The Sykes-Picot Agreement: The Agreement that Haunts the Modern Middle East

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

Sir Mark Sykes.

Francois Georges-Picot.

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

‘The Sick Man of Europe’: Why did the Allies anticipate the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire?

By the turn of the 20th century the Ottoman Empire, which controlled areas across North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, was struggling both economically and militaristically. The Ottomans became unable to maintain such an extensive bureaucracy and a vast decentralized political structure. Although reforms attempted to modernize the Empire, these measures were of short-lived success and contributed to a growing debt crisis in the late 19th century. The Ottoman Empire also lost many territories in the decades preceding the First World War. France gained control of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881, Italy took Libya in 1911, and Britain took control of Oman in 1861, the Arabian Gulf Chiefdoms in 1820, Kuwait in 1899, Egypt in 1882 and Sudan in 1899. In October 1914 the Ottoman Empire joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, hoping to confront Britain and France, and benefit from German aid.

Drawing up the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Negotiations between the Entente Powers of Britain, France, and Russia for the division of Ottoman territories began in November 1915. They were initially between Mark Sykes, a scholar and guard in the British military during the Boer War, and Francois Georges-Picot, a lawyer-turned-delegate for the French government. However, the eventual agreement was also up to the assent of Russia. All three powers aimed to secure territory, trade routes, and oil wealth, but also had their own ambitions for particular areas. Russia hoped to gain ports in the Dardanelles, including Constantinople, to access trade routes to the Black Sea. Britain wanted to control Palestine due to its proximity with the Suez Canal, and secure access to India through the Persian Gulf. France, meanwhile, was the largest investor in the Ottoman Empire and sought to maintain their influence in the region to protect their investments.

The Entente Powers had already given Constantinople and its surroundings areas to Russia as part of the Constantinople Agreement in March 1915. This crucially granted Russia access to the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile, the Sykes-Picot Agreement sought to coordinate Britain and France’s interests in the region. On May 16 1916 a deal was secretly signed between Sykes and Picot and approved by Russian foreign minister, Sergey Sazonov.

Under the terms of the agreement, France was allocated control of Syria, Lebanon, Cilicia, and Mosul, whilst Britain was allocated Baghdad and Basra and northern Palestine (this included the ports of Haifa and Acre, and modern-day Jordan). However, as shown on the map below, these territories were divided into spheres of control and those of ‘influence’. It was decided that Palestine would be put under international administration due to its holy sites. Independent states would be created in the remaining Arab territories.

Britain’s contradictory promises: Sykes-Picot, the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, and the Balfour Declaration

Whilst Britain, France and Russia appeared to have settled their vision for the post-war Middle East, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was threatened by two additional contradictory agreements which Britain had made with the Arab nationalist and Zionist movements.

In July 1915, several months prior to the beginning of Sykes’ and Picot’s negotiations, Hussein bin Ali (Arab nationalist leader and Sharif of Mecca) wrote to Henry McMahon (the British High Commissioner in Egypt) to request British support for an independent Arab state. McMahon was initially reluctant to collaborate with Hussein, believing his territorial ambitions to be ‘extravagant’, however he was eventually persuaded to offer his support. When McMahon replied to Hussein, British and French troops were suffering defeats by Turkish forces in the Gallipoli campaign. McMahon believed that an Arab uprising would distract and weaken Ottoman forces in the region, enabling the Entente troops to make a tactical withdrawal. Consequently, Britain saw an advantage in working with Hussein. Over the course of ten letters between July 1915 and March 1916 (referred to as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence) Hussein and McMahon negotiated a plan of British support for an independent Arab state if the Arab nationalists launched a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. However, the British excluded three areas from the independent state as they claimed they were not ‘Arab enough’. This affected the provinces of Basra and Baghdad, the Turkish districts of Alexandretta and Merson, and the districts of Syria that lay west of Damascus, Homs, Aleppo and Merson. The nationalist uprising began in June 1916 and, although the Entente provided limited manpower, they provided officers, gold, and munitions to support the war against the Ottomans. However, the Hussein-McMahon correspondence lacked the formality of a treaty and its contradiction with Britain’s plans under Sykes-Picot ultimately made it an empty promise.

However, Britain’s conflicting plans for the Middle East did not end here. On November 2 1917 the British government issued an arrangement for Palestine in the Balfour Declaration. In a letter to prominent Zionist Lord Rothschild, the British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour outlined Britain’s promise to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This support was later publicized. However, the question of why the British government issued this declaration has still gone unanswered. Whilst some historians have argued that many members of the British government had Zionist sympathies, others have suggested that antisemitism increased support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Alternatively, it has been argued that Britain was trying to gain the support of Jews across the world, particularly in the US, who the British hoped would take a more active role in the war. However, this declaration was a bitter betrayal for the Arabs.

Despite initially being kept secret, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was eventually publicized by the Bolsheviks in late November 1917 following the Russian Revolution. Leon Trotsky published the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Izvestia newspaper on November 24 1917 to expose the plans which Vladimir Lenin called ‘the agreement of the colonial thieves’. This caused a political scandal for Britain and France and created a strong mistrust between the Entente and Arab nationalists. The British assured their allies in the Middle East that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was merely discussion amongst the Entente powers and that they would stand by the Arab people.

The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, Entente forces (mainly the British) occupied the former Ottoman territories. Whilst the original division of land planned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not materialize during peace negotiations, the borders of the newly created states were similar to those agreed upon in 1916. This was determined in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

Before signing the Treaty of Sèvres, the former Entente powers met at the Conference of San Remo in April 1920 to determine the division of the Ottoman Empire’s territories. Under article 22 of the newly created League of Nations, certain former colonies were classed as ‘mandates’ (ranging from A to C depending on perceived levels of development) if they were deemed unable to govern themselves independently. The former Ottoman territories became Class A mandates, meaning that they had ‘reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such a time as they are able to stand alone’ (as stated in Article 22). As a result, the newly created states in the Middle East became British and French mandates rather than colonies.

Under the Treaty of Sèvres:

·       The Ottoman Empire was dismantled

·       Turkey had to relinquish claims to territories in North Africa and the Middle East

·       Greece gained Smyrna (now called İzmir), Adrianople (now called Edirne), most of the hinterland to Constantinople and the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles

·       Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine became British mandates

·       Lebanon and Syria became French mandates

·       Morocco and Tunisia became French protectorates

·       Hejaz became an independent kingdom (it would later unite with Najd and other districts in 1932 to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

·       Armenian independence was recognized

·       The League of Nations controlled the Turkish straits

·       British, French, Italian and Greek troops occupied Turkey

·       The Turkish army could have a maximum of 50,700 men, it was forbidden to have an air force, and the navy could have a maximum of thirteen boats

·       The Allies were to control Turkish finances

The Treaty of Sèvres was resented in Turkey and popular discontent fueled an uprising against Sultan Mehmed VI. The new nationalist government under Kemal Atatürk drove the Greek and British troops out of Turkey and repudiated the Treaty of Sèvres. Consequently, the Allies agreed to renegotiate the settlement and signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Under the Treaty of Lausanne:

·       All the territories given to Greece were returned to Turkey

·       All foreign troops were ordered to leave Turkey

·       Turkey regained control of the Straits, but they had to remain demilitarized

·       Turkey was recognized as the successor to the Ottoman Empire

·       The Allies no longer imposed controls over Turkey’s finances or military

·       The Allies dropped demands for autonomy for Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia

The Legacies of Sykes-Picot and the post-WW1 settlement in the Middle East

Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never implemented, it set the framework for the modern-day frontiers of the Middle East. This has created a lasting resentment in the region, especially amongst Pan-Arabists who oppose the division of majority Arab-populated territories into separate states and associate Sykes-Picot with European colonial misrule. Sykes-Picot has since been targeted by various groups in the region, including by the so-called Islamic State who declared their intention to remove Sykes-Picot as they bulldozed the border between Iraq and Syria in 2014.

One of the most controversial aspects of the division of former Ottoman territories was the eventual fate of Palestine. As a British mandate, Britain called for the migration of Jews to Palestine, paving the way for region to be declared a Jewish state (known as Israel) once they ended their mandate in 1948. This led to the displacement of the Arab population and the ongoing conflict between Israeli and Palestinian groups.

The post-First World War settlement in the Middle East also lay the groundwork for sectarian conflict elsewhere in the region due to the limited regard for the ethnic, tribal, religious, or linguistic groups of the new states’ inhabitants. Although the British and French eventually withdrew from the region in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been hardly any change to national borders. Crucially, this has left the Kurdish population without a homeland as the Treaty of Lausanne failed to accommodate for Kurdish self-determination.

As sectarian conflict continues in the Middle East, the question remains as to whether the national borders created by the Treaty of Sèvres can survive into the future, or if all traces of Sykes-Picot need to be removed to ensure peace in the region.

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

References:

Al Jazeera. ‘A Century on: Why Arabs Resent Sykes-Picot’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/sykes-picot-100-years-middle-east-map/index.html.

Al Tahhan, Zena . ‘More than a Century on: The Balfour Declaration Explained’. Al Jazeera, 2 November 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained.

Britannica. ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement.

Britannica. ‘Treaty of Lausanne’, 17 July 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Lausanne-1923.

Britannica. ‘Why Was the Ottoman Empire Called “the Sick Man of Europe”? ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/question/Why-was-the-Ottoman-Empire-called-the-sick-man-of-Europe.

Kearey, Kat. International Relations and Global Conflict C1890-1941. Oxford AQA History Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Muir , Jim. ‘Sykes-Picot: The Map That Spawned a Century of Resentment’. BBC News, 16 May 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36300224.

Oxford Reference. ‘Sykes–Picot Agreement’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100546581.

Oxford Reference. ‘Treaty of Sèvres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100457377.

Rabinovich, Itamar, Robbie Sabel, and Oded Eran. ‘A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Current Challenges’. Institute for National Security Studies, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep08741.

The Avalon Project. ‘The Sykes-Picot Agreement : 1916’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp.

The Economist. ‘Unintended Consequences’, 12 May 2016. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/05/12/unintended-consequences.

‘The Treaty of Sevres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://historylearning.com/modern-world-history/treaty-of-sevres/.

United Nations Digital Library. ‘Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/829695.

Young, George. ‘Deceit in the Desert: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire’. Hohonu 17 (2019): 37–40. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/DeceitintheDesertThePartitionoftheOttomanEmpire.pdf.

The Strangest Courtrooms: Animal Trials in Medieval Europe

In the long centuries when superstition held sway and the lines between humans and animals were more fluid than a flagon of ale, a most peculiar legal practice emerged across medieval Europe - the prosecution of animals. From pigs and pigeons to rats, bulls, and even the lowliest of flies, no creature was exempt from facing judicial scrutiny for alleged crimes against man or God. This bizarre legal tradition spanned over five centuries, indicting and often executing animals found guilty of trespassing, property destruction, or perpetrating violence against humans.

Richard Clements explains.

Trial of a sow and pigs at Lavegny.

The Rationale Behind the Madness

The notion of arraigning a barn swallow or bovine may seem utterly ludicrous today, but to medieval minds steeped in religious doctrine and folklore, it was a perfectly reasonable concept. The theological underpinning was that animals, having been granted a place in Biblical scripture and the Christian faith through stories like Noah's Ark, possessed souls and a degree of moral agency. As such, they could be held accountable for their misdeeds just like humans were.

Furthermore, canon law, which governed religious jurisdictions at the time, made little distinction between human and animal personhood. This blurring of boundaries, combined with widespread beliefs in sorcery, evil spirits taking animal form, and anthropomorphic folklore from Aesop's fables to Reynard the Fox, set the stage for animal prosecutions to take root across medieval society.

Farcical Yet Grim Proceedings

Despite their inherent absurdity, these trials followed strict court protocols with a sadistic kind of rigour. Animals were afforded legal counsel, permitted to testify in their own defence (through interpreters, of course!), and endured the same torturous punishments as convicted human criminals if found guilty.

One particularly infamous example of these trials is depicted in the 1995 film, "The Hour of the Pig," which dramatizes the trial of a pig accused of murder in 15th-century France. While the film offers a dramatic interpretation, it highlights the bizarre reality of these proceedings.

Less extreme but no less farcical was the 1519 case of a group of canine delinquents indicted in the Swiss municipality of Basing for persistently disrupting church services with their barking and unpriestly habit of nipping at parishioners' legs. Found guilty of "blasphemous barking" and "unchristian conduct," they were excommunicated from the parish, a punishment likely of little consequence to the canine culprits.

Insect Eradications and Rat Trials

Of course, easier targets for the courts were the ubiquitous pests that plagued medieval life - insects and rodents. In 1478, a plague of locusts descended upon Berry, France, like a biblical hailstorm. After ecclesiastical appeals to get them to leave went unheeded, the insects were taken to court and found guilty of an array of charges, from trespassing to violence against the citizens. An edict of banishment was ordered and carried out through ritual burnings and exorcisms, a farcical attempt to control the uncontrollable.

In 1508, the curious case of Autun, France, saw the appointment of the curiously named "Attorneys for the Defence of the Rats." These brave (or perhaps foolhardy) souls argued valiantly on behalf of their rodent clients accused of ravaging the region's grain supplies. Ultimately, the rats lost the case, and professional rat catchers were hired to round them up and execute the court's sentence of death.

Last Rites at the Gallows

No case better exemplifies the intersection of legal propriety and deranged superstition than the trial of a Rouen pig in 1386. Dressed in a jacket and trousers (one can only imagine the indignity!), the condemned sow was tried, found guilty of killing and eating a human infant, confessed through an interpreter (though the details of this confession remain shrouded in mystery), and was promptly hanged in the public square while receiving its last rites from a priestly executioner. The scene, though documented in a woodcut from the era, defies logic and leaves one shuddering at the extremes of medieval justice.

These bizarre proceedings dragged on until the 18th century, finally fading out amid the Age of Enlightenment and humanity's tentative re-embrace of reason over hysteria and dogma. While manifestly ludicrous by modern standards, the tradition of prosecuting animals serves as an eerie window into a time when logic and hysteria shared an uneasy bedfellowship.

Conclusion

Absurd, merciless, yet strangely meticulous, the practice of indicting animals placed society's extremes on full display - the coexistence of elaborate legal systems, religious fervour, superstitious fear, and utter disregard for reason. With humans now firmly at the apex of the hierarchy of consciousness, such trials are rightly resigned to history's most astonishing legal curiosities. Though the very notion defies modern secular sensibilities, for centuries it was a grim reality when animals had their judgement day in court. Their stories, however, serve as a reminder of the strange and fascinating ways humanity has grappled with the natural world and our place within it.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Evans, E.P. "The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals." London: Heinemann, 1906.

Hyland, Paul. "Animal Trials of the Middle Ages: An Overview." The Medieval Review, 2017.

BBC News. "When Animals Were Put on Trial." Available at: www.bbc.com/news

The Guardian. "The curious history of animal trials." Available at: www.theguardian.com

Barber, Malcolm. "Superstition and the Law in Medieval Europe." European History Quarterly, 1993.

What was the 213-212 BC Siege of Syracuse?

The Siege of Syracuse (213–212 BCE) was a pivotal event during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE), marking one of the most famous confrontations between the Roman Republic and the Kingdom of Syracuse in Sicily. This siege is notable not only for the Roman military efforts but also for the significant role that the famed Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes played in the city's defense. The strategic importance of Syracuse and the unique defensive technologies invented by Archimedes made this a defining moment in history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Hiero of Syracuse calls Archimedes to fortify the city. By Sebastiano Ricci.

The Context of the Siege

By 213 BCE, the Second Punic War was raging, and Rome was embroiled in a life-or-death struggle with the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who had invaded Italy. Syracuse, a wealthy and strategically important city-state, had been a Roman ally but shifted its allegiance to Carthage after the death of its ruler, King Hiero II. His grandson, Hieronymus, had initially taken the throne and allied Syracuse with Carthage. However, after a brief reign, Hieronymus was assassinated, leading to a power struggle and the eventual rise of a pro-Carthaginian faction within the city.

Rome, determined to bring Syracuse back into its fold, sent a large force under the command of Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 213 BCE. Marcellus' goal was to lay siege to the city, retake it for Rome, and neutralize its potential as a Carthaginian stronghold in the Mediterranean.

Archimedes, widely considered one of the greatest scientific minds of antiquity, played a crucial role in the defense of Syracuse. Although his reputation today rests largely on his contributions to mathematics and physics, during the siege, he demonstrated his genius in military engineering. According to historical accounts, most notably from the Roman historian Livy and the Greek historian Polybius, Archimedes designed a series of war machines that helped defend the city against the Roman attacks.

The Roman forces initially underestimated the difficulty of capturing Syracuse. They planned to use a combination of a naval blockade and a land assault to breach the city's formidable defenses. However, Archimedes' inventions dramatically hindered these efforts.

Archimedes' War Machines

1.   The Claw of Archimedes ("The Iron Hand"), one of the most famous of Archimedes' inventions was a massive crane-like device known as the "Claw of Archimedes" or the "Iron Hand." It was designed to defend the city against naval attacks. The Claw consisted of a long arm attached to a series of ropes and pulleys, which extended over the city walls. When Roman ships approached the city, the Claw could be lowered into the water to grasp the hull of the ship. Once securely attached, the mechanism would lift the ship out of the water and violently shake or drop it, often capsizing the vessel. This machine struck fear into the Roman sailors, as ships were unexpectedly lifted and destroyed by an invisible force.

2.   Catapults and Ballistae, Archimedes also designed advanced versions of traditional siege weapons like catapults and ballistae. These machines were used to launch massive stones and projectiles at Roman ships and troops from a great distance. What made these weapons especially effective was their accuracy and the ability to fire at varying ranges, depending on the size of the projectile. Archimedes reportedly calculated the optimal angles and trajectories for launching these missiles, maximizing their impact.

3.   The Burning Mirrors (Archimedes' Heat Ray) perhaps the most legendary of Archimedes' supposed inventions was a device designed to set Roman ships ablaze using concentrated sunlight. Ancient sources, particularly later accounts from writers like Galen and Anthemius of Tralles, describe Archimedes using large, polished bronze or copper mirrors to focus sunlight onto the sails of Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Although this story has long been debated among historians and scientists—some suggesting it was more myth than reality—it has endured as part of the lore surrounding Archimedes' genius. Modern experiments have attempted to recreate the "heat ray" with varying degrees of success. While it is unlikely that Archimedes' mirrors were responsible for destroying entire ships, they may have played a psychological role in the defense by intimidating Roman forces, even if simply projecting concentrated sunlight onto the Roman ships.

4.   Defensive Walls and Siege Countermeasures, Beyond his more dramatic inventions, Archimedes also contributed to the reinforcement of Syracuse's defensive walls and the city's overall preparedness for siege warfare. He designed mechanisms for rapidly reinforcing weak points in the walls and designed traps that could be triggered when Roman forces attempted to scale or breach them. These countermeasures significantly delayed Roman progress and prevented the besieging army from quickly overwhelming the city's defenses.

The Roman Response and the Fall of Syracuse

Despite the effectiveness of Archimedes' war machines, the siege dragged on for two years. Marcellus and his legions were frustrated by their inability to break through the city's defenses. Over time, the Roman commander recognized that a direct assault would continue to be costly, so he shifted his tactics. He tightened the naval blockade and waited for a moment of opportunity.

In 212 BCE, that opportunity came. The Roman forces exploited a lapse in vigilance among the defenders. During a festival honoring the goddess Artemis, part of the Roman army managed to scale the city walls under cover of night and opened the gates from within. Roman soldiers poured into the city, and Syracuse fell to the invaders.

Tragically, Archimedes' life ended during the sacking of Syracuse. According to historical accounts, Marcellus had given explicit orders that the scientist was to be captured alive, likely due to his immense knowledge and the potential value he held for Rome. However, during the chaos of the city's capture, a Roman soldier encountered Archimedes, who was reportedly engrossed in a mathematical problem. When the soldier ordered Archimedes to follow him, the mathematician allegedly responded, "Do not disturb my circles," referring to the geometric figures he was drawing in the sand. The soldier, either misunderstanding or ignoring the orders, killed Archimedes on the spot.

Marcellus was reportedly dismayed upon learning of Archimedes' death, and he ensured that the scientist received full funeral honors.

Aftermath and Legacy

The fall of Syracuse was a significant victory for Rome during the Second Punic War. It removed a major ally of Carthage in the Mediterranean and secured Sicily as a Roman province. Marcellus' triumph over the city earned him the nickname "The Sword of Rome." However, the legacy of the siege is forever intertwined with the genius of Archimedes. His war machines, whether fully real or partially mythologized have captured the imagination of generations.

Archimedes' contributions to science, engineering, and mathematics continue to be studied to this day. His work in mechanics, particularly the understanding of levers and pulleys, laid the foundation for centuries of technological development. The siege of Syracuse demonstrates not only the practical applications of his genius but also the tragic loss of knowledge that sometimes accompanies war.

In the centuries following the siege, Archimedes became a symbol of the intersection between science and warfare, showing how intellect could alter the course of battle. The inventions attributed to him are part of the broader history of ancient military engineering, influencing Roman and later Byzantine defensive technologies.

In conclusion, the Siege of Syracuse stands as a testament to both the military prowess of Rome and the extraordinary intellect of Archimedes. While the Roman victory secured Syracuse and furthered their dominance in the Second Punic War, it was Archimedes' remarkable contributions to the city's defense that left an indelible mark on history.

His innovative war machines not only delayed the inevitable fall of Syracuse but also showcased the power of scientific ingenuity in warfare. The ultimate capture of Syracuse by Rome marked a turning point in the Second Punic War, weakening Carthaginian influence and securing Sicily as a critical province for the Roman Republic.

However, the siege also highlights the tragedy of war, symbolized by the death of Archimedes, one of antiquity's greatest minds. His mathematical and engineering brilliance, demonstrated during the siege, became a source of fascination for later generations, blending fact and legend.

Archimedes' inventions—whether fully realized or part of myth—illustrate the potential for scientific thought to shape the course of history.

His understanding of mechanics, optics, and physics laid the groundwork for future developments in science and engineering, while his role in the defense of Syracuse remains a symbol of how intellect can influence the outcomes of even the most formidable military struggles. Ultimately, the Siege of Syracuse serves as a reminder of the enduring legacy of Archimedes and the often bittersweet intersection of science, war, and human endeavor.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes

Sicily was originally taken from Carthaginian control during the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) and became the first province of the Roman Republic. The Kingdom of Syracuse was an allied independent region in the southeast of the island and a close ally of Rome during the long reign of King Hiero II

Point of interest:

One of the most interesting anecdotes concerning Archimedes and the King of Syracuse is the story of him running down the street naked shouting Eureka, (Greek: εὕρηκα, I have found).

Archimedes noticed while taking a bath that the level of the water in the tub rose as he got in, thus realizing that this effect could be used to determine the golden crown's volume, which was a problem the king had set him to discover if the metal worker who had made the crown was cheating the king out of gold by mixing fewer precious metals.

The water is incompressible, therefore when the crown was submerged it would displace an amount of water equal to its volume, thereby, dividing the mass of the crown by the volume of water displaced, and its density could be obtained.

Needless to say, if less precious and less dense metals had been added, the density would be lower than that of gold. This is what Archimedes discovered thus proving that silver had been mixed in with the gold and the metal worker was indeed cheating the king out of gold.

The Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Civil War

During the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate States had their constitution. Here, Jeb Smith considers the constitution. He includes consideration of Confederate state sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and anti-discrimination.

This is part 4 in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, and part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, in 1862.

"When the dogmas of a sectional party...threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."                   

-        Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address, Richmond, Virginia, 1862 

"It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholder's reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party."

-        Robert Divine, T.H Bren, George Fredrickson, and R Williams, America Past and Present, HarperCollins, 1995

The original states that left the Union did so as separate and sovereign republics but soon entered into a confederacy.[1] Their capital was located in Montgomery, Alabama. Delegates from the seceding states joined together and formed the Confederate Constitution on March 11, 1861. The South sought to restore the Constitution as the founders originally intended it to be. 

Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "The constitution framed by our founders is that of these confederate states." When the state legislators of Texas joined the Confederacy, they informed the crowd gathered in Austin on April 1, 1861, that "The people will see that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is copied almost entirely from the Constitution of the United States. The few changes made are admitted by all to be improvements. Let every man compare the new with the old and see for himself that we still cling to the old Constitution made by our fathers." As historian Marshall DeRosa summarized in Redeeming American Democracy, "The confederate revolution of 1861 was a reactionary revolution aimed at the restoration of an American democracy as embodied in the Constitution of 1789."

While the Confederate constitution was in many ways nearly identical to that of the old Union, the North had taught the South how a majority could eradicate constitutional liberty. Consequently, the Southern statesmen sought to prevent tyranny in their Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution differs from the United States constitution in various areas as the South sought to preserve self-government via diverse self-governing states. To accomplish this end, they strictly limited central powers. As a result, the differences between the documents can tell us about the causes that led to the Southern withdrawal. 

Confederate State Sovereignty

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. 

-        Confederate Constitution Preamble 

The creators of the southern Constitution made it clear that the states were sovereign. In the Confederacy, no one would be able to claim that authority rested with the central government as Republicans had in the old Union. The United States Constitution reads, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." the Confederate version reads, "We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ..." 

As sovereign confederated states, they could exercise nullification or secession to protect their citizens from federal coercion. We will discuss nullification and secession in more detail in a later chapter, but they were the two antebellum modes of dealing with the federal government when it stepped past its delegated powers. In The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote, "It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it...was an attribute of sovereignty, and the states had reserved all which they had not delegated." The southern states that ratified the Confederate Constitution kept the right to secession in their state constitutions. For example, the Alabama state constitution reads:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

According to a well-known secession document we call The Declaration of Independence, it is an inalienable right to have a government that represents you and not a distant majority or a powerful national party. Southerners believed this was no less true in 1861.

In response to claims made by Lincoln, the Confederate Constitution also declared that the people of the states had sovereignty and not the entirety of people. Each state was separate from the others and sovereign within its jurisdiction. Decentralization, or "states' rights," allowed multiple diverse sets of governments to coexist; it preserved self-governance and benefited "we the people." Decentralization, or localism, is based on populations creating laws organically for their benefit. To get a sense of what decentralization provides, imagine your preferred political party (not just your party, but your brand of the party) winning every election at every level. Not only that, you would not have to spend time and money fighting the other party to prevent men from gaining power that you don't want them to have. You could create unified blocs of society and live with like-minded people. 

On the other hand, centralization occurs when forces far from these self-governing localities impose their ways on numerous smaller localities because of their power and influence. In such a situation, the former free individuals, over time, lose their self-governance and ability to choose from a diverse set of customs. Instead, they become tools to benefit those in power in distant lands under the increasingly conformist policy. The only people decentralization harms are the powerful bureaucrats and politicians. They seek to plunder our wealth to redistribute it to friends and interest groups and purchase a voting bloc to maintain power. 

The Southern move towards decentralization is well known and widely accepted. For example, in Redeeming American Democracy, Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa wrote, "The confederate framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states." In The Confederate States of America, Southern historian E Merton Colter stated, "States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy." In his book Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E Lee, Michael Korda said the South's "first concern was states' rights." In Ken Burn's Civil War documentary, the narrator states, "The Confederacy was founded upon decentralization." Southern writer Lochlainn Seabrook, in his book The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, explained that the Confederacy put "emphasis on small government and states’ rights." Professor Marshall DeRosa quotes Judge Robertson of Confederate Virginia Supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton in 1864 as stating, "{The Confederate} Congress can have no such power over state officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states, the foundation of the Confederacy rests." 

The South removed the term "general welfare" from the preamble since Republicans used the term to claim the federal government had powers for their federally funded internal improvements. In the Confederate Constitution, the states had the right to recall powers delegated, not granted to Congress. The CSA's 10th amendment gave the state authority over the federal government. Due to the fact the states were sovereign, the Confederacy never even organized a supreme court.[2] When discussion in the South arose over a supreme court, William Yancy of Alabama said, "When we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this court, we have sapped the main pillars of this confederacy." In The State Courts and the Confederate Constitution Journal of Southern History, J G DeRoulhac Hamilton wrote, "The fear of centralizing tendencies, past experiences under the federal supreme court, and a desire to protect states' rights led to the failure to establish a confederate supreme court." 

Further, the states, not Congress, had the power to amend the Constitution, and a state convention could occur to modify the Constitution without federal involvement. Just three states were needed to call a convention, so a minority section, as the South had been under the old Union, could prevent bullying by concentration of power within the Confederacy. 

The state officials elected senators to represent their states and appointed them to protect against federal officials, they were truly representing their states. They were not just another number to be counted in national party voting wars.[3] Confederate officials working in a state were subject to impeachment by that state. Even the country's capital would not be permanent but move from state to state to avoid centralizing power. 

There were no political parties within the Confederacy. Instead of power being handed over to bureaucrats, big industry, and private interest groups, the people would maintain control. The South, in general, disliked campaigns associated with elections, and the CSA Presidents could not be reelected for this reason. In 1861, Alexander Stephens told Virginians, "One of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution, which we have adopted."[4]

Fiscal Responsibility and Anti-Discrimination

"One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative." 

-        Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

The Confederate constitution was more libertarian economically than the U.S. version. In her article, Cash for Combat, published in the Americas Civil War magazine, Christine Kreiser wrote, "The Confederacy was founded on the proposition that the central government should stay out of its citizen's pockets." 

The federal government was extremely limited in its spending. The Constitution required fair trade, a uniform tax code, and omnibus bills to be restricted. Because subsidies and corporate bailouts were excluded, lobbyists and bureaucrats would struggle to advance their agendas. To avoid special favors for supporters and to disrupt the lifeblood of corruption and political parties, Congress would handle each bill separately to guarantee that politicians could not sneak in favors for their supporters. This would help encourage actual statesmen to represent their local communities (states) at the federal level instead of purchasing campaigning politicians working for political parties and capitalists. 

The post office had to be self-sufficient within two years of ratification. The CSA President had a line-item veto on spending, and no cost overruns were allowed on any contracts. These changes would help to hold elected officials accountable and keep them honest. Politicians would be forced to give an actual cost to a proposed bill, and if it were to exceed the price, they would be held accountable. A failed project due to cost overruns would not only devastate those who pushed for it, but would turn the voters against any future proposed endeavors. And a greater consensus was needed to pass expenditure bills in the first place.

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving an advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

-        Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21, 1861

Likewise, politicians could not steal from one section of the country and give to another; they could not set one section of people against another to plunder the despised section, and Congress could not foster any one branch of any industry over another. Speaking to the Virginia

Convention, Vice President Stephens said, "No money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement, leaving all such matters for the local and state authorities. The tariff question is also settled." These changes would help stifle any internal hatred and anger caused by setting one section or party of the country against another. 

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

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

[2]           Such was provided for in article III of the Confederate Constitution, but was never set up.

[3]           Of course this was also true of the United States at this time, the situation changing with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

[4]           For more examples of the CSA Constitution moving to decentralization, see Redeeming American Democracy Lessons From the Confederate Constitution by Professor Marshall DeRosa; The Confederate Constitution of 1861 An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism by Marshall DeRosa;; The Constitution of the Confederate States of America Explained, A Clause-by-Clause Study of the South's Magna Carta by Lochlainn Seabrook; and The Confederate States of America, 1861—1865 by E.Merton Coulter.

Bone Wars: The 19th Century’s Ruthless Competition for Dinosaur Fossils

Two paleontologists, one goal: to discover more species of dinosaurs than their opponent at all costs. The rivalry between Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope went down in history as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush. These names did not come from anywhere. As the conflict between paleontologists grew, a real hostility arose, which often pushed the rivals into unbecoming tricks for scientists. The ruthless fight for fossils was met with criticism from the American scientific community and fascination from the public opinion of the time. Through their persistence and determination, both scientists led to the discovery of a huge number of new species of dinosaurs, and the spectacle of their conflict made dinosaurs more popular than ever before.

Rafal Guminski explains

Othniel Charles Marsh & Edward Drinker Cope.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope: From friends to enemies

The participants in this unusual conflict came from very different backgrounds and had many differences. Othniel Charles Marsh was born on October 29, 1831, near Lockport, New York. He was the third child of Mary Gaines Peabody and Caleb Marsh, who were struggling with poverty. As a child, he began to show an interest in fossils and extinct species, influenced by the discovery of fossils during the expansion of the Erie Canal. Growing up, Othniel was unsure what career path he wanted to take, and his choices were limited by his family's financial problems.

The uncertain fate of the young man was changed by his uncle George Peabody, a financier and philanthropist, who financed his education at Phillips Academy. After graduation, Marsh enrolled at Yale, where he became deeply interested in vertebrate paleontology and published the first scientific papers on the minerals and fossils he discovered in Nova Scotia. Marsh turned down an offer of a professorship at Yale University and traveled around Europe, where he attended lectures and met eminent specialists in his field of science.

In 1863, while at the University of Berlin, Marsh met another American, Edward Drinker Cope, who was also on a scientific tour of Europe. Cope was born on July 28, 1840. He was the son of wealthy Quakers Alfred and Hannah Cope. He had a family reputation as a child prodigy with a talent for learning. This did not please his father, who would have preferred his son to follow the family tradition of farming. Edward intended to go his own way, which led him to the Academy of Natural Sciences, where he worked part-time cataloging specimens. In January 1859, Cope, barely 19, published his first scientific paper on the research he was developing. Alfred finally realized that there was no way he could have kept his son on the farm and decided to pay for his tuition at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as tutoring in German and French. Armed with a solid educational background, Cope became a member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, which opened the way to publish the results of his research.

Cope set off on a journey through European universities and museums at a similar time to Marsh. The scientists quickly took a liking to each other. They were united by their passion and the fact that they had avoided participation in the U.S. Civil War. Their backgrounds and scientific achievements were different – ​​Cope had no formal education and therefore no academic title. He would have been a paltry figure compared to his older colleague, except that the 25-year-old Cope already had 37 scientific papers to his name, while Marsh had only two. Cope was a violent and unpredictable man. Marsh was calmer and more thoughtful. However, both were equally quarrelsome and stubborn. The Americans spent several days together in Berlin, and after leaving the city, they exchanged letters, sent each other photos, and even found fossils.

The Bone Wars: Elasmosaurus and discoveries in Black Hills

At first, there was no indication that this friendship would turn into a deadly rivalry. After returning from Europe, Marsh convinced his wealthy uncle to fund the Peabody Museum of Natural History, of which he became director. Meanwhile, Cope became a professor of zoology at Haverford College. That all changed when the two scientists met at a dig in New Jersey, where some of the first dinosaur fossils in the United States were discovered. After the official dig was over, Marsh, using the fortune his deceased uncle left him, bribed workers at the marl pits to send him all the fossils they found. Soon the friends began to attack each other in publications, but it was Marsh who dealt the critical blow. He announced that Cope’s reconstruction of the skeleton of Elasmosaurus (a genus of plesiosaurus, a marine dinosaur) had one significant flaw. The head had been placed where the tail should have been and… he was right. Thus began a fierce and not always fair competition over which paleontologist would discover more new prehistoric species and put the other to shame.

Humiliated, Cope responded by conducting excavations in Kansas and Wyoming, which Marsh considered his territory. Any pretense of camaraderie and professionalism disappeared by 1873. The western United States was of great interest to paleontologists at that time, with reports of numerous finds coming from there. Marsh and Cope also discovered many fossils, but not all could be counted as "new." Many of the fossils were previously discovered specimens that had to be properly identified and classified. In this field, Marsh was the clear leader, who placed many completely unique species of mammals in a new order of mammals, which he called Cinocerea. Outclassed in the field of excavations, Cope decided to take the fight to the arena of nomenclature and proposed his own classification of mammals, which of course rejected his rival's proposal.

Marsh had no intention of accepting Cope's classification and once again took the fight to the excavations. He saw the opportunity for discovery in the Dakota Territory in the Black Hills, where gold had been discovered, which for a paleontologist meant a great chance of accidental finds. However, the tense relations between the government and the Native Americans living in the area proved to be a serious problem. Marsh, however, was determined to get involved in the conflict. He reached an agreement with Red Cloud, the chief of Oglala Lakota, to whom he promised that in return for permission to excavate, he would share with him the profit from the sale of fossils and support the Native American cause in Washington. Marsh obtained many valuable finds. He also fulfilled his part of the agreement and after the excavations were completed in 1875, he represented the Oglala Lakota and Red Cloud's cause to the Interior Department and President Ulysses S. Grant.

Como Bluff: Final showdown of the Bone Wars

Marsh's financial independence gave him a significant advantage over his rival. He could dig wherever and whenever he wanted. He also spared no penny for people who were the first to inform him about new discoveries. This is exactly what happened in 1877 in Wyoming, where during a hike on the Como Bluff ridge, Arthur Lakes, a teacher, noticed giant bones embedded in the rock. The discoverer reported the find to Marsh, who additionally paid him to keep it a secret. The excavations at Como Bluff turned out to be very successful for Marsh. In the December issue of the American Journal of Science, the scientist described, classified and named dinosaurs known to everyone today, such as: Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Apatosaurus.

Such huge finds could not be kept a secret and eventually Cope also got his chance to discover. A real war broke out between teams of rival paleontologists. Bribery, espionage and theft were commonplace. There were also fights and throwing rocks at each other. Cope and Marsh were so eager to defeat their opponent that they would cover up explored areas to prevent their opponent from exploring them. Less significant or damaged fossils were destroyed just to prevent them from falling into the hands of their rival.

The excavations, carried out on a massive scale and without restraint, led to financial ruin for the rivals. The scientific world, tired of their spite and mockery damaging the reputation of American paleontology, turned its back on them. However, neither money nor the scientific community stopped Marsh and Cope from continuing their rivalry, which only ended with Cope's death in 1897. Even in the face of death, Cope decided to finally prove that he was better than Marsh, so he had his brain preserved and weighed in the hope that it would be larger than his rival's. Surprisingly, Marsh did not accept the challenge. He died two years later.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope left behind a huge scientific legacy. Although their hostile rivalry was senseless, it was also effective. Paleontologists discovered a total of 136 new species of dinosaurs including: Triceratops, Diplodocus, Camarasaurus and Coelophysis, 80 of which belong to Marsh. From the point of view of numbers, Marsh won the competition, but the contribution to the development and popularization of paleontology of both scientists is difficult to overestimate.

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

References

·       Caparas G., The Bone Wars: How a Bitter Rivalry Gave the Spotlight to Paleontology, “Modern Sciences”, https://modernsciences.org/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-gave-the-spotlight-to-paleontology/.

·       Colbert E. H., The Great Dinosaur Hunters and Their Discoveries, Dover Publications, Mineola 1984.

·       Jaffe M., The Gilded Dinosaur: The Fossil War Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh and the Rise of American Science: Three Rivers Press, New York 2000.

·       Penick J., Professor Cope vs. Professor Marsh, “American Heritage” 22 (5), 2010.

·       Shor E., The Fossil Feud Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh: Exposition Press, Detroit 1974.

·       Switek B., The Bone Wars: how a bitter rivalry drove progress in palaeontology, “Science Focus’, https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-drove-progress-in-palaeontology.

·       Wallace D.R., The Bonehunters' Revenge: Dinosaurs, Greed, and the Greatest Scientific Feud of the Gilded Age, Houghton Mifflin Books, Boston 1999.

·       Wilford, J. N., The Fossil Wars, “New York Times”, 1999, November 7.

The 1941 Battle of Cape Matapan Between Britain and Italy

The Battle of Cape Matapan, fought between March 27 and  March 29, 1941, was a pivotal naval engagement during the Second World War. Taking place off the southern coast of Greece, it marked a significant victory for the British Royal Navy against the Italian Regia Marina.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Italian Battleship Vittorio Veneto firing her guns in March 1941.

As the Second World War intensified, the Mediterranean became a critical theatre of operations for both the Axis and Allied powers. Control of the sea lanes in this region was vital for the supply lines of the British Empire and the Axis powers, particularly for Italy, which sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean and secure its holdings in North Africa.

By early 1941, the Italian Navy had suffered several setbacks, including the British raid on Taranto in November 1940, where the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm crippled the Italian battleships Littorio, Conte di Cavour, and Caio Duilio. Despite this, the Regia Marina remained a formidable force, with superior numbers of surface ships compared to the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet.

The immediate catalyst for the Battle of Cape Matapan was the Italian desire to assert control over the eastern Mediterranean and support their forces in North Africa. Admiral Angelo Iachino, commander of the Regia Marina, was tasked with leading a significant operation to intercept British convoys bound for Greece and Crete. Unknown to the Italians, however, the British had a critical advantage: the ability to decode Italian naval communications, thanks to the work of the Bletchley Park codebreakers.

The breaking of codes by British cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park was one of the war's greatest intelligence coups. By early 1941, the British had made significant progress in deciphering German and Italian military communications. This capability allowed them to anticipate Axis movements and prepare accordingly.

In the case of Cape Matapan, Bletchley Park had intercepted and decrypted Italian naval signals, revealing the details of Admiral Iachino's planned operation. This intelligence was swiftly passed on to Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, the commander of the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet.

With this foreknowledge, Cunningham was able to plan a decisive counteraction. Cunningham, a seasoned and aggressive naval commander, quickly assembled a task force to intercept the Italians. His fleet included the battleships HMS Warspite, HMS Valiant, and HMS Barham, the aircraft carrier HMS Formidable, 7 light cruisers, and 17 destroyers. The stage was set for a confrontation that would decisively alter the naval balance in the Mediterranean.

On the 27th of March, 1941, Admiral Iachino set sail with a force that included the battleship Vittorio Veneto, 6 heavy and 2 light cruisers, in addition to, 13 destroyers. His objective was to intercept a supposed British convoy; however, the real target was an opportunity presented by the British Fleet, which had left its base in Alexandria, Egypt.

As the two fleets approached, the British launched air strikes from HMS Formidable. These attacks, though initially unsuccessful inflicted significant damage, forcing the Italians to alter their course and delay their advance. A subsequent air strike on the 28th of March scored a crucial hit on Vittorio Veneto, damaging her propellers and reducing her speed. This allowed Cunningham to close the distance.

The critical phase of the battle occurred on the night of March 28th - 29th. The Royal Navy had honed its night-fighting skills, a domain in which the Italian Navy was significantly less experienced. Using radar technology, which the Italians lacked, Cunningham's forces were able to locate and engage the Italian ships with deadly precision.

The Italian cruisers Zara, Fiume, and Pola, along with several destroyers, found themselves caught in a deadly rain of fire from the British battleships. In a matter of minutes, the British guns tore the Italian ships apart. The Pola, which had been immobilized by an earlier air strike, became an easy target and was finished off at close range. The Zara and Fiume were similarly destroyed, along with two destroyers, Alfieri and Carducci.

Admiral Iachino, realizing the hopelessness of the situation, ordered his remaining ships to retreat. The battle was a devastating defeat for the Regia Marina, with 3 heavy cruisers, and 2 destroyers sunk, in addition to, 1 Battleship and 1 destroyer damaged with over 2,300 Italian sailors killed and 1015 captured. The British, by contrast, suffered minimal losses, 3 killed, 1 aircraft lost and slight damage to 4 light cruisers.

Key Figures

Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham

On the British side, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham was the mastermind behind the victory. His aggressive tactics and willingness to engage the enemy directly, combined with the advantage of intelligence from Bletchley Park, proved decisive. Cunningham's leadership during the battle further solidified his reputation as one of the Royal Navy's most effective commanders.

Admiral Angelo Iachino

Admiral Angelo Iachino, the Italian commander, found himself outmatched despite his competent leadership and the strength of his fleet. The lack of radar and the element of surprise lost due to the deciphering of codes left him in an untenable position. His decision to withdraw the surviving ships likely prevented an even greater disaster, but the loss of so many vessels and men was a severe blow to the Regia Marina.

The Battle of Cape Matapan was a turning point in the naval war in the Mediterranean. The defeat severely weakened the Italian Navy's ability to challenge British control of the Mediterranean sea lanes. The loss of three heavy cruisers and two destroyers, combined with the psychological impact of the defeat, meant that the Regia Marina would be hesitant to engage the Royal Navy in large-scale fleet actions for the remainder of the war.

For the British, the victory at Cape Matapan bolstered morale and reaffirmed the effectiveness of their naval tactics, particularly night-fighting and the use of radar. It also demonstrated the value of intelligence in modern warfare, with the success of the codebreakers playing a crucial role in the outcome.

In the broader context of the war, the battle helped to secure the eastern Mediterranean for the Allies, ensuring the continued flow of supplies to Malta and North Africa. It also contributed to the eventual defeat of Axis forces in the region, as control of the sea allowed the Allies to launch and support offensives in North Africa, later the landing in Sicily and mainland Italy which led to the eventual expulsion of Axis forces from continental occupation.

Legacy of the Battle

The Battle of Cape Matapan is remembered as one of the numerous important Royal Navy victories of the Second World War. It showcased the importance of technological superiority, intelligence, and leadership in naval warfare. For the Italians, it was a bitter lesson in the dangers of underestimating the enemy and the necessity of modernizing naval capabilities.

In the years following the battle, the lessons learned at Cape Matapan would influence naval tactics and strategy. The importance of radar, training ships' companies in the techniques of night-fighting, and the integration of air power into naval operations became increasingly evident, shaping the future of naval warfare.

The defeat also had political ramifications in Italy, contributing to growing dissatisfaction with the war effort and the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The loss at Cape Matapan, combined with other military failures, eroded the confidence of the Italian people and military in their leadership, setting the stage for Italy's eventual capitulation in 1943.

In conclusion, the Battle of Cape Matapan was more than just a clash of fleets; it was a confrontation between two different approaches to naval warfare. The British, with their emphasis on intelligence, technology, and aggressive tactics, emerged victorious against the Italian fleet. The battle's outcome had far-reaching consequences, shaping the course of the war in the Mediterranean and reinforcing the importance of naval power in modern warfare, in particular the use of aircraft.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

Points of interest:

Italian Admiral Iachino wrote that:-

"The battle had the consequence of limiting for some time our operational activities, not for the serious moral effect of the losses, as the British believed, but because the operation revealed our inferiority in effective aero-naval cooperation and the backwardness of our night battle technology".

Admiral Cunningham

Admiral Cunningham retired as Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, KT, GCB, OM, DSO & Two Bars.

Admiral, (at the time of the battle), Cunningham was so grateful for the code breaker's work in respect to his naval victory that a few weeks after the battle he dropped into Bletchley Park to congratulate the team of ladies responsible for providing him with the insightful intelligence that enabled him to execute such a one-sided victory.

Andrew Johnson and The Reconstruction Fiasco

Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency of the United States shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War, following the tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His sudden rise to power presented him with the daunting task of determining the fate of the former Confederacy, its people, and its leaders. This unexpected turn of events placed him in the midst of one of the most critical challenges in the nation's history, thrusting him into the spotlight despite his relatively obscure background. His lack of preparation has echoed down through the ages.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

An engraving of President Andrew Johnson.

Rise to the Presidency

Johnson was born into poverty and did not have the opportunity to attend school. Despite this, he apprenticed as a tailor and worked in various frontier towns before settling in Greeneville, Tennessee. Although he never received a formal education, he compensated by hiring others to read to him while he worked and his wife also assisted him in learning. Johnson possessed a remarkable memory and a talent for public speaking, qualities that were highly valued during that time and served as an advantage in his political career. He began his political journey as a town alderman and mayor, eventually moving on to serve in the state house and senate before being elected to Congress.

Johnson's stance during the secession of the Southern slave states, including Tennessee, demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to the Union. Despite the secession, he remained in his position as a senator, distinguishing himself as the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who did not resign upon secession. His commitment to the Union was further solidified when he was appointed as the Military Governor of Tennessee by Lincoln in 1862. Johnson's dedication to national unity was evident when he was chosen as Lincoln's running mate in the 1864 election, becoming vice president after a successful campaign that emphasized the importance of unity in a divided nation.

With the defeat of Lee's and Johnston's armies, along with the capture of Richmond and Jefferson Davis, the Union had prevailed in the war. But now the great question was how to craft a successful peace. The focus shifted to the challenging task of establishing a lasting peace. The tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln added another layer of complexity to the situation, as Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency amidst a nation grappling with grief and uncertainty.

Lincoln’s Concept of Reconstruction

The post-war period presented a multitude of complex issues for Lincoln and other leaders to address. Questions arose regarding the duration of the occupation, the terms for readmitting seceding states, and the division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches in shaping the future of the nation. Additionally, the status of newly emancipated Black citizens in the South and across the country posed significant legal and social challenges that demanded careful consideration.

Lincoln's approach emphasized the swift reintegration of the Southern states into the Union, recognizing the importance of jumpstarting the region's economy and avoiding prolonged occupation. While acknowledging the deep-seated racial tensions in the South, Lincoln believed in the potential for southern unionism to facilitate a speedy reconciliation. The abolition of slavery marked a significant moral victory, yet the practical implications of this monumental change required thoughtful deliberation to ensure a stable and just post-war society.

The "10% Plan" served as Lincoln’s initial policy principle, whereby once 10% of the voters in a state had pledged their allegiance to the United States and committed to emancipation, delegates could be elected to draft new state constitutions and establish state governments. This approach, first implemented in Louisiana during the autumn of 1862, granted a full pardon to most Southerners, excluding high-ranking Confederate army officers and government officials. General Benjamin Butler was tasked by Lincoln to oversee elections in New Orleans for the two seats in the US House of Representatives within the occupied territory.

The 10% Plan gained significant popularity due to its political astuteness. Radical Republicans supported it as it ensured emancipation, while conservative Republicans endorsed it for its potential to expedite reunification. As the New York Herald aptly noted, the art of balancing two opposing forces was exemplified: “… the trick of riding two horses wasn’t limited to the circus.”

With Union forces gradually gaining control over Southern regions, Lincoln implemented this wartime measure to reinstate state governments. The plan aimed to incentivize a swift end to the war and advance his emancipation objectives, as it offered protection for private property but not for slaves.

The Wade-Davis Agreement, or Congress's Response to the Ten Percent Plan

Congress felt that Lincoln's measures would allow the South to maintain life as it had before the war. Their measure required a majority – more than 50% not just 10% -- in former Confederate states to take an Ironclad Oath, which essentially said that they had never in the past supported the Confederacy. The bill passed both houses of Congress on July 2, 1864, but Lincoln pocket vetoed it, and it never took effect.

After Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Congress had the advantage in shaping policy regarding the South. It imposed the tougher requirements for re-admission advocated in the Wade-Davis Bill, resulting in a prolonged and unsuccessful Reconstruction era.

"Restoration": President Johnson's Plan for Reconstruction

Following Abraham Lincoln's death, President Johnson based his reconstruction plan on Lincoln's 10% plan. Johnson implemented his own form of Presidential Reconstruction, a series of proclamations directing the seceded states to hold conventions and elections to reform their civil governments. His plan called for granting amnesty and returning people's property if they pledged to be loyal to the United States. He issued the Amnesty Proclamation on May 29, 1865.

Southern states returned many of their old leaders and passed Black Codes to deprive the freedmen of many civil liberties, but Congressional Republicans refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congressional Republicans overrode him, setting a pattern for the remainder of his presidency.

Johnson's concept of Reconstruction was characterized by a lenient approach towards the Southern states that had seceded during the Civil War. He aimed to restore the Southern states to the Union as quickly as possible. He believed that the states had never truly left the Union, and thus, their return should be relatively straightforward. He preferred minimal federal intervention in the South’s affairs. He granted widespread pardons to former Confederates who pledged loyalty to the Union, except for high-ranking officials and wealthy planters, although many of these were eventually pardoned as well. He also thought that Southern states should be allowed to manage their own Reconstruction, including the establishment of new governments and the creation of laws and constitutions. This allowed many pre-war political leaders and elites to regain power.

Johnson did not prioritize the protection or expansion of rights for newly freed African Americans. He opposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves, and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, though Congress overrode his veto. Johnson's opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves, further fueled the conflict with Congress.

Terms of the Amnesty

The Confederate states were required to uphold the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; swear loyalty to the Union; and pay off their war debt. Then they could re-write their state constitutions, hold elections, and begin sending representatives to Washington.

Confederate leaders would have to apply directly to President Johnson in order to request pardon. Johnson issued over 13,000 pardons during his administration, and he passed several amnesty proclamations. The last one, issued Christmas Day 1868, granted sweeping pardons to former Confederates, including former Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

It required that half of all former Confederate states voters swear allegiance to the US and swear that they never supported the Confederacy.  It expressly said that “each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside".

*********************************************************************************

There were 14 classes of exemption. These former political and military leaders had to apply to the president for a special pardon.

“The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation:

First – All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate Government.

Second – All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion.

Third – All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the navy.

Fourth – All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion.

Fifth – All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States, to evade duty in resisting the rebellion.

Sixth – All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.

Seventh – All persons who have been or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eighth – All military and naval officers in the rebel service who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point, or the United States Naval Academy.

Ninth – All persons who held the pretended offices of Governors of States in insurrection against the United States.

Tenth – All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the so-called Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eleventh – All parties who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.

Twelfth – All persons who at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military or naval authorities or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind either before or after conviction.

Thirteenth – All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.

Fourteenth – All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's Proclamation of December 8, A.D., 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States since the dates of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate – provided that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”

References:

https://thereconstructionera.com/pres-andrew-johnsons-proclamation-of-amnesty-and-reconstruction-may-1865/

https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm

*********************************************************************************

Congressional Reconstruction, or the Military Reconstruction Acts

Johnson's policies brought him into conflict with the Radical Republicans in Congress, who sought harsher measures for Reconstruction and greater protections for freedmen. This opposition eventually led to his impeachment, though he was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate. Johnson's view was that the war had been fought to preserve the Union, as it was ant bellum. With the war over, he planned to rebuild the country as quickly as possible. He formulated a lenient plan, based on Lincoln's earlier 10% plan, to allow the Southern states to begin holding elections and sending representatives back to Washington.

His amnesty proclamations, however, emboldened former Confederate leaders to regain their former seats of power in local and national governments, fueling tensions with freedmen in the South and Republican lawmakers in the North.

Congressional opposition to Johnson’s policies was primarily the Radical Republicans, a faction within the Republican Party. The Radical Republicans were a group of legislators who advocated for a more stringent and transformative approach to Reconstruction compared to Johnson’s lenient policies. Key figures among his congressional opposition included:

·       Thaddeus Stevens: A powerful member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, Stevens was one of the leading Radical Republicans. He championed civil rights for freed slaves and was a principal architect of the Reconstruction Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment

·       Charles Sumner: A senator from Massachusetts, Sumner was another prominent Radical Republican. He was a strong advocate for equal rights and suffrage for African Americans and played a significant role in pushing for harsher measures against the former Confederate states

·       Benjamin Wade: As President pro tempore of the Senate, Wade was next in line for the presidency during Johnson’s impeachment trial. He was a firm supporter of Radical Reconstruction and believed in using federal power to enforce civil rights and rebuild the South

The Radical Republicans held several key principles that aimed to fundamentally reshape Southern society and ensure the rights of freed slaves. Their approach contrasted sharply with President Andrew Johnson’s lenient policies. There was also a desire among Radical Republicans to punish the former Confederacy and prevent its leaders from regaining power. This included disenfranchising many former Confederates and barring them from holding public office.

Republicans believed in securing civil rights for African Americans. This included passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves. They also supported the Fourteenth Amendment, which enshrined these protections in the Constitution. Republicans advocated for the right to vote for African American men. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Republicans sought to reshape Southern state governments to reflect loyalty to the Union and to ensure the participation of African Americans in the political process. This often meant displacing the pre-war Southern elite from power and instituting new state constitutions that guaranteed civil rights and suffrage for African Americans. They aimed to integrate African Americans into the economic and social fabric of the nation. This included support for institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau, which assisted former slaves in the form of education, healthcare, and employment opportunities.

To enforce these policies and protect the rights of freedmen, Republicans supported the use of federal troops in the South. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into military districts, where the army oversaw the establishment of new state governments and ensured compliance with federal laws. Passed on March 2nd, 1867, the first Military Reconstruction Act divided the ex-Confederate states into five military districts and placed them under martial law with Union Generals governing. The act also directed that former Southern states seeking to reenter the Union must ratify the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be considered for readmission. The 14th Amendment granted individuals born in the United States their citizenship, including nearly 4 million freedmen. The Military Reconstruction Act also protected the voting rights and physical safety of African Americans exercising their rights as citizens of the United States.

The Conflict

Andrew Johnson and Congress failed to reach an agreement on a strategy to rebuild the nation after the devastating Civil War. The disparity between Congressional Reconstruction, as detailed in the Military Reconstruction Acts, and Johnson's Presidential Restoration plan was evident. Johnson pursued his own version of Reconstruction, issuing proclamations instructing the seceded states to organize conventions and elections to establish new civil governments.

The Southern states, under Johnson's administration, reinstated many of their former leaders and enacted Black Codes that restricted the rights of freedmen. However, Congressional Republicans refused to recognize the legislators from these states and passed laws to counteract the Southern measures. Johnson consistently vetoed these bills, only to be overridden by Congress, leading to a contentious relationship between the branches of government throughout his presidency.

His attempts to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives. Although he narrowly escaped conviction in the Senate, the power struggle between Johnson and Congress continued to shape the Reconstruction era. Additionally, the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau by the War Department played a crucial role in providing relief and support to refugees and freedmen in the aftermath of the war.

The establishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, commonly known as the Freedmen's Bureau, took place on March 3rd, 1865, under the War Department's jurisdiction. Its primary responsibilities included overseeing relief efforts and educational initiatives for refugees and freedmen. This encompassed the distribution of essential provisions such as food, clothing, and medicine. Additionally, the Bureau assumed control over confiscated lands and properties in various regions, including the former Confederate States, border states, the District of Columbia, and Indian Territory.

The Outcome

The Radical Republicans prevailed in implementing their vision of Reconstruction for the first few years after the war. They succeeded in passing significant legislation and constitutional amendments that reshaped the South and sought to protect the rights of African Americans. These included The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Reconstruction Acts of 1867, and other laws that aimed to rebuild the South and integrate African Americans into political and social life. Additionally, The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship and equal protection, and protected voting rights for African Americans were passed Military oversight and the Freedmen's Bureau played critical roles in enforcing these changes, and opposing violent groups in the South. The Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was eventually adopted and remained in effect until 1877.

However, in the longer term, the Radical Republicans' achievements were significantly rolled back during the late 1870s. The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

A Better Plan?

Extending the period of federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains.

Providing substantial economic support to freed slaves, such as land redistribution (e.g., the "40 acres and a mule" promise), would have given them a stronger economic foundation. This could have involved breaking up large plantations and distributing land to former slaves, ensuring they had the means to achieve economic independence. Investing more in education and social services for African Americans would have helped integrate them into American society and economy. The Freedmen's Bureau, which provided education and assistance, could have been expanded and extended. Ensuring the protection of African American voting rights through continued federal oversight and enforcement mechanisms would have been crucial. This could have included measures to prevent voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, such as federal oversight of elections and strict penalties for violations. Building broader political coalitions that included poor whites who might have also benefited from economic reforms could have helped sustain Reconstruction efforts. This would involve addressing class issues alongside racial issues to create more progressive change.

Ideally, a comprehensive land reform program should have been implemented, granting freed slaves their own plots of land for agricultural purposes. The planter class should have lost their privileges and influence. However, the Federal government was keen on expediting the recovery of the southern economy, often prioritizing revenue generation over social justice.

What followed the end of Reconstruction led to a regression in the limited progress achieved in terms of equality, and many of the issues surrounding Reconstruction continue to persist in American society today.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

The Moon Eyed People: Legends of Southern Appalachia

The legend of the moon eyed people of southern Appalachia has captivated the imaginations of Cherokee Native Americans as well as European settlers, and modern residents of the region alike. The Cherokee legend proclaims that long before the Cherokee people came to the mountains of the southeast, another race of people called the moon eyed people lived in caves and atop the mountains in large forts. Roy Williams explains.

John Sevier.

The moon eyed people were supposedly nocturnal and could not see well during the day, they also supposedly had pale skin due to their lack of exposure to sunlight. Certain stone structures such as the one at Fort Mountain in northwest Georgia are associated with this legend. The Cherokee legend claimed that the moon eyed people and the Cherokee went to war in the past and eventually the Cherokee drove them out from their mountainous territory. This myth captivated the minds of early European settlers who used this myth to claim the ahistorical connection that a previous white race had built the large stone structures in the Appalachian Mountains that the Cherokee claimed the moon eyed people had built.

The legend of the moon eyed people gives us a unique window into the minds of early European settlers in North America. The claim that a previous white race built the stone structures on the mountaintops of southern Appalachia such as the one at fort mountain spread like wildfire as it entered the public consciousness for Euro Americans. The legend was augmented and reconfigured to argue that the moon eyed people were a lost colony of Welsh men who were descendants of the Welsh prince Madoc who supposedly sailed to the Americas long before Christopher Columbus. This legend spread so prolifically that President Thomas Jefferson included correspondence to Lewis and Clarke indicating that they should keep their eyes open for evidence of “Welsh Indians” in their exploration of the territories included in the Louisiana Purchase.

John Sevier

John Sevier was the first governor of Tennessee between 1803 and 1809. Sevier fought in the Cherokee and Chickamauga wars as Euro-American settlers pushed further into Cherokee territory. Sevier supposedly interacted with a Cherokee chief named Ocotosota in the mid-1780s. The source claims that Ocotosota said that he, "told of the fort being built by white men from across the great water."  Ocotosota told him that the ruins atop fort mountain were built by white men known as the moon eyed people. This source however is difficult to determine in reliability since chief Ocotosota died in 1783, probably before governor Sevier ever interacted with him.

Benjamin Smith Barton’s book, New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America (1797) is another source for these early interactions between the Cherokee and Euro-Americans settlers in describing the myth of the moon eyed people. Barton citing colonel Leonard Marbury describes the story in which the Cherokee expelled the moon eyed people from the mountains of southern Appalachia. Marbury recounts that, "the Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain 'moon-eyed-people,' who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." While this source has issues in determining its validity due to the separation of experience between Barton and Marbury, it does provide another clue into the legend of the moon eyed people and early Euro-American colonial thought.

Cultural significance

The legend of the moon eyed people should not be doubted when considering the cultural significance it plays to the Cherokee people. However, early Euro-American settlers’ perception of this myth should be scrutinized appropriately. The legend of the moon eyed people bears a striking resemblance to the mound builder myth which proliferated in early colonial America and into the 19th century. Native Americans told Euro-American settlers that they had not built the mounds throughout the United States. Archeological and historical research has proved the Mississippian civilization of North America built these structures hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before contemporary Native Americans came to live in these regions such as the Creek and Cherokee people. Euro-Americans settlers took this to mean that a previous advanced white civilization had constructed these structures. The legend of the moon eyed people follows the same trajectory. Euro-American used these structures to create a narrative, from the mounds built by the Mississippians to the enigmatic structures on Fort Mountain in Northwest Georgia to lay claim over the Americas in establishing their legitimacy as heirs to the lands. The mound builder myth has been refuted by archeological surveys proving that the Mississippian civilization built these structures. The ruins atop fort mountain will probably follow the same fate as a forgotten ceremonial or defensive structure built by Native Americans in the distant past. The legend of the moon eyed people endures as an important element of Cherokee culture, however any pseudohistorical claims about lost Welsh princes or ancient white civilizations in North America must be cast aside as a byproduct of the racial ideology of early European settlers.

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

References

Tibbs, David (2008). "Legends of Fort Mountain: The Moon-Eyed People / Prince Madoc of Wales". Historical Marker Database. Retrieved April 30, 2013.

"Forsyth County News ('Fort Mountain')". Archived from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

Barton, Benjamin Smith, M.D. (1797). New views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Bioren for the author. p. xliv. at Internet Archive

Feder, Kenneth L. (2005). "The Myth of the Moundbuilders" (PDF). Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Central Connecticut State Univ: McGraw Hill. pp. 151–155, 159–160, 164–166. ISBN 978-0-07-286948-4. Retrieved May 19, 2012.

The American Dream in Action: 3 Corporate Success Stories

Although America’s history is rife with rags-to-riches stories, American Industrialist Andrew Carnegie is probably the best embodiment of the American Dream. Carnegie first worked for pennies a day only to eventually become one of the richest men in history with a net worth of around $309 billion in today’s money. Additionally, other historic figures like Harland Sanders and Biddy Mason experienced similar entrepreneurial success and accumulated wealth beyond their wildest dreams. Their fascinating life stories highlight the potential for economic mobility in America as even people from the poorest backgrounds successfully can achieve huge success.

Cindy Cummings explains.

Harland Sanders

Harland Sanders was the multi-millionaire founder of international fried chicken restaurant, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Born in 1890 on an Indiana farm, Sanders became accustomed to hard work at a young age as he helped his parents maintain the farm. But, due to conflict at home, Sanders moved out and left school at age 13. He held numerous local jobs, before moving to Alabama to work for the Southern Railway. As an adult, Sanders had a further slew of odd jobs, none of which lasted for long: attorney, insurance seller, lamp manufacturer, tire seller, and gas station owner. In 1930, Sanders, who had a keen interest in food, converted his gas station into a restaurant and began to sell popular ham and steak dinners.  

Finally, in 1952, Sanders developed his “Secret Recipe” (aka KFC) and patented his unique method of pressure frying chicken. The first KFC restaurant was then opened by Sanders’ friend and franchisor Pete Harman in Salt Lake City, Utah. During the early 1960s, 600 KFC restaurants were opened across locations including the UK, Mexico, and Canada. Finally, in 1964, Sanders sold the company for $2 million.

Sanders’ hard work, determination, and success continues to inspire entrepreneurs, of which there are some 30 million in the U.S. today (although estimates vary). Those serious about launching their business should ideally start with LLC (limited liability company) formation. An LLC is a legal structure that separates a business owners’ personal and business assets. So, that means all personal assets (money, home, and car) remain untouchable if the business is sued. In fact, 35% of small businesses are LLCs, which makes it the most popular legal structure. But always keep in mind, the best state for your LLC is usually your home state. In most cases, home state LLCs are the simplest and cheapest to set up and maintain.

Biddy Mason

Bridget “Biddy” Mason was born a slave and died free as America’s first female real estate entrepreneur. Born in 1818, Mason spent the first eighteen years of her life enslaved in Georgia, before she was purchased by a Mississippi slave owner. In 1851, Mason’s owner moved with her and her three daughters to California, a state where slavery was outlawed. It is here that Mason petitioned a court for her and her family’s freedom, which they were promptly granted. This marked a turnaround in Mason’s life. Over the next decade, she worked as a nurse and midwife for a local LA  doctor, and safely delivered hundreds of babies.

Mason was financially-savvy and saved her money. She soon purchased a small piece of land for $250, and became one of LA’s first black landowners. She later sold this property for a profit. Mason continued to buy up property, build commercial buildings, and open numerous businesses, including, a daycare center and grocery store — despite the fact she couldn’t read or write. Other business owners purchased properties surrounding hers and this area became Downtown LA. By the time of Mason’s death in 1891, she had around $300,000 to her name, which equates to $8.5 million today.  

Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie founded one of the biggest steel businesses in American history. He was born in 1835 into a working class family, who, in an attempt to drag themselves out of extreme poverty, emigrated from Scotland to the U.S. in 1848. Later, Carnegie would become one of the richest men in history. Carnegie got his first job at 13 as a worker in a cotton mill where he was paid $2.50 a week, which he soon left to start at a telegraph company with a better wage ($20 a month). In 1853, he was hired as a telegrapher at Pennsylvania Railroad and used this time to develop professional connections. At age twenty-four, Carnegie was promoted to Western Division superintendent.

After smart financial investments, Carnegie’s total annual income averaged $42,000, and turned his focus to the ironworks trade — a decision which would eventually lead to his huge fortune. In 1892, Carnegie (along with several partners) founded the Carnegie Steel Company. This business became largely responsible for the country’s newfound status as the world’s biggest steel producer. Financier J.P. Morgan purchased Carnegie Steel in 1901 for $480 million, of which Carnegie earned $250 million. This led Carnegie to be worth $309 billion in today’s money.

There’s nothing like a good rags-to-riches story to motivate and inspire. The impact of these historical figures certainly continue to shape the ambitions of entrepreneurially-minded Americans today. 

World War 2 in North Africa - The Long Range Desert Group

The Second World War brought about a new dimension of warfare that saw the utilization of vast and often unforgiving terrains as strategic battlegrounds. Among the most inhospitable of these were the deserts of North Africa. The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG), a special operations unit of the British Army, was formed in response to the challenges posed by desert warfare. Established in July 1940, the LRDG was tasked with conducting deep reconnaissance, sabotage, and raids behind enemy lines but reconnaissance was its primary mission.

Terry Bailey explains.

A Long Range Desert Group vehicle in the desert in March 1941.

Concept and founding of the LRDG

The concept of the LRDG was born out of necessity. In 1940, the British Army faced the daunting task of navigating and fighting in the North African desert, a vast and largely unmapped region that stretched across thousands of square miles. Conventional military tactics were rendered ineffective in this environment due to the hostile terrain and extreme temperatures, in addition to, the lack of water, which all presented significant challenges. The British recognized the need for a specialized unit capable of operating in such conditions.

The idea for the LRDG was proposed by Major Ralph Alger Bagnold, OBE, FRS, a British Army officer of the Royal Engineers who had extensive experience in desert exploration. Before the war, Bagnold had spent years studying and surveying large parts of the North African deserts, leading expeditions, and developing techniques for traversing and navigating the desert, moreover, the techniques needed to extract vehicles.

His geographic knowledge of the region, coupled with his understanding of the challenges posed by the desert, made him the ideal candidate to lead the new unit. In June 1940, Bagnold was permitted to form the LRDG. The unit was initially composed of volunteers from commonwealth countries, such as New Zealand, African commonwealth countries and Australia, individuals were chosen for their physical fitness, resourcefulness, self-reliance and ability to endure the harsh conditions of the desert. The LRDG was structured into small, highly mobile patrols, each equipped with modified vehicles capable of carrying large quantities of fuel, water, and supplies.

Training and Equipment

The training of the LRDG was rigorous and focused on survival, navigation, and combat in the desert. Bagnold emphasized the importance of self-reliance, as the patrols would often operate hundreds of miles from the nearest friendly forces. The men were trained in desert navigation using the Sun and stars, in addition to, the maintenance and repair of their vehicles under extreme conditions.

The vehicles used by the LRDG were a critical component of their success. Initially, the unit relied on Chevrolet trucks, which were modified and would carry extra fuel and water, as well as weapons and supplies. The trucks were stripped of unnecessary weight to improve their performance in the sand, and equipped with wide tires to reduce the risk of bogging down. The LRDG also used the iconic Willys Jeep, which proved to be highly effective in the desert environment.

The vehicles of the LRDG were armed with a variety of weapons, including an assortment of machine guns, including the Bren gun, in addition to, the Boys anti-tank rifles. It is worth noting that captured weapons were often utilized by the LRDG, especially the much sought-after Italian Breda 37 or the German MG34 and later the MG42. The personal weapons of patrol members included the Sten submachine guns, Lee-Enfield rifle and later the Thompson submachine gun. Patrols were heavily armed to defend themselves if necessary, but their primary focus as indicated was on reconnaissance, therefore, avoiding direct engagements with the enemy was key to success.

Operational Deployment

The LRDG's first operational deployment took place in September 1940, shortly after the unit's formation. Their initial mission was to gather intelligence on Italian forces in the Libyan Desert. The LRDG's patrols successfully penetrated deep into enemy territory, providing valuable intelligence to the British Army. This intelligence was crucial in planning the early stages of the Western Desert Campaign. The German and Italian forces were nervous about the open desert, allowing the LRDG to penetrate deep into the Axis power's flank often unmolested offering advantageous intelligence-gathering opportunities.

As the war progressed, the LRDG's role expanded. The unit conducted a wide range of missions, including assisting in sabotage, raids on enemy supply lines, and the destruction of airfields and communications infrastructure alongside the SAS and other units. The LRDG's ability to operate virtually undetected in the desert allowed them to carry out these missions with minimal interference from the enemy, however, aircraft were always a concern. Their deep reconnaissance operations were instrumental in gathering information on enemy movements, which was used to plan large-scale offensives.

One of the LRDG's most notable operations was the raid on the Italian airfield at Kufra in early 1941. The LRDG, in collaboration with Free French forces, launched a surprise attack on the airfield, destroying several aircraft and disrupting the Italian supply lines. The success of this operation demonstrated the effectiveness of the LRDG's tactics and their ability to strike deep behind enemy lines.

Close association with L Detachment, SAS, (eventually becoming the SAS regiment)

The LRDG's expertise in desert warfare soon caught the attention of other special forces units, including the newly formed L Detachment, Special Air Service (SAS). The SAS, founded by David Stirling in 1941, was a unit dedicated to carrying out raids and sabotage operations behind enemy lines. The harsh conditions of the North African desert made it an ideal testing ground for the unconventional tactics of the SAS. Recognizing the LRDG's unparalleled knowledge of the desert, Stirling sought their assistance.

The LRDG provided the SAS with vital instruction in desert navigation, survival, and vehicle maintenance. In many ways, the LRDG served as the operational mentor for the fledgling SAS, helping to shape their desert tactics to match Stirling's vision and approach to warfare.

The partnership between the LRDG and SAS soon evolved into joint operations. The LRDG's reconnaissance capabilities and knowledge of the terrain complemented the SAS's focus on direct action and sabotage.

One of the most famous joint operations took place in December 1941, when the LRDG transported a SAS detachment to raid the German airfield at Sirte. The raid destroyed several German aircraft and marked the beginning of a series of successful collaborations between the two units. The LRDG also played a critical role in supporting the SAS during Operation Crusader in November 1941. As part of the British Eighth Army's offensive to relieve the siege of Tobruk, the LRDG assisted the SAS in conducting a series of coordinated raids on enemy airfields and supply lines. These raids disrupted the Axis forces' ability to reinforce their front lines and contributed to the eventual success of the operation.

Evolution and later operations

As the war in North Africa continued, the LRDG adapted to the changing circumstances. The unit's patrols became more specialized, with each patrol focusing on specific types of operations, such as deep reconnaissance, or assistance with sabotage and direct action. The LRDG also began to incorporate elements of psychological warfare, using deception and misinformation to confuse the enemy. These deception operations were coordinated and led from Cairo by A Force under Brigadier Dudley Clarke.

In 1942, the LRDG was involved in one of the most daring operations of the war— a multifaceted large-scale operation. Working in conjunction with the SAS, SIG and the Royal Navy, and other components the LRDG conducted a series of raids on the port's defenses, paving the way for a larger assault by Allied forces. The operation, codenamed "Operation Agreement," was ultimately unsuccessful.

Working as part of the larger force undermined the efforts of the LRDG and SAS, simply because large-scale operations were not part of the modus operandi of these units, thus ignoring the concept of small-unit operations and the requirement for stealth.

The LRDG continued to play a vital role in the North African campaign until the Axis forces were defeated in 1943. Following the end of the campaign, the LRDG was redeployed to other theatres of war, including the Aegean and the Balkans. In these regions, the LRDG initially operated as traditional infantry.

However, in December 1943, the LRDG was re-organized into two squadrons of eight patrols. Patrols were then parachuted north of Rome to obtain information about German troop movements and also carry out raids.

In August 1944, two patrols parachuted into Yugoslavia. One patrol destroyed two 40-foot (12 m) spans of a large railway bridge, which caused widespread disruption to the movement of German troops and supplies.

In September 1944 a team were parachuted into Albania, their mission was to follow the German retreat and assist Albanian resistance groups in attacking them.

In October 1944, two patrols were parachuted into the Florina area of Greece. Here they mined a road used by the retreating Germans, destroying three vehicles and blocking the road. Firing on the stranded convoy from an adjacent hillside, they directed RAF aircraft in to destroy the rest of the convoy.

The Long Range Desert Group's contribution to the Allied war effort in North Africa and other theatres cannot be overstated. Their pioneering tactics in desert warfare, combined with their close collaboration with the SAS, set the standard for special operations units in the years to come. The LRDG's emphasis on self-reliance, mobility, and deep reconnaissance became the hallmark of modern special forces operations.

The LRDG's legacy is also evident in the continued importance of desert warfare training for modern military units. The techniques and strategies developed by the LRDG during the Second World War are still studied and applied by special forces units around the world. The unit's ability to operate in extreme conditions, far from conventional supply lines, remains a key element of special operations doctrine.

Moreover, the LRDG's association with the SAS forged in the Second World War provided a lasting legacy. The SAS, which would go on to become one of the World's elite special forces units, owed much of its early success to the guidance and support provided by the LRDG. This partnership laid the foundation for the development of modern special operations tactics, which continue to evolve and adapt to new challenges.

In conclusion, the Long Range Desert Group was more than just a reconnaissance unit; it was a pioneering force in the development of special operations warfare. From its formation in 1940, the LRDG demonstrated that small, highly mobile units could achieve strategic objectives far behind enemy lines, even in the most inhospitable environments. Their collaboration with the SAS not only enhanced the effectiveness of both units but also set a precedent for future special forces operations.

Reflecting on the LRDG's contributions to the Second World War, it is clear that their legacy extends far beyond the sands of the North African desert. The principles of adaptability, self-reliance, and innovation that defined the LRDG continue to inspire military units around the world. In many ways, the LRDG was a precursor to modern special forces units that play such a critical role in today's conflicts, proving that even in the harshest of environments, a determined and well-prepared force can achieve remarkable success.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

Notes:

Numerous small specialist units existed in the British forces throughout the Second World War. The LRDG and SAS were just two such units. The collective knowledge and experience of all these small specialist units laid the foundation for not only Britain's Special Forces of today but the World. Although each country trains and operates their special forces slightly differently from one another the foundation and concept of all special forces around the world can be traced back to the numerous individual units formed in the early years of the Second World War including the LRDG.

The Special Forces units formed by the USA in the Second World War worked very closely with the British Special Forces units in the latter years of the war, a practice that continues to this day.

In Great Britain today 4 special forces units and 1 special forces support unit operate:

SAS

The Special Air Service, (SAS), an independent unit of the British Army

SBS

The Special Boat Service, (SBS), is a specialization of the Royal Marine Commandos operating under the Admiralty as an independent unit.

MAWC

The Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre, (MAWC), is a specialization of the Royal Marine Commandos operating under Admiralty control.

SRR

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment, (SRR), is a unit dedicated to reconnaissance within the British Forces. It was formed to relieve the SAS and the SBS of that role.

SFSG

The Special Forces Support Group, (SFSG) consists of elite troops operating in Special forces environments alongside other special forces units.

The SFSG's primary role is to support Special Forces operations. It was formed as a Tri-service group, composed of a detachment of Royal Marine Commandos, the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Air Force Regiment.

Point of interest:

Otto Johann Anton Skorzeny a German SS-Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant Colonel), in the Waffen-SS known for the Gran Sasso raid, 12th September 1943, studied British Special Forces' tactics and operations intending to develop similar German units.