aggression towards the Colonies by the King George III government. If a plantation owner in Charleston, a merchant in Philadelphia, or a shopkeeper in New York City,  saw this illustration with the title Bloody Massacre on King Street, how could History expect them to feel anything other than anger and frustration towards the British Crown or its agents present in the 13 Colonies.       

It is certainly expected that the events that followed this incident drummed up the feelings of patriotism and love of country for many Americans. As it should. However, in the Republic that was built from the ashes of the American Revolution, Article 3 of the United States Constitution argues for the value of a virtuous court system based on rule of law and not on the whims of one individual or even that of the entire population.

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

References

Hodgson, John, and John Adams. n.d. “Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3–4 December 1770.” Founders Online. Accessed May 9, 2024. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016.

Preston, Thomas. 2015. The Trial of the British Soldiers [T. Preston and Others] of the 29Th Regiment of Foot, for the Murder of Crispus Attucks [And Others]. N.p.: Creative Media Partners, LLC.

The Vanguard of Greek Resistance Against Nazi Occupation – The EDES National Republican Greek League

In the Second World War, the story of the EDES National Republican Greek League stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of resistance against Nazi occupation. Formed in the crucible of Greek patriotism and fueled by a fervent desire for liberation, EDES played a pivotal role in challenging the Nazi juggernaut, forging alliances with British intelligence, and laying the groundwork for Greece's post-war reconstruction.

Terry Bailey explains.

First, if you missed Terry’s article on ELAS’ role in World War 2, read it here.

Napoleon Zervas (the second from the left) with fellow EDES members.

The genesis of EDES can be traced back to the tumultuous years of the 1940s when Greece found itself engulfed in the flames of war and facing the specter of Axis domination. Founded in 1941 by Colonel Napoleon Zervas, EDES emerged as a beacon of hope amidst the darkness of occupation. Zervas, a decorated veteran of the Balkan Wars and the Greco-Turkish War, embodied the ethos of Greek nationalism and staunch anti-communism that would come to define EDES's ideology.

Unlike its communist counterparts such as ELAS (Greek People's Liberation Army), EDES espoused a vision of republican governance and sought to establish a Greece free from both Axis tyranny and the specter of communism. Drawing inspiration from Greece's storied history of resistance against foreign invaders, EDES rallied patriots from diverse backgrounds under its banner, united by a common purpose: to reclaim Greece's sovereignty and dignity.

Resistance efforts

EDES's resistance efforts were characterized by a blend of guerrilla warfare tactics, sabotage operations, and clandestine intelligence gathering. Operating primarily in the mountainous regions of Epirus and western Greece, EDES fighters waged a relentless campaign against Nazi forces, disrupting supply lines, ambushing patrols, and bolstering civilian morale through acts of defiance.

One of EDES's most notable achievements was its collaboration with British Special Operations Executive (SOE), the clandestine organization tasked with supporting and organizing resistance movements across occupied Europe. Through Operation Animals, SOE agents forged alliances with EDES operatives, and their communist counterparts in ELAS, providing crucial logistical support, training, and intelligence to bolster resistance efforts in Greece. Operation Animals was part of the larger strategic deception plan to fool the axis powers into believing that amphibious landing would occur in Greece instead of the real target of Sicily.

EDES's partnership with SOE proved instrumental in several key tactical operations, including the destruction of Axis infrastructure, the liberation of strategic territories, and the rescue of Allied prisoners of war. However, tensions occasionally simmered between EDES and its communist counterparts within the Greek resistance movement, leading to intermittent clashes and rivalries over territory and influence.

As the war progressed

As the tides of war shifted in favor of the Allies, EDES began laying the groundwork for Greece's post-war reconstruction and transition to democratic governance. With the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, EDES played a pivotal role in facilitating the return of exiled Greek political leaders, advocating for the establishment of a constitutional republic, and demobilizing its forces in accordance with the terms of the Varkiza Agreement.

However, EDES's aspirations for a democratic Greece were soon overshadowed by the turbulent civil conflict and the emerging Cold War rivalry between Western powers and the Soviet Union. The disbandment of EDES's armed forces and the subsequent outbreak of the Greek Civil War in 1946 marked the end of the organization’s active involvement in Greek politics.

In context

Despite its relatively short-lived existence, the legacy of EDES endures as a symbol of Greek resilience and defiance against oppression. Its members, many of whom sacrificed their lives in the struggle for freedom, are remembered as heroes of the recent Greek history. Moreover, EDES's commitment to democratic ideals and its collaboration with Allied forces during the Second World War laid the groundwork for Greece's eventual integration into the community of democratic nations.

Therefore, the story of the EDES National Republican Greek League stands as a poignant chapter in the Second World War’s resistance movements. From its humble beginnings as a fledgling guerrilla force to its pivotal role in challenging Nazi occupation, EDES embodied the spirit of Greek nationalism and defiance against tyranny.

Though its post-war aspirations were overshadowed by the prolonged civil conflict, the legacy of EDES endures as a testament to the enduring power of resistance and the human spirit in the face of adversity and the wish to be free from Nazi dictatorship or the overshadowing specter of communist rule.

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

Abraham Lincoln and the 1862 Emancipation Proclamation

The 1862 Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln took place during the US Civil War. Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at what the Emancipation Proclamation was and the moral and political motivations for it.

First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln. By Francis Bicknell Carpenter, 1864.

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”

Abraham Lincoln, December 1862 Annual Message to Congress

The earth laughs, the sun laughs

over every wise harvest of man,

over man looking toward peace

by the light of the hard old teaching:

“We must disenthrall ourselves.”

Carl Sandburg, From “The Long Shadow of Lincoln: A Litany”

Carl Sandburg the poet, and lover of words, recognized that Lincoln’s use of the word “disenthrall” in this context was intentional and multi-layered. The word means “to set free” or “to liberate” and Lincoln chose this word on purpose. Lincoln’s genius was in his ability to find new solutions to complicated problems by “thinking outside the box”, which is Lincoln’s literal meaning here.  But he was also “setting free” the slaves. Moreover, crafting the goal of “setting free” the slaves into a war aim meant changing the war’s purpose. It meant giving a new reason to fight the war, adding to our resolve to carry it through. Also, we see that by doing so, the country was going to change – we were setting ourselves free from what the country had been before and would become something new; there was no going backward. “A new birth of freedom”, as he would say a year later. And in doing so, we were liberating ourselves from an immoral practice. As a nation that enslaved humans, we were ourselves enslaved to defend its existence, and now we would be “set free” of that burden, America’s Original Sin.

Lincoln, a highly astute and practical statesman, adeptly maneuvered through the political landscape by employing a pragmatic approach to problem-solving. He relied on empirical evidence to determine effective solutions that would not only maintain his position of authority but also garner sufficient support from the public to bring his government along. Lincoln's profound comprehension of the gravity of the situation, coupled with his remarkable skill in articulating his ideas, reverberates throughout history. The Emancipation Proclamation, hailed as a momentous moral decision, also aligns with this interpretation, further highlighting Lincoln's pragmatic political leadership.

Sandburg’s insight is founded on Lincoln’s 1862 Annual Message to Congress, introducing the Emancipation Proclamation:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

There is no doubt that Lincoln didn’t solve all of the problems of his, or our, times, especially connected with race. But neither have the next 30 presidents. Lincoln won the war, but that didn’t mean everyone agreed on what should be done after the war; there were as many views as people on that subject. And then, of course, he was assassinated right as the war ended.

What Were Lincoln’s Views On Slavery?

Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the unity of the nation, a goal he successfully achieved. This accomplishment was unparalleled, as no other individual could have accomplished this feat. Lincoln's journey towards emancipation was far from simple, as it required more than a mere proclamation. The process necessitated a constitutional amendment and political consensus, both of which were absent at the onset of the war. Furthermore, there was widespread disagreement regarding emancipation, with individuals from both the northern and southern regions expressing dissent. Nevertheless, Lincoln devised a strategy to bring about this significant transformation, a feat that undoubtedly warrants immense recognition. It is important to acknowledge that although the Southerners found ways to circumvent certain laws after the war, and true equality wasn’t a reality until the Civil Rights era, slavery did end. Lincoln deserves credit for this achievement. In the northern states, black individuals were granted voting rights, legal freedom, and equality, a truly remarkable accomplishment.

Throughout his public and private addresses, Lincoln consistently voiced his moral opposition to slavery. He made it clear that he held an inherent aversion to the institution, firmly stating, "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." "I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel”, he noted.  However, the challenge lay in determining the appropriate course of action to address slavery's existence and bring about its demise. Slavery was deeply entrenched within the nation's constitutional framework and played a significant role in the country's economy. Consequently, finding a solution to this complex problem proved to be politically challenging.

In addition, there was the question of what would become of the four million slaves if liberated: how they would earn a living in a society that had long rejected and marginalized them. His proposition to send African Americans to colonies in Africa rather than keeping them in America, although criticized, stemmed from his recognition of the deeply ingrained prejudice within the American character, prevalent in both the North and the South. Lincoln believed that African Americans would prefer to return to their ancestral homeland due to the pervasive discrimination they faced. However, it was through his friendship with Frederick Douglass and his acknowledgment of the bravery displayed by black troops that Lincoln came to understand that America was indeed their homeland. African Americans desired equality within their own country and had no desire to be relocated elsewhere. This realization challenged Lincoln's previous notions and highlighted the importance of achieving equality within the United States.

Lincoln also had to balance the necessity and emphasis on saving the Union relative to freeing the slaves. His response to Horace Greely’s editorial calling on Lincoln to free the enslaved people is definitive in this regard; he clearly says that his primary goal is to save the Union, and everything that he does, or doesn’t, do is based on his analysis of that test. The last paragraph states: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” Often this response is quoted out of context to suggest that Lincoln didn’t care about slavery. Its intent however is to demonstrate that while Lincoln the man hated slavery, his role as president meant he had to remain focused on what his primary job responsibility – saving the Union -- required.

One month later he released the preliminary emancipation proclamation having determined that freeing the slaves was a necessary goal of the war, which the majority in the Union now supported.

Eric Foner's book, The Fiery Trial, delves into Abraham Lincoln's evolving perspective on race and slavery throughout his lifetime. Foner has said, “I have never called Lincoln a racist. He shared some of the prejudices of his time. Was Lincoln an anti-racist? No not really. Was he an egalitarian in the modern sense? No. Race was not a major concern of Lincoln. He didn’t think about race very much. To ask if he’s a racist is the wrong question. And if you ask the wrong question, you’re going to get the wrong answer.”  While Lincoln always recognized the immorality of slavery and supported the freedom of slaves, his stance on rights shifted in accordance with the changing sentiments of the Republican Party and the North. As a politician, Lincoln strategically positioned himself in the middle ground of prevailing opinions to secure electoral success. It is important to note that he did not lead the way, as Frederick Douglass astutely observed. Despite being influenced by figures like Douglass, Lincoln's stated views on race indicate that he did not truly consider African Americans as his social equals. Foner distinguishes between Lincoln's belief in equal natural rights, his eventual acceptance of legal rights, and his likely lack of support for social acceptance, which he probably never did favor, a sentiment shared by many white individuals in the 19th century.

What was the Emancipation Proclamation?

The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, marked a significant moment in American history. This executive order, which came at a time of great political turmoil, demonstrated a remarkable display of political courage. It was a decision that Lincoln believed to be morally right and necessary for the nation's progress. The Battle of Fredericksburg had dealt a severe blow to Northern morale, plunging the country into a state of despair. In response to the victory at Antietam on September 22, 1862, Lincoln took the opportunity to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, setting the stage for the eventual liberation of millions of enslaved individuals.

As the commander-in-chief, Lincoln strategically employed the Emancipation Proclamation as a war tactic. By emancipating enslaved people, he aimed to weaken the South's labor force and disrupt their war efforts. However, Lincoln was not oblivious to the potential consequences of his actions. He recognized the deep-rooted racial divisions within the nation and feared the long-lasting impact of his decision. Nevertheless, during his second presidential campaign, Lincoln boldly advocated for the permanent abolition of slavery through a constitutional amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation effectively altered the legal status of over 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the Confederate states, granting them freedom once they escaped their enslavers' control and sought refuge with Union forces.  The 13th Amendment to the Constitution made this the law of the land.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves. It only applied to the ten states that were still in rebellion on January 1, 1863 and did not extend to the approximately 500,000 slaves in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, as well as parts of Virginia and Louisiana that were no longer in rebellion. This has led to debates regarding the effectiveness and impact of the proclamation. Rather than being a definitive act of liberation, it should be understood as a policy announcement that guided the actions of the army and declared freedom as the Union forces advanced.

Lincoln understood that the federal government's authority to abolish slavery during peacetime was limited by the Constitution, which assigned the issue to individual states before 1865. However, during the Civil War, Lincoln utilized his authority as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In doing so, he claimed the power to emancipate slaves in the rebellious states as a necessary measure to suppress the rebellion. Lincoln also referenced the Confiscation Act of 1861 and the Confiscation Act of 1862 as additional sources of authority in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 as sources for his authority in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

While the immediate aim of the Emancipation Proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy's war effort, its broader significance was evident. The document signaled that the United States would no longer support the enslavement of individuals based on their race, a practice deeply ingrained in the nation's history. Furthermore, it opened the door for Black men to participate in national affairs on equal terms. Lincoln actively encouraged Black Americans to join the U.S. Army, which traditionally served as a pathway to citizenship, and urged them to work diligently for fair wages. In this way, the Emancipation Proclamation not only sought to undermine the Confederacy but also aimed to redefine the principles and values of the United States.

Political Versus Moral Motivations

Martin Luther King Jr once said that “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” As previously noted, December 1862 was one of the darkest moments in our history. After two years of battle and hundreds of thousands of casualties, the Union appeared to be losing the war. People were losing hope and disaster loomed. Lincoln at this moment made an extraordinary paradigm-shattering decision to shift the focus of the war slightly from saving the union to freeing the slaves, arguing they were one and the same.

But although it was presented chiefly as a military measure, the proclamation marked a crucial shift in Lincoln’s views on slavery. By declaring emancipation, the focus of the Civil War shifted from preserving the Union to abolishing slavery, thereby setting a definitive path for the nation's future after the war.

The Republican abolitionists in the North were elated by Lincoln's wholehearted support for their cause, which they had elected him to champion. Although the enslaved individuals in the South did not immediately rise in rebellion upon the proclamation's signing, they gradually began to emancipate themselves as Union forces advanced into Confederate territory. Towards the end of the war, a substantial number of enslaved people left their former masters in large numbers. They actively contributed to the Union Army by engaging in combat, cultivating crops, undertaking various military roles, and working in the mills of the North. While the proclamation did not receive unanimous praise from all northerners, particularly white workers and troops who feared job competition from the influx of formerly enslaved individuals, it did have the distinct advantage of dissuading Britain and France from establishing official diplomatic relations with the Confederacy.

Conclusion

The mythological Lincoln on Mt Rushmore is America's greatest president. We desire our heroes to have been just and motivated to do the right thing. The real Lincoln indeed was, but he was also doing the politically intelligent thing as well. Whichever motive you think was primary and which secondary (although his response to Horace Greeley seems definitive in favor of the political), he found the solution by “disenthralling” ourselves from our past.Morality aside, it was a brilliant political maneuver, perhaps the most magnificent achievement in American history, and it saved our country.

The signing of the Emancipation Proclamation symbolized Lincoln’s unwavering determination to preserve the Union at any cost, while simultaneously finding moral virtue. This act held both political and ethical significance, as it transformed emancipation into a war objective. It is crucial to acknowledge that human beings, including Lincoln, are imperfect, intricate, and often contradictory. Contrary to the idealized image of Lincoln, he was not immune to the complexities of human nature. Ultimately, the limitations of Lincoln’s racial perspectives are an indictment of the larger society. To truly comprehend our identity, it is imperative to examine the unvarnished reality of American history, rather than subscribing to an appealing fairy tale. The intricate and inconsistent nature of human experiences provides a more accurate depiction of our racist past than superficial notions. Just as the romanticized portrayal of Robert E. Lee as the "Marble Man" should be rejected,  so should the myth of Lincoln as the "Great Liberator Father Abraham." A comprehensive understanding necessitates recognizing the arduous journey Lincoln undertook to achieve greatness. This genuine narrative, rather than the oversimplified fable, is truly inspiring and represents the authentic story of our nation.

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

How did Medieval European Kings Differ from later Monarchs and Roman Emperors?

Many modern history buffs associate the function of Medieval Kings with monarchs of the later Renaissance period, or the pagan Roman Emperors that preceded them. However, during the "early" and "high" Middle Ages kings ruled in very different ways from those other monarchs. The Middle Ages provided a unique form of politics enabling self-government and liberty at a level that surpassed every other system of governance, including democracy.

Jeb Smith explains.

Henry I of England, who ruled from 1100-1135. From the illuminated Chronicle of Matthew Paris.

In my book, Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK), I seek to correct many of the common misunderstandings Americans – and indeed others - have regarding the political systems of the Middle Ages. Many believe kings had absolute power (something even the monarchs of later centuries never achieved) and made law as they wished. They were the law! Anything they desired or declared became law. This is much more in line with certain modern dictatorships, but it does not align with Medieval Europe; quite the opposite.

For example, the Medieval king was under the law, and his limited, specified authority was derived from it. He could not violate the law or customs of the people in any manner or create new laws for his advantage. Instead, he was given a duty to perform by the people for their benefit. He existed to serve them, not the other way around. In fact, there were often no professional legislative bodies to adjust the law at all! Unlike in democracies ruled by politicians, the law was conservative, maintained over hundreds of years untouched by rulers, and devoid of any mechanism to adapt, add to, or take away from it. It belonged to the people, not to those in power who were meant to serve them.

Part of the people

Further, the king was not elevated above his people but was one of them. He was the "king of the Anglo-Saxons" or the "king of the Franks," not a monarch who has authority over subjects within his geographical realm like the Roman emperors of old, the monarchs of later ages, or the politicians of today. Thus, kingdoms came and went, and borders were loosely defined since the law followed the people, not the king, who was replaced at death by another servant who must uphold the people's customs.

The law allowed the king only a minimal influence on affairs. Politicians, unelected bureaucrats, and capitalists have significantly more power and control over your lives than a medieval king over a peasant. The king had no authority (nor did anyone, for that matter) to legislate new laws or manipulate his people's economy, politics, and rights. There was no legislation! The law was practiced and enshrined over many generations, and it was the king's duty to protect and uphold it. If he did not, if he attempted to violate it, expand his powers, or enact new laws, it was the obligation of everyone in the realm, from priest to prince to peasant, to stand up and resist him, overthrow him, to reestablish justice and the supremacy of the law.

The most powerful political position in a society was never weaker than that of the feudal kings of Europe. Frequently, a king’s authority amounted to control (again within the limitation imposed by law that predated his birth) of his family lands. He was often a symbolic king only. Some of his vassals openly ignored him, failed to take an oath of allegiance, or resisted him. Other great lords within his “realm” were more powerful than he was and could muster a stronger force than the king. Most of what was considered his realm was ruled by various dukes, lords, knights, monasteries, churches, etc. The Middle Ages were extraordinarily decentralized. For example, in 800 A.D., Ireland was made up of perhaps 150 separate kingdoms, and by 1200 A.D., there were 200 autonomous city-states in Northern Italy. The kings ruled only minor sections and often had difficulty controlling even those areas.

Warfare

Likewise, the king lacked infrastructure and the ability to tax his people heavily; the level of taxation was minuscule compared to today. He lacked the Roman Emperors’ and modern states' ability to maintain standing professional armies. This made military operations smaller-scale and less devastating than modern or ancient warfare, which regularly drafted conscripts and was supported by national taxes.

I am unsure of any better anti-war policy than to start having our politicians fund their own wars out-of-pocket and lead their armies to the front lines for the conflict. Then, have those who vote for them make up their armies rather than drafting conscripts. It will not take long for diplomacy to start working more efficiently. People are much more likely to engage in war when they spend other people’s money, and send others to die for their personal gain.

However, kings led their loyal, oath-bound followers and friends into war during the Middle Ages, making each loss mean something. Conscripts do not have personal relationships with their politicians and presidents; feudal warfare meant everyone was valuable, and so they tried not to lose men in war and not carelessly sacrifice them.  In Roman times professional soldiers, mercenaries, slaves, urban warriors, prisoners, criminals, and the landless masses made up the bulk of the armies. By contrast, having extra time to train and advancements in equipment, the rural aristocratic Christian lord became a knight and dominated the battlefield, replacing the brutality of an earlier age with much less sanguinary and more modest warfare. Lords needed fewer soldiers because aristocrats could afford the time to train and to upkeep expertly crafted armor, and their horses could dominate multiple hired soldiers. The treatment of soldiers drastically improved because the warriors were valuable. They were loved and loyal, oath-bound, personally known vassals of a lord, not conscripted masses sent to be slaughtered. The lords would not easily sacrifice those they loved but instead dealt carefully with them; further, because they were valued, they were worth more alive when captured.

When conducted by faithful oath-bound followers of the lord rather than draftees and conscripts, war became detached from the rest of society. The warfare between noble and royal houses and oath-bound vassals often left the rest of the population unaffected. Medieval wars were not nations at war where production and the population at large were engaged in conflict. Instead, the lord's followers and the money he gained from his lands sustained the wars; thus, they were much smaller and less lethal. The aims were smaller, and so were the costs. Because the lord paid for the war and valued his loyal vassals, who were not easily replaced, battles often resulted in few deaths. Casualties for an entire war were usually only a few hundred. Some battles could feature just a dozen or so knights.

From King to Monarch

In my book, I argue that the Middle Ages passed away during the 14th century. Many factors contributed to its demise. The great plague, the rise of merchants, trade, towns, cities, money economies, the loss of power of the Church and the Pope due to schisms, and the centralization of secular powers all played a part. However, the most impactful force during the transformative 14th century was the widespread return of Roman law. As secular Roman law returned, kings slowly transformed into monarchs, rulers above their people, able to legislate new law, rulers over geographical areas, and they began to tax more widely and heavily. They were imposing new restrictions and obligations on vassals and peasants. The ancient political systems under Rome, which ruled its subjects by force and cohesion, returned. Government was no longer viewed as to benefit man, but man to benefit the ruling elite. The situation only worsened during the 17th century as the Protestant “divine right of kings” was instituted, and later, under democracy, when the modern nationalist blind obedience to the state reared its ugly head.

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

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

What was the role of the Greek People's Liberation Army in the 1940s? ELAS - A Legacy of Resistance

In the tumultuous landscape of the Second World War, Greece found itself at the crossroads of history. Amidst the chaos of invasion and occupation by Axis forces, a beacon of hope emerged in the form of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS). Born out of necessity and fueled by the fervor of resistance, ELAS would leave an indelible mark on the nation's history, shaping its destiny for years to come.

Terry Bailey explains.

The ELAS in the Vermio Mountains, with a Soviet military group in 1944.

Formation of ELAS

The origins of ELAS can be traced back to the early years of the Nazi occupation of Greece. Following the Axis invasion in April 1941, the Greek people faced the harsh reality of foreign rule and oppression, something the Greek culture had experienced before, only this time from the Nazis. In the face of this adversity, various resistance groups began to coalesce, driven by a shared desire for liberation and independence.

One of the most significant of these groups was the National Liberation Front (EAM), a broad coalition of leftist and communist organizations. Under the umbrella of EAM, ELAS was established in 1942 as its military wing, tasked with the mission of confronting the Axis occupiers and their collaborators.

Led by a diverse array of leaders, including communist guerrilla fighters and patriotic nationalists, ELAS quickly garnered widespread support among the Greek populace. Drawing upon the rich tradition of Greek resistance throughout history, the organization tapped into a deep well of national pride and defiance, inspiring countless individuals to join its ranks.

Resistance Against the Nazis

ELAS waged a relentless campaign against the Nazi forces occupying Greece, employing guerrilla tactics and unconventional warfare to great effect. Operating primarily in the rugged terrain of the Greek countryside and mountainous region, ELAS fighters carried out ambushes, sabotage missions, and acts of sabotage, striking fear into the hearts of their enemies, while working alongside British SOE operatives.

However, ELAS's impact extended far beyond the battlefield. The organization also played a crucial role in the resistance's efforts to support and protect vulnerable civilians, providing aid, shelter, and medical care to those effected by the horrors of war, in doing so, ELAS earned the respect and admiration of the Greek people, solidifying its status as a symbol of hope and resilience in the face of tyranny, yet the organization had a hidden agenda and it was this reason that support was provided to the Greek people based on future aims and political manifestos.

Post-War Plans and the Civil War

With the end of the Second World War in 1945, Greece stood on the brink of a new era of freedom and democracy. However, the euphoria of victory was short-lived, as the country soon found itself plunged into a bitter civil conflict. At the heart of this conflict was the struggle for control between rival political factions: on one side, the communist-led forces of ELAS and its allies, and on the other, the conservative government backed by Western powers.

What began as a battle for liberation against foreign occupiers quickly escalated into a bloody internal struggle for power and ideology. ELAS, emboldened by its wartime successes and bolstered by popular support, sought to capitalize on its position to shape the future of Greece in line with its socialist vision. However, the conservative government, fearful of communist influence and determined to maintain its grip on power, moved swiftly to suppress ELAS and crush the burgeoning communist movement.

The ensuing conflict, known as the Greek Civil War, raged from 1946 to 1949, tearing the country apart and exacting a heavy toll on its people. Despite their efforts, ELAS and its allies were ultimately unable to overcome the combined might of the government forces and their Western backers, who did not wish communist rule in Greece. With the defeat of the communist backed ELAS in the Greek Civil War it was officially disarmed and disbanded, marking the end of an era of resistance and the beginning of a new chapter in Greek history. Though the communist dream of revolution had been quashed, the legacy of ELAS lived on, serving as a testament to the enduring spirit of resistance and the fight for justice and freedom.

Legacy of Resistance

Despite its ultimate defeat, the legacy of ELAS endures as a symbol of courage, sacrifice, and defiance. For many Greeks, the memory of ELAS and its heroic struggle against fascism remains a source of inspiration and pride, reminding them of the power of unity and solidarity in the face of adversity. In the decades since its dissolution, ELAS has been commemorated through monuments, memorials, and cultural artefacts, ensuring that its contributions to Greek history are never forgotten. Moreover, the values of democracy, equality, and social justice for which ELAS fought continue to resonate with people around the world, serving as a beacon of hope in an uncertain world, however, this continued underlining believe in equality is based upon the organization’s original manifesto which had a heavy left wing flavor.

As Greece navigates the challenges of the 21st century, the spirit of ELAS lives on simmering under the surface, inspiring future generations to stand up against oppression and injustice wherever they may find it. Though the battles may have ended long ago, the fight for a better world continues, fueled by the enduring legacy of the Greek People's Liberation Army and the belief by poor communities that these manifesto ideas are the answer to unequaled living conditions.

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

What was Thomas Jefferson’s Pivotal Role in Mapping the Louisiana Territory?

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, played a pivotal role in one of the most famous and consequential explorations in American history – the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This expedition, also known as the Corps of Discovery, was commissioned by Jefferson in 1803 with the goal of exploring and mapping the newly acquired Louisiana Territory and finding a practical route to the Pacific Ocean. Led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, the expedition lasted from 1804 to 1806 and covered over 8,000 miles of uncharted territory, leaving a lasting impact on American history and geography.

Richard Bluttal explains.

Thomas Jefferson in later life. Portrait by Thomas Sully.

Thomas Jefferson's interest in the exploration of the American West can be traced back to his early years as a young surveyor and land speculator in Virginia. He understood the strategic importance of expanding American territory westward and believed in the potential for economic growth and scientific discovery in the vast wilderness beyond the Mississippi River. Jefferson's vision for the future of the United States included a nation that stretched from coast to coast, with access to valuable resources and trade routes.

In 1803, Jefferson seized the opportunity to expand the nation's territory when he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France, effectively doubling the size of the United States overnight. The acquisition of the Louisiana Territory presented Jefferson with a unique opportunity to explore and map the uncharted lands west of the Mississippi River, which inspired him to commission the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Meriwether Lewis, a trusted confidant of Jefferson, was chosen to lead the expedition due to his background in the military and his experience as Jefferson's personal secretary. Lewis, in turn, selected William Clark, a seasoned frontiersman and skilled mapmaker, to serve as his co-leader. Together, Lewis and Clark assembled a diverse team of soldiers, interpreters, hunters, and tradesmen to accompany them on their journey into the unknown.

Expedition begins

The Lewis and Clark expedition began in St. Louis, Missouri, where the Corps of Discovery set out on their journey up the Missouri River. The expedition consisted of a diverse group of individuals, including soldiers, boatmen, interpreters, and hunters, as well as Sacagawea, a Shoshone woman who served as a guide and interpreter. Throughout their journey, Lewis and Clark meticulously documented their observations and discoveries, keeping detailed journals that provided valuable insights into the natural and cultural landscape of the American West.

One of the most significant achievements of the Lewis and Clark expedition was the successful establishment of diplomatic relations with Native American tribes along their route. The expedition encountered numerous Native American groups, including the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Shoshone, and engaged in trade and diplomacy with them. Sacagawea's presence was particularly valuable in facilitating communication with the Shoshone tribe, as she was able to interpret and negotiate on behalf of the expedition.

Challenges 

Lewis and Clark faced a myriad of challenges during their historic exploration of the uncharted American West. Venturing into unknown territory presented numerous obstacles that tested the resilience and resourcefulness of the Corps of Discovery. Some of the key challenges they encountered included:

1. Geographic obstacles: The American West was characterized by rugged terrain, dense forests, and wide rivers, making travel difficult and slow. The expedition had to navigate through mountain ranges, cross rivers, and traverse dense forests, often without clear paths or landmarks to guide them.

2. Harsh weather conditions: The expedition faced extreme weather conditions, including scorching heat in the summer and freezing temperatures in the winter. The unpredictable weather made travel challenging and required the expedition to adapt to changing conditions.

3. Limited supplies: The expedition had to contend with limited supplies of food, water, and ammunition, which had to be carefully rationed to ensure the survival of the group. Hunting, fishing, and foraging became essential tasks to supplement their provisions.

4. Encounters with Native American tribes: The expedition encountered numerous Native American tribes along their route, some of whom were initially hostile to the explorers. Communication barriers, cultural differences, and misunderstandings often led to tense interactions, requiring diplomacy and negotiation to maintain peace.

5. Sickness and injuries: Members of the expedition fell ill due to exposure, fatigue, and poor sanitation, with some suffering from injuries sustained during their journey. Medical supplies were limited, and the expedition had to rely on the expertise of their physician, Dr. John Potts, to treat illnesses and injuries.

6. Mapping and navigation: The expedition had to create accurate maps of the region as they traveled through uncharted territory. Lewis and Clark relied on rudimentary instruments, such as compasses and sextants, to determine their position and chart their course, a challenging task in the vast and unfamiliar landscape of the American West.

The expedition also made important scientific discoveries, documenting and collecting specimens of previously unknown plants and animals. The expedition's naturalists, including Meriwether Lewis and William Clark themselves, collected samples of flora and fauna, providing valuable information about the biodiversity of the American West. The expedition also mapped the geography of the region, creating detailed maps that would later be used by settlers and explorers.

Expedition ends

The Lewis and Clark expedition persevered and successfully reached the Pacific Ocean in November 1805. The expedition spent the winter at Fort Clatsop in present-day Oregon before beginning their journey back to St. Louis in the spring of 1806. Along the way, they retraced their steps and encountered new challenges, but ultimately returned to St. Louis in September 1806, completing their historic journey.

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

Did Elizabeth Bathory Really Murder 600 Young Women?

In 1611 Elizabeth Bathroy, a Hungarian noblewoman, was accused of the torture and murder of 600 young women. But was it true? Or a vicious rumor? What is the real story behind the woman who came to be known as the Blood Countess? Nonye Ugo explains.

Elizabeth Bathory.

Elizabeth Bathory de Ecsed was born on August 7, 1560, to the prominent and powerful Protestant Bathory family on the family estate in Nyirbator, Hungry.  Her father, Baron Gyorgy VI Bathory, from the Eched branch of the Bathory family, and her mother, Baroness Anna Bathory, from the Somlyo branch, were relatives. The family was extremely wealthy, owning land in Hungary and Romania as well as having family members in prominent positions. Her brother was the Chief Justice of Hungry, and her uncle the king of Poland. Elizabeth was raised in the Esced castle. She was an intelligent child and received a good education learning Greek, German, Hungarian, and Latin. Despite a very privileged upbringing as the daughter of a wealthy and powerful family, her childhood was marred by seizures and headaches possibly due to epilepsy and even at a young age, she showed signs of sadism and enjoyed  torturing animals.

Growing up, Elizabeth’s world was riddled with political strife. Hungary was a battleground between Christian kings in Eastern Europe and Muslim sultans of the Ottoman Empire. There was fighting too between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Some historians think the violent atmosphere may have desensitized her to violence.

Marriage

Elizabeth was 10 -years- old when she was betrothed to 16-year-old Count Ferenc II Nadasdy whose father Tamas, was a Prince Palatine, a title that meant he was the king's representative. The marriage was a way to join the two powerful Hungarian Protestant families. As was custom, Elizabeth was sent to live with her fiancé's family at Castle Sarvar. While there she had an affair with a man of lower social standing that resulted in the birth of a daughter who was promptly given up for adoption. For any other girl such an act would have ruined her future but Elizabeth was a Bathory, and laws didn’t apply to her in the same way, so Count Nadasdy took his anger out on her peasant lover. He had him castrated and torn apart by a pack of dogs. By the age of 15 she and Nadasdy were wed but she refused to adopt his surname - preferring to keep her influential maiden name.

Elizabeth’s husband was away for most of their marriage fighting against the Ottomans and it fell on her to manage his estate and run the household, which included disciplining servants, a task she really enjoyed. At that time whipping was a standard punishment meted out to servants and vassals, but Elizabeth seemed to have taken things a bit too far. She brutally beat her servants, breaking their bones and sticking needles under their fingernails. She had a lot of encouragement from her aunt Klara, a lesbian and self-confessed witch, who introduced her to witchcraft and Satanism, and her confidante Anna Darvola, who taught her all she needed to know about inflicting pain. Her husband too, when he came for visits in between the fighting, encouraged her cruelty. He was a ruthless soldier well known for torturing Ottoman prisoners of war, though at that time mistreatment of heathens wasn’t a bad thing. He once punished a servant by tying her up and coating her with honey, then leaving her outside to be bitten by ants. The only person who disapproved of the brutality was her mother-in-law Countess Ursula, but disapproval was all she had. She was powerless to stop her sadistic daughter-in-law, but her disapproval did provide some restraint.

During Nadasdy’s brief visits, the couple managed to conceive four children: daughters Anna, Orsolya, Katalin, and son Pal.

By 1603 Countess Ursula had passed away. Now in total control of the palace, Elizabeth decided to be a good noble woman and open a gynaeceum where young women from noble families could come and be taught language, etiquette, music, and activities that would socially advance them and make them desirable to respectable suitors. Many nobles had no hesitation in sending their daughters to a gynaeceum to be taught by a noblewoman of Elizabeth’s standing. They knew their daughters would learn a lot from her. But Elizabeth had other ideas for her gynaeceum. It was a way to find new victims, as poor locals valued their lives and limbs and refused to work for her. It wasn't long before the young women attending the gynoecium began to die at an alarming rate. Elizabeth claimed cholera was the cause but the local priests who buried the bodies couldn't tell how cholera could leave marks of what was clearly torture. But Elizabeth was a powerful woman married to a powerful man and despite rumors of starvation, torture and murder in the gynaeceum, nobody investigated.

On January 4, 1604, Count Nadasdy died. He had been in poor health for some years suffering leg pains that left him disabled. Before his death, he entrusted his estate, widow, and children to the new Palatine of Hungary, Gyorgy Thurzo. After her husband’s death, Elizabeth moved to the isolated Csejthe Castle in Slovakia where she installed a dungeon and enlisted her servants Dorottya Sventes, Ilona Jo, Katarina Benicka, Erzsi Majorova, and Janos Ujvary, to help during her torture sessions. By this time rumors were circulating that she bathed in the blood of her virgin victims to retain her youth and local priests were asking for an investigation.

Investigation

Finally, in 1610, King Matthias II of Hungary asked Gyorgy Thurzo to investigate the accusations. This request came some weeks after Elizabeth had gone to demand repayment of a loan Nadasdy had lent the crown under Matthias’ predecessor, Rudolf II. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

On December 30, after a brief investigation, Elizabeth and her accomplices, except Anna Duvolia, who had died some months earlier, were arrested for murder. The trial began in January 1611, but there was no physical evidence and no eyewitnesses. Her accomplices under torture at first blamed the late Darvolia for the crimes, then when the torture became more severe pointed the finger at Elizabeth. Since the confessions were obtained under duress they might not have been very credible. Elizabeth was never called to trial but she was questioned and claimed her servants were uncontrollable and whatever torture or murder there was, had been done without her knowledge. The servants were found guilty and all, but one, were sentenced to death. Jo, Szentes, and Marjorova were burned alive, Ujvary was beheaded but Benicka was sentenced to life in prison.

Outcome for Elizabeth

Elizabeth was another matter. Murderer or not, she was a noblewoman and whatever personal vendetta her accusers had against her it would set a bad precedent if a noble was treated like a commoner. King Matthias, Thurzo, and even the parents of the victims, all agreed their social position was more important than seeking justice.

After negotiations between Thurzo, her son, and her sons-in-law, it was agreed that Elizabeth would be placed under house arrest, Bathory property would remain untouched, and King Matthias’ debts would be canceled. Win, win for everyone - except the victims.

Elizabeth was confined to Csejthe castle. Though under guard, she still had her servants and lived in the luxurious lifestyle she was used to. She died in August 1614, at the age of 54. She was initially interred in the Csejthe cemetery but protests by the villagers caused her body to be moved to an unknown location.

So, was Elizabeth Bathory a villain or victim? Perhaps a bit of both. She mistreated her servants no doubt, perhaps she was crueler than most, but at a time when brutal punishments were handed down to people of lower social status, punishments that far exceeded the crime, beating and even killing a servant wasn't that unusual. After all, people only began protesting when the mistreatment was extended to noblewomen. Did she kill 600 girls? it's very unlikely. Even during the trial the figure was put at 60. And it was a fact that King Matthias was looking for a way to get his inherited debts canceled. He knew arresting Elizabeth would do just that. It was no coincidence that despite the persistent rumors he didn't order an investigation until Elizabeth began demanding payment. He also sought to curb the influence of powerful local families like the Bathory - and Elizabeth’s arrest was sure to do that too.

So many myths and legends have embellished Elizabeth Bathory’s crimes that we may never know the truth.

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

Who was The Little Dancer in Edgar Degas’ Famous Painting?

During the years that Impressionism was at the forefront of Parisian artistic expression, Edgar Degas’ work was amongst the best known. He was famous for painting scenes of the ballet, and could frequently be found backstage after performances or watching rehearsals at the Paris Opera, where many young girls went to train in the hopes of becoming revered dancers. Degas was also a sculptor and his famous statue, ‘The Little Fourteen-Year-Old Dancer,’ is known the world over, yet unlike its creator, little is known about the model behind it.

Here, Erin Bienvenu looks at the life of the ‘little dancer’, Marie Geneviève van Goethem.

The Little Fourteen-Year-Old Dancer by Edgar Degas. Source: H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929. Available here.

Her name was Marie Geneviève van Goethem and she was born to Belgian parents in Paris on June 7, 1865. Marie had two sisters, the older Antionette and younger Louise-Joséphine. Their mother was a laundress, and their father a tailor, though he disappeared early from his daughters’ lives. Consequently, the van Goethem’s were poor and moved frequently to avoid their debts.

Dancer at the Paris Opera

Desperate for money, Marie’s mother pushed her daughters to become dancers at the Paris Opera, at the time a way many families with young girls earned extra money. But it was a difficult life, the girls, known as ‘Little Rats’ earned little and worked around twelve hours a day, six days a week. Marie walked to and from her classes, her feet often bleeding from the intensive sessions, compounded by the poor nutritional value of the food she ate at home, and the fact that the van Goethem’s did not have running water in their house.

As money was a constant concern for many, the opera also operated a secondary, unofficial trade, which revealed a much darker side to the façade of beautiful dancers- prostitution. Backstage, after performances, the dancers were encouraged to find wealthy male ‘protectors’-their mothers often aiding and encouraging these introductions. Marie’s mother was soon offering up her daughters to these rich, usually older, men. 

Marie and her younger sister were accepted into the school around 1878, at which stage Antionette was already attending classes. Marie made her stage debut, a walk on part, in the ballet La Korrigane, but she never progressed through the levels of the ballet, throughout her time there she remained in the lowest rank.

Model for Degas

To earn some extra income Antionette was also posing for artists, including Edgar Degas, already well known as a painter of ballerinas and it was probably through her sister that Marie met the artist. Soon she was posing for him as well, earning more money than she did at the Paris Opera (four francs as opposed to the two earned from the ballet), and in a less taxing environment. She lived close to his studio and would have walked there for the sessions. Though it was easier work than the ballet sometimes Marie would have to stand for hours in one pose, not moving a muscle. Neither Degas, nor Marie, left any written record of their working relationship, but he did use her as a model for numerous artworks, both paintings and sculptures, the most famous being the ‘Little Dancer.’

‘Little Dancer’ Exhibited

The wax sculpture was dressed in a real tutu, bodice and ballet slippers, and had a wig of real hair, it was exhibited at the Sixth Impressionist Exhibition in 1881. The first and only time Degas put it on public display. It caused a certain amount of controversy. For many it was too lifelike and was criticised for being ugly. One critic described it as displaying “the lowest depths of dance” and another accused it of “bad instincts and vicious tendencies.”

Wax was an unusual choice in sculpture at the time as was Degas decision to dress his piece in real clothes, and display it in a glass case-these unusual aspects added fuel to the critic’s fire. Though at least one believed it to be “the only really modern attempt that I know of in sculpture.”

The reactions to the piece displayed a shocking amount of classism, particularly prominent at the time owing to the popular idea of physiognomy as applied to criminals- the belief that criminals bore similar features, such as large noses and jaws, and were generally believed to be of the lower classes. The idea had recently been in the news thanks to a murder case involving three young men, who were described as ‘bestial,’ a word also applied to the Little Dancer. Similarly, the fact that in Paris dance and prostitution were seen as synonymous led many to believe a ballerina was unworthy of being celebrated in such a way.  In many respects Degas statue was simply too revolutionary for the time.

Later Life

As for Marie, she had begun missing classes at the ballet, and was fined for her absences. It’s not known if she knew about the furore the statue caused, and if she did, how it would have made her feel. She was often seen in the Montmartre Cafés and cabarets, many of which were open all night. They were popular with the bohemian and artistic sets, but were unsuitable for a young girl. Eventually she was dismissed from the ballet for missing too many classes.

The last recorded sighting of Marie comes in 1882, the same year as her dismissal from the opera. Her sister, Antionette had stolen seven hundred francs from a ‘client’ and was attempting to flee to Belgium. She was found waiting at a train station with her mother and Marie, and was arrested. Antionette was sentenced to three months in prison, but afterwards lived a quiet life, passing away at the age of thirty-seven. The youngest of the van Goethem girls, Louise-Joséphine, had a long career at the ballet, becoming an instructor there and passing away in 1945.

Following his death Degas sculpture of Marie was cast in bronze and replicated, it also gained a new appreciation from critics and the general public alike. The Little Dancer can be found in galleries around the world and is much loved.

Marie, however, disappeared from the historical record following her sister’s arrest. Her subsequent life and fate remain unknown. She remains a mystery, a young woman forever immortalised as a fourteen-year-old dancer.

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

References

https://mediatheque.cnd.fr/?Van-Goethem-Charlotte,213

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/degas-and-his-dancers-79455990/

Laurens, Camille (2018), Little Dancer Aged Fourteen: The True Story Behind Degas’s Masterpiece. New York: Other Press

Loyrette, Henri (2016), Degas: A New Vision. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria

What were the Most Daring Missions of World War 2’s X-class Miniature Submarines?

During the Second World War a remarkable but often overlooked group of submarines played a crucial role in various operations, including the preparation for the D-Day invasion. These submarines, known as X-Craft, were small, specially designed vessels tasked with daring missions that often carried immense risk. Terry Bailey explains.

An X-Craft 25 in Scotland during World War 2.

The theatre of the Second World War, where naval supremacy often dictated the outcome of battles required innovation that became the key to success. Among the many remarkable developments of the era were the X-craft miniature submarines which stood out for the audacity, effectiveness and bravery of the crews who manned these vessels. The small but mighty vessels played a crucial role in some of the war's most daring and important missions, proving that size was no obstacle to bravery or impact.

The genesis of the X-Craft can trace its pedigree back to the CSS H. L. Hunley, the small Confederate States of America submarine that played a small part in the American Civil War. The Hunley’s mission profile, like the British X-craft of the Second World War was to close with the enemy vessel and deliver an explosive device next to or near the hull of the target vessel then retired from the area.

In the Second World War, the Allied forces faced the daunting task of neutralizing the formidable German battleship Tirpitz. Anchored in the remote fjords of Norway, the Tirpitz posed a significant threat to Allied convoys and naval operations in the North Atlantic. Traditional methods of attack, such as aerial bombing, had proven ineffective against the ship's heavily fortified defenses on the vessel and in the water including surrounding hills.

In response to this challenge, British naval engineers embarked on a daring experiment: the development of miniature submarines capable of infiltrating enemy harbors that could deliver a devastating blow to high-value targets. The result was the X-Craft, a revolutionary vessel measuring just 51 feet in length manned by a crew of four.

Operation Source

The X-Craft's first major mission came in September 1943, with Operation Source—the audacious plan to attack the Tirpitz in its heavily defended anchorage at Altenfjord, Norway.

Although a larger number of X-craft were assigned to Operation Source, however, only six eventually took part the mission, due to a number of unforeseen problems. Each craft was tasked with navigating treacherous waters and evading enemy patrols to reach their target after slipping from the mother submarine that towed the X-craft across the North Sea.

The journey itself was a testament to the courage and skill of the X-Craft crews, who endured cramped conditions and the constant threat of detection as they navigated through hostile waters. Despite facing numerous challenges, including mechanical failures and adverse weather conditions, two X-Craft, named X6 and X7, successfully reached their target and deposited their side charges under the Tirpitz, there is some evidence that indicates that X5 also managed laid their charges.

Although the attack failed to sink the battleship outright, it dealt a significant blow to the ship’s operational capabilities, forcing the Germans to withdraw the Tirpitz from active duty for repairs, providing the Allies precious time. The success of Operation Source demonstrated the potential of the X-Craft as a strategic weapon and paved the way for future missions.

Operation Guidance

Encouraged by the relative success of Operation Source, the X-Craft were subsequently deployed on a series of daring missions throughout the remainder of the war, including Operation Guidance.

In April 1944, Submarines X20 up-to and including X25 were dispatched to Bergen, Norway, as part of Operation Guidance. X24, under the command of a brave crew, attacked the Laksevåg floating dock. Originally, X22 was intended for this mission. However, tragically, it had been accidentally rammed during training and sunk, resulting in the loss of all hands.

Undeterred, X24 proceeded with the mission, although the charges were initially placed under the merchant vessel Bärenfels, causing its sinking, the dock itself sustained only minor damage. Determined to succeed, X24 repeated the operation in September, this time successfully sinking the dock.

Operation Postage able

Additionally, the X-Craft submarines were instrumental in the preparatory work for Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy. One notable operation, Postage Able, involved X20, commanded by Lieutenant KR Hudspeth.

Spending four days off the French coast, X20 conducted periscope reconnaissance of the shoreline and echo-soundings during the day. Each night, two divers would swim ashore to survey the landing beaches, collecting samples for analysis.

Despite challenges such as fatigue and adverse weather conditions, the operation provided vital intelligence for the upcoming invasion. Lieutenant Hudspeth's leadership during this mission earned him a bar to his Distinguished Service Cross.

Operation Gambit

As part of Operation Gambit, X20 and X23, each manned by a crew of five, acted as navigational beacons to guide the D-Day invasion fleet to the correct beaches. Equipped with radio beacons and echo sounders, these submarines played a crucial role in directing Canadian and British ships to suitable positions on Sword and Juno beaches. The use of oxygen bottles enabled the crews to remain submerged for extended periods, contributing significantly to the success of the operation.

XE class submarines and Far East operations

In August 1945, the new improved XE class miniature submarines were deployed in a daring attack on Japanese warships within Singapore harbor. The mission was meticulously planned, with XE3 assigned to attack the heavy cruiser Takao, while XE1 targeting the heavy cruiser Myōkō.

XE3's journey was fraught with challenges, navigating through the Straits of Johor and evading harbor defenses. It took a total of 11 hours to reach the target area, with an additional 2 hours spent locating the camouflaged Takao. Despite the constant threat of detection by Japanese,  XE3 successfully reached the Takao, deploying limpet mines and dropping two side charges. The withdrawal was executed flawlessly, and XE3 safely returned to HMS Stygian, its towing submarine.

Meanwhile, XE1 encountered delays caused by Japanese patrol craft. Realizing that reaching Myōkō before the explosives laid by XE3 detonated was impossible, the captain made the strategic decision to target the already attacked Takao. Like XE3, XE1 successfully returned to its towing submarine, HMS Spark.

The impact of the attack was profound, the Takao, already in a damaged state, sustained severe damage and was rendered unfit for further use. For their extraordinary bravery and skill, the commanders and crews of both XE1 and XE3 were honored with prestigious awards. Lieutenant Ian Edward Fraser RNR and Leading Seaman James Joseph Magennis of XE3 were awarded the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest military decoration for valor.

Sub-Lieutenant William James Lanyon Smith, RNZNVR, received the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for his role in commanding XE3. Engine Room Artificer Third Class Charles Alfred Reed, who operated the vessel's controls, was recognized with the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (CGM).

In recognition of their contributions, Lieutenant John Elliott Smart RNVR and Sub-Lieutenant Harold Edwin Harper, RNVR, commanding officer and crew of XE1 respectively, were awarded the DSO and the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).

Additionally, ERA Fourth Class Henry James Fishleigh, Leading Seaman Walter Henry Arthur Pomeroy, ERA Fourth Class Albert Nairn, Acting Leading Stoker Jack Gordan Robinson, and Able Seaman Ernest Raymond Dee were all honored for their roles in bringing the midget submarines to the point of attack, receiving various commendations and mentions in dispatches.

Legacy

The X-Craft missions during World War II may have been overshadowed by larger naval engagements, but their impact was profound. These small submarines played a vital role in disrupting enemy operations and weakening Axis forces.

The impact on the outcome of the Second World War is often underestimated, yet should not be dismissed, these diminutive submarines played a crucial role in neutralizing some of the most formidable naval threats of the era, demonstrating the effectiveness of unconventional warfare tactics in an increasingly complex battlefield environment.

Moreover, the legacy of the X-Craft extends far beyond their wartime exploits. The technological innovations pioneered in the development of these vessels laid the groundwork for future advancements in submarine design and underwater warfare.

The lessons learned from their operations continue to form military strategy and tactics to this day, serving as a testament to the enduring legacy of innovation and ingenuity in times of conflict. Moreover, their daring exploits served as an inspiration for today’s generation of naval special forces.

Therefore, it should be clear that the X-Craft miniature submarines represent a remarkable chapter in the history naval warfare. From their humble origins to Second World War experimental prototypes and their pivotal role in some of the most daring missions of the Second World War, these small but mighty vessels exemplify the courage, tenacity, and ingenuity of the men who manned them. Their story serves as a powerful reminder of the indomitable spirit of those who dare to defy the odds in the pursuit of victory.

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