The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Who was responsible for running this group of gangsters that, while small, caused a lot of trouble for the biggest figure of Chicago’s Underworld? That was none other than Dean O’Banion. Our figurative Robin Hood.

Erin Finlen starts her series here.

Dean O’Banion.

Dean O’Banion

Dean O’Banion, or Dion as he is often misnamed in history, is considered the archetype of Irish Chicago Gangsters. An impulsive, faintly religious, prankster who was oddly chivalrous and loyal to a fault was the original boss of the North Side Gang during Prohibition and his death became the catalyst for what are known as The Beer Wars.

 

The Death of a Mother

Born in Maroa, Illinois on July 8, 1892, to Charles and Emma O’Banion, Dean was a middle child of three, with a big brother named Floyd and a little sister named Ruth. He was a good student and in one of the only surviving childhood pictures of him, taken at his school in Maroa, it is easy to see a precocious but loving child staring back. Maroa is a small town a few hours’ drive south of Chicago and away from the influences of the big city it is possible that O’Banion would have taken a very different path is things had stayed the same with his happy family to guide him.

Except, Dean was struck by a tragedy that no child is equipped to endure and certainly not back them when there was no therapy or mental health knowledge, not in the way we have now. When he was six years old, O’Banion’s mother passed away from tuberculosis and his world was shattered. He had loved his mother dearly and after her death not only did he lose her, but his father moved him and his older brother to Chicago in an effort to be closer to his own family and for better employment opportunities. His sister Ruth stayed behind in Maroa and ended up living in Kansas and having a family of her own when she was older.

 

Chicago, it’s His Hometown

The shock of not only losing him mother but then being uprooted from his childhood home and leaving behind his sister was probably traumatic and confusing. It would have given a much less optimistic child a pessimistic and depressed disposition. Dean, however, found that he enjoyed the adventure that was waiting for him.

In Chicago, he was enrolled at Holy Name School on State Street, but school only did so much to curb his impulsiveness and there was no stopping the influences of the neighborhood they lived in an area that was called “Little Hell,” and that lived up to its name with child gangs running the streets.

Then when he was sixteen, he went to hop on the back of a trolley car, slipping when he grabbed the handle, he fell and was hit by the wheels of the trolley. It broke his leg and he walked with a limp for the rest of his life. Given the state of medicine in the early 1900s, he seems to have had some of the luck of the Irish to have not had a worse outcome.

He eventually left school and started working, first as a singing waiter in a saloon, where he met the acquaintance of a criminal named Charles Reiser. Reiser would introduce him to safecracking, although, Dean, always a little trigger happy and impulsive, wasn’t the best at deciding how much nitroglycerin to use. His frame of mind was always ‘more is better’ and he had a tendency to ruin the contents of the safe when he blew it open, once blowing a hole in the wall of the building but leaving the safe unharmed.

Through Reiser and safe cracking he met the man who would become his best friend and right hand man, Earl “Hymie” Weiss.

 

 

Robin Hood and Little John

Weiss and O’Banion were friends from the start, a study in opposites. O’Banion was impulsive with a temper that was easily triggered but just as easily satisfied. He was jovial and people were drawn to him, wanting to be his friend. Weiss was serious, with a temper that was terrifying when he was set off and not nearly as easily calmed. Smart and forward thinking he was O’Banion’s perfect foil and the two almost seem to be made to rule the Prohibition scene. Which they began almost as soon as it started, with O’Banion hijacking the first truck and immediately starting his booze running racket. They were very successful and it showed.

They were also regularly in trouble together, but by that point they were able to pay off most juries and judges. When asked why they were robbing a telegraph office O’Banion said he was there to apply for a job. Similarly, when asked why his finger prints were at the scene of the crime, he replied with “That was an oversight. Hymie forgot to wipe them off.”

O’Banion’s biggest passion was the flower shop, Schofield’s, that he had bought stock in with his friend Sam ‘Nails’ Morton. Where Morton was content to be a silent partner, though, O’Banion preferred to work there, getting his hands dirty. One of the most notorious gangsters of his day was unrecognizable humming and arranging bouquets, while helping customers when they came into the shop. The store also his office. On its second floor he ran the North Side Gang, taking calls and meetings, he even installed a couch for Weiss, who was frequently laid low with migraines.

O’Banion loved to dress nicely and dine well. What he didn’t put up with was…well, it was a lot. Once in a restaurant he heard a man yelling at his wife. O’Banion intervened and wrestled the man to the floor. When someone made a barbed remark about them he shot them in a crowded theater. Afterwards, he realized what he had done and apologized, according to a newspaper man at the time, asking him what brand of cigars he should send him. When some of his drivers complained that one of the other men who worked in the garage was gay, he told them to deal with it or leave, that that was just the way the man was and he wasn’t hurting anything.

O’Banion, as evidenced by the man in the restaurant berating his wife, was not one to take a marriage commitment lightly and when he met Viola, who would become his bride. He was immediately smitten. The pair were deeply in love and when he died, she told reporters that the man she knew wouldn’t have hurt a fly. That he only carried a gun because of the danger in the city. Naive? Yes. Lying? Possibly. But it is very likely that the version of him that she knew was not the man who shot people in theaters or took men on one way rides, a term, by the way, that is credited to his best friend, Hymie Weiss.

Two of his other best friends and his other underbosses in the North Side were Vincent Drucci and George Moran. Moran and O’Banion were good friends, but the important one to look at here, is Vincent Drucci. Drucci was a Sicilian who had grown up on the north side of Chicago. When he came home from World War I, he fell in with O’Banion and his friends. Drucci offsets any rumors that O’Banion hated Sicilians, as the two played pranks together and would go to speakeasies, laughing and having a good time. It wasn’t Sicilians that O’Banion hated, it was just one family of them: The Gennas. They are the ones caused the most trouble and who would eventually lead to his death.

 

The Murder of John Duffy

At the start of 1924, Dean O’Banion was already in a bit of trouble, although no one could really pin the blame on him. A man named John Duffy had been found murdered in a ditch north of the city. His body was found with three bullet holes in it and when police went to his house they found the body of his girlfriend who had been shot dead by Duffy. No one questioned with the regards to the couple seemed at all surprised that Duffy would have murdered her and expressed concern for her. Duffy was not a well-liked man.

It was suspected that Dean O’Banion killed him, as Duffy was last seen getting into a car with O’Banion and one man who authorities later decided was James Monahan, Hymie Weiss’s brother in law, outside of the Four Deuces, an establishment run by South Side leaders Johnny Torrio and Al Capone. The car that police seized in the investigation belonged to Monahan, though he told police that Weiss was paying on the car for him. In Hot Springs, Arkansas at the time, receiving treatment for his headaches, Weiss was released of suspicion.

Some suspect that O’Banion was trying to frame Torrio and Capone for Duffy’s murder by meeting him outside The Four Deuces. However, it is more likely that was simply a way to get Duffy to meet him, as Duffy was believed to have ties to their gang. That fact and the fact that Weiss’s car was used, inadvertently throwing suspicion on O’Banion’s friend, implies that rather than being a plot to frame Torrio, it was another of O’Banion’s impulsive, spur of the moment decisions.

 

The Sieben Brewery Raid

When Prohibition had started it had been a free for all in Chicago, with everyone trying to steal alcohol and speakeasies from everyone else. Johnny Torrio, according to history, organized the gangs and got them to agree to only sell alcohol in their assigned territories. This had worked out remarkably well, except that The Terrible Genna Brothers, as they were known, a family gang of ruthless killers from the west side of the city refused to back off of O’Banion’s territory. And by May of 1924, O’Banion had had enough, deciding to cut ties with Torrio and the whole situation entirely. Unfortunately, he chose the worst possible way to do it.

Telling Johnny Torrio that he was interested in selling his stock in the Sieben Brewery O’Banion asked him to meet at the brewery to finalize the deal. What Torrio didn’t know but Dean O’Banion did was that on that particular day the brewery was set to be raided by the police. Torrio had already been arrested for violating prohibition once, but O’Banion had not, meaning that he would more than likely get off with a warning, while Torrio was going to have to serve jail time.

Making matters worse, O’Banion didn’t hide that he had been expecting the raid well, shaking hands with the police and in general being in quite a good mood for someone being arrested. It didn’t take much for Torrio to put together what had happened.

When the Genna Brothers found out, they demanded permission to kill O’Banion. The only person stopping them was the leader of Sicilian Union in Chicago, Mike Merlo, who was against violence and urged them not to get revenge. The Gennas and Torrio with their heavy respect for Merlo, agreed. Except it was really just waiting. Merlo was dying of cancer and once he died, there would be nothing standing in their way.

 

Let the War Begin

Over the summer of 1924, O’Banion was busy as ever. In July he was arrested for violating the Volstead Act again, this time with Hymie Weiss and another gangster, Dan McCarthy. Their trial was put on hold however, as Weiss was too ill to go to court and doctors informed authorities that they weren’t sure Weiss would live long enough to stand trial.

After the second arrest, O’Banion took a brief vacation out west, where he was introduced to a new weapon. The Thompson Submachine Gun. He was extremely interested in them and brought them back with him when he and his wife returned to Chicago.

November 9, 1924, Mike Merlo succumbed to cancer and took with him the stay of execution that he had given O’Banion. The Gennas brought in a hired gun and placed orders for thousands of dollars’ worth of flowers. In spite of them being rivals this was not unusual, Schofield’s was the place to go for your flower order, especially if you were part of the Underworld. That night, after O’Banion had left the shop Jim Genna and another man came in, getting a feel for the shop and picking up $1,000 of the $3,000 worth of flowers they had order from Mr. Schofield, telling him they would get the rest in the morning.

When the car pulled up on the day of the funeral to pick up the order, four men emerged from the car. Frankie Yale, John Scalise, Angelo Genna and Salvatore Ammatuna walked into the shop. According to William Crutchfield who was working that day, sweeping up fallen petals, O’Banion recognized them and asked William to go to the back so he could speak with them. O’Banion didn’t seem suspicious according to him. In fact, he greeted them with an outstretched hand. That was his view as the door to the back room closed behind him. And only a few moments later he heard gunshots. Dean O’Banion had been shot four times and lie dead on the floor of his beloved flower shop. And all hell was about to break loose.

Crutchfield telephoned the authorities who arrived at the shop, with sirens on and began their investigation. Coming down the street, Hymie Weiss and George Moran saw the cars and detoured to Weiss’s mothers house, where he telephoned the shop asking for O’Banion. He was informed of what had happened, and according to Rose Keefe in her book, The Man Who Got Away, silently went into the bathroom and locked the door. Moran had to break it down and when he did he found Weiss sobbing, saying “Everything I have in the world is gone.”

 

Saying Goodbye

O’Banion’s funeral was the biggest that Chicago had ever seen and it enthralled and disgusted people in equal measure. The funeral itself was attended by many figures of gangland and Torrio and Capone paid their respects as well. A bold move, considering it was generally accepted that they had helped with, if not entirely ordered the hit on the man for whom the funeral was being held. Vincent Drucci and Hymie Weiss cried openly and Weiss was photographed helped Viola, Dean’s widow, after being unable to carry the casket due to his grief.

After the funeral, as the last of the mourners filed out and the gangsters got into their cars and drove away, everyone knew this was not going to end well. Chicago held it’s breathe. The Chicago Beer Wars had begun.

 

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

 

 

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Dean Charles O’Banion. (n.d.). https://www.myalcaponemuseum.com/id158.htm

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Charlemagne, or Charles the Great (748–814), looms large in history as a warrior king, a unifier of Europe, and a patron of culture and education. Ruling as King of the Franks, and later crowned as the first Holy Roman Emperor, his reign marked a pivotal chapter in European history. Known as the "Father of Europe," his influence transcended his lifetime, laying the foundations for modern Western civilization.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of Pope Leo III crowning Charlemagne.

Major campaigns and victories

Charlemagne's military conquests were central to his legacy. Over his reign, he expanded the Frankish Empire significantly, uniting much of Western and Central Europe.

 

The Saxon Wars (772–804)

One of Charlemagne's longest and most grueling campaigns was the subjugation of the pagan Saxons. This series of conflicts, lasting over three decades, was marked by fierce resistance and brutal retaliations. His conquest of Saxony was not just military but also religious, as he sought to Christianize the region. The Massacre of Verden, in October 782, where Charlemagne reportedly executed 4,500 Saxons, underscores the ferocity of these wars. Despite the bloodshed, he succeeded in integrating Saxony into his empire.

 

The Lombard campaign (773–774)

Charlemagne's Italian ambitions were realized through his victory over the Lombards, a Germanic kingdom threatening the papacy. Responding to a plea from Pope Adrian I, Charlemagne crossed the Alps and besieged Pavia, the Lombard capital. He crowned himself King of the Lombards, becoming the first ruler to hold both Frankish and Lombard titles.

 

Campaigns in Spain (778–801)

Charlemagne's attempts to expand into the Iberian Peninsula met mixed results. His expedition in 778 ended with the infamous defeat at Roncevaux Pass, immortalized in the epic poem The Song of Roland. However, he eventually established the Spanish March, a buffer zone against Islamic expansion, solidifying his influence south of the Pyrenees.

 

The Avar campaigns (788–803)

In Central Europe, Charlemagne waged successful campaigns against the Avars, a nomadic people based in the Danube basin. Their defeat allowed him to seize immense wealth and consolidate control over modern-day Austria and Hungary.

 

Political ambitions and governance

Charlemagne's political vision was as expansive as his military ambitions. He sought to create a unified Christian empire, which he achieved through conquest, diplomacy, and administrative reform.

 

The coronations as the Holy Roman Emperor

On Christmas Day, 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans. This act symbolized the fusion of Roman, Christian, and Germanic traditions and marked the revival of the Western Roman Empire. It solidified Charlemagne's authority and established a precedent for the relationship between the church and the state.

 

Administrative reforms and cultural revival

Charlemagne restructured his empire to ensure efficient governance. He divided it into regions called counties, overseen by counts, and employed royal agents known as missi dominici to maintain oversight. These reforms improved communication and justice across his vast territory. Additionally, Charlemagne's reign sparked the Carolingian Renaissance, a revival of learning and culture. He established schools, preserved classical texts, and promoted literacy among clergy and nobility. His court at Aachen became a center of intellectual and artistic activity.

 

Strengths and Weaknesses

Charlemagne was a visionary leader with remarkable strengths, but his reign was not without flaws.

 

Charlemagne strengths

As one of history's most influential leaders, Charlemagne showcased an extraordinary blend of military genius, visionary leadership, and cultural patronage. His campaigns across Europe revealed an unparalleled strategic acumen and adaptability, enabling him to expand his empire and establish dominance over diverse territories. Whether facing formidable foes or navigating complex geopolitical landscapes, Charlemagne's military prowess secured his place as one of the great tacticians of his era.

Beyond the battlefield, Charlemagne's unifying vision set him apart. He skillfully integrated disparate peoples and cultures into a cohesive empire, fostering a sense of unity that transcended linguistic and regional divides. By promoting a centralized administration and encouraging loyalty through just governance, he laid the groundwork for the Carolingian Empire's enduring stability.

Charlemagne's patronage of learning and culture further cemented his legacy. Recognizing the transformative power of education, he spearheaded initiatives that revived intellectual pursuits in the medieval world. His support for the arts and establishment of schools contributed to the Carolingian Renaissance, a cultural revival that preserved and advanced knowledge for future generations. In blending martial prowess, visionary governance, and a passion for enlightenment, Charlemagne left an indelible mark on European history.

 

Charlemagne's weaknesses

Although Charlemagne is often hailed as the father of medieval Europe and built an empire that spanned much of Western Europe, his reign was not without its flaws. One of his most criticized actions was his brutality in war. A prime example is the Massacre of Verden, as indicated he ordered the execution of 4,500 Saxons, a decision that alienated many of the conquered peoples. His military campaigns, while successful in expanding his empire, were marked by harsh methods that sowed resentment in some regions.

Another weakness of Charlemagne's reign was the challenge of succession. Upon his death, his empire was divided among his sons, a move that ultimately led to fragmentation. This division weakened the long-term stability of the empire and made it more susceptible to external threats. The lack of a clear, unified succession plan contributed to the decline of his empire, limiting the lasting impact of his centralized rule.

Charlemagne's religious policies also left a complicated legacy. His efforts to Christianize the pagan peoples under his control, although pivotal in spreading Christianity, created lasting tensions. His forceful approach to conversion often led to religious intolerance, alienating those who resisted or adhered to other beliefs. These policies, while shaping the religious landscape of Europe, also fueled conflict and division.

 

Global influence

Charlemagne's influence extended far beyond his lifetime, despite these weaknesses, with the influence remaining profound. His reign laid the foundation for the modern concept of Europe, both culturally and politically. His emphasis on education and governance set a precedent for future European rulers. The Holy Roman Empire, although fragmented, would become a cornerstone of medieval European politics for centuries. Today, Charlemagne is celebrated as a symbol of unity and cultural revival. The Charlemagne Prize, awarded annually for contributions to European unity, reflects his enduring legacy and the lasting impact of his vision for Europe.

In conclusion, Charlemagne's life and reign epitomize the transformative power of vision and leadership in shaping the course of history. As a warrior, he reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Europe, creating a vast empire that unified diverse peoples and cultures under a single banner. His relentless campaigns, whether in Saxony, Lombardy, or the Avar territories, demonstrated not only his military brilliance but also his unwavering commitment to expanding and securing his realm. These victories, however, were not without their costs, as the methods employed sometimes left scars of brutality and resentment that echoed through history.

As a ruler, Charlemagne's administrative reforms and promotion of education and culture forged the foundations of a more cohesive and enlightened Europe. His efforts during the Carolingian Renaissance revitalized intellectual pursuits and preserved classical knowledge, bridging the ancient and medieval worlds. His court at Aachen became a beacon of learning and innovation, symbolizing his dedication to fostering progress and unity. Despite his flaws, such as the divisive succession plan and the harshness of his religious policies, his achievements in governance and cultural revival remain unparalleled.

The coronation of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor marked a defining moment in European history, intertwining the destinies of church and state and establishing a legacy of cooperation and conflict between these two powers. This act not only affirmed his authority but also set the stage for centuries of European politics, influencing the structure and governance of future empires.

However, Charlemagne's weaknesses, which were often ruthless in method, the challenges of succession, and the tensions caused by his forceful Christianization efforts, should not overshadow his monumental contributions. Instead, they highlight the complexity of his rule and the intricacies of forging a lasting empire in a turbulent era. While his empire eventually fragmented, the cultural and political seeds he planted endured, influencing the development of modern Europe.

Today, Charlemagne is remembered as a symbol of unity, resilience, and cultural flourishing. His legacy lives on not only in the institutions and traditions that trace their origins to his reign but also in the broader idea of Europe as a shared cultural and political entity, including the Charlemagne Prize which underscores his enduring influence and the relevance of his vision in contemporary times.

Ultimately, Charlemagne's life and reign serve as a testament to the profound impact one leader can have on the world. By merging military prowess, visionary governance, and cultural patronage, Charlemagne earned his place in history as the "Father of Europe", a title that reflects his pivotal role in shaping the continent's destiny and identity. His legacy continues to inspire, reminding us of the enduring power of unity, leadership, and cultural advancement.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

Notes

Missi Dominici

The Latin term missi dominici translates to "envoys of the lord" or "envoys of the ruler."

Missi means "sent ones" or "emissaries."

Dominici is the genitive form of dominus, meaning "lord" or "master," indicating possession or association.

The term was used during the Carolingian Empire to describe officials sent by the emperor (such as Charlemagne) to oversee local administration, ensure loyalty, and enforce royal policies.

What would a society without women look like? Any conjecture is fanciful and contrived, but there has been a period in American history where an analogous situation prevailed for a sufficient period to provide thoughtful grist – the settlement of the American West. Fewer than one in twenty pioneers to California during the early Gold Rush is female. Even in 1853, only some 8,000 of San Francisco’s 50,000 residents were women. Well into the 1880s, men made up almost two-thirds of California’s pioneer population.

Terry Hamburg explains.

Emigrants Crossing the Plains. Drawn by F.O.C. Darley, engraved by Henry Bryan Hall.

“You have no idea how few women we have here, a San Francisco lawyer writes to his sister back home in 1849,” and if one makes her appearance in the street, all stop, stand, and look. The latest fashion is to carry them in their arms (the streets are incredibly muddy). This we see every day.”

The gender imbalance is a subject of marvel to every observer then and since. The world’s oldest profession thrives in this hormonal tsunami. In the course of 1849, the hamlet of San Francisco’s bolts to 20,000, of which it is estimated 1000 are women - and two-thirds of those work in or manage brothels. Most men pouring into the city are in their raging testosterone twenties and have been deprived of traditional sex for at least six months.

Some of the most successful and powerful women in mid-nineteenth century America live in the frontier where they are vastly outnumbered by men and subject to a more primitive, unfiltered form of masculinity. Madams, in particular, parlay their business into fortune and influence. “The only aristocracy we had here at the time,” remarks Caleb T. Fay, a leading San Francisco politician during the Gold Rush, “were the gamblers and prostitutes.” A brothel proprietress made her money off patriarchy, but that success is a challenge to it as much as an accommodation.

 

Exporting Virtue

It was a simple proposition. Plenty of California men - most believed rich or soon to be so - without women. Ladies possessing the adventure and pluck to travel to that far-off land might find an ideal situation. “Every man thought every woman in that day a beauty,” a Sacramento woman confesses to her diary. “Even I have had men come forty miles over the mountains, just to look at me, and I was never called a handsome woman, in the best day, even by most ardent admirers.”

The men needed both the carnal and the cultural. Females would deliver a healthy dose of virtue to tame the savage beast. “We do not wish to say, or even imply, that San Francisco is the wickedest and most immoral city in the world,” historian Benjamin E. Lloyd mused in 1876, “but it has not yet overcome the immoral habits contracted in the days when the inhabitants were nearly all males, and had nothing to restrain them from engaging in the most vicious practices; when there were no mothers to chide their waywardness and say in winning tones: “My son go not in the way of evil” and fewer virtuous sisters to welcome brothers home, and by their loving kindness and noble lives, to teach them to cease from sinning.” Readers applauded the sentiment of James Wyld in his 1849 Guide to the Gold Country of California: “Society without woman is like an edifice built on sand. Woman, to society, is like the cement to the stone. The society has no such cement; its elements float to and fro on the excited, turbulent, hurried life of California immigrants.”

There are formal schemes to fill this moral vacuum. The most celebrated is hatched in 1849 by Eliza Farnham, author and former matron of the female section of Sing Sing Prison. She has skin in the California game. Her late husband leaves a large tract of land near Santa Cruz that she is keen to develop. Farnham concocts an ambitious plan: organize a group of well-recommended marriageable women that would “bring their refinement and kindly cares and powers” to the rough-hewn society of male fortune seekers. Ideologically, Farnham goes farther than most feminists of the age, advocating the natural superiority of women. She is prominent, and so are her public supporters, the likes of Horace Greeley and William Cullen Bryant, editors of The New-York Tribune and The New York Evening Post, and Henry Ward Beecher, the renowned clergyman and abolitionist.

Farnham shuttles between cities on the Atlantic coast, addressing meetings, examining applicants, and giving press interviews. Soon, she could announce that more than 130 women had “signified” a desire to join up. The New York Tribune praises her and the “precious cargo . . . on an errand of mercy to the golden land.” Editors on both coasts are captivated by the notion. In California, there is joy. One local mining newspaper reports that “smiles of anticipation wreathed the countenance of every bachelor in town.” However, Farnham is having difficulty finding suitable clients and then closing a deal that yanks young ladies from the comforts of family and friends to trek halfway around the world on a wild speculation, and for a big fee - payable in advance, thank you. No refunds. The ballyhooed April launch is postponed. By June, she is ready to give up the plan and sail with a scant three prospects. Disappointed supporters complain that her personal standards for recruits may have been too high, along with the price tag. TheAlta California accepts the news graciously: “The will is always taken for the deed, and bachelors will unquestionably cherish the liveliest of feelings of regard for the lady who so warmly exerted herself to bring a few spareribs to the market.” Farnham expresses no regrets. After experiencing “the moral and social poverty” of California for six years, she is “grateful that my endeavors failed.”

 

More women

There are other grand plans to civilize the Wild West by estrogen. A few years later, Sarah Pellet, a noted advocate of temperance, abolition, and woman’s rights pursues a scheme for “amelioration of the condition of Californians.” Again, the plan looks solid on paper: export 5,000 “respectable, marriageable New England girls” to be recommended by the Sons of Temperance as “worthy girls.” The Sons of Temperance in California agrees to serve as guardians upon their arrival. If this initiative works, there are plans to up the contingent to 10,000. Unfortunately, too few worthy girls are willing to be shipped and the plan is abandoned, again breaking miners’ hearts.

The gradual but relentless march of progress will eventually balance the genders in California. 50-50 is the order of nature.

 

Terry Hamburg is director emeritus of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Heritage Foundation. His recently published book Land of the Dead: How The West Changed Death In America explores how the demands of survival and adaptation in the Gold Rush western migration changed a multitude of American customs, including the way we bury and grieve for our ancestors. California and San Francisco serve as case studies. Visit his author page: https://www.terryhamburgbooks.com.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Coca-Cola is undoubtedly the most famous soft-drink beverage in the world, and we are all intimately familiar with the iconic red, white, and black color combination. But did you know that Coca-Cola at one point shed its iconic color scheme to sneak its way into the Soviet Union?

It is honestly difficult to imagine Coca-Cola being any other color; it's hardly recognizable, and yet that was precisely the point. All the effort that went into creating what we know today as “Coca-Cola Clear” was done to quench the thirst of a prominent Red Russian.

Here is the story of how the iconic beverage became a small sweet spot in the deteriorating East-West relationship of the Cold War. Chaveendra Dunuwille explains.

Georgy Zhukov, around 1960. Source: Mil.ru, available here.

Coca-Cola and World War II

Allied Forces

Before we get into the actual story, it is important that we comprehend how important Coca-Cola was during the war and its profound impact on both sides of the conflict.

According to Coca-Cola, the company began building its global network in the 1920s, and it significantly expanded during World War II thanks to the visionary thinking of then Coca-Cola president Robert Woodruff. The Woodruff instructed the company to ensure that every American serviceman and woman should be able to get their hands on a bottle of Coke for 5 cents, wherever they were and no matter how much it cost the company. This declaration ended up costing the company $83.2 million in today’s dollars. But Coca-Cola would agree that it was money well spent.

Coca-Cola was seen as an integral part of maintaining morale among US forces in all theaters of the conflict. During the war, Coca-Cola partnered with the United Services Organization (USO) in 1941 and played an important role in the American war effort as a much-needed morale booster for the young GIs. In 1943, General Eisenhowerordered over 3 million bottles of Coca-Cola to North Africa and requested supplies to keep refilling over 6 million bottles every month. In the Pacific theater, when Richard Bong set the American air-to-air victories record, General Henry ‘Hap’ Arnold gifted the aviator with 2 cases of Coca-Cola as a reward. In another instance, the very mention of the name Coca-Cola saved Lt Col. Robert "Rosie" Rosenthal’s life. After being shot down in one of his mission, Roshental was intercepted by advancing Soviet forces. To avoid being mistaken for a German pilot, he began to yell "Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Lucky Strike, Coca Cola, bombing Berlin." This allowed the Soviets to recognize him as an American and helped him return to friendly lines. The show Masters of the Air also features Lt. Rosenthal’s interactions with the Soviets. 

Whether it be Europe, the Pacific, or North Africa, the young GIs could always count on a cool, refreshing bottle of Coca-Cola to remind them of the “taste of home.” In one of their letters home, a US soldier remarked, “If anyone were to ask us what we are fighting for, we think half of us would answer, the right to buy Coca-Cola again.” - Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993)

Coca-Cola’s ad campaigns of the time heavily leaned on this rhetoric and featured almost exclusively military personnel. Today, these decisions can be credited for fostering the long-standing good relationship between Coca-Cola and the US military.  

In order to keep up with the never-ending demand, the company built over 64 bottling plants across the world and sent over 200 employees to maintain the facilities. The employees that got the crates to the front lines were named the “Coca-Cola Colonels.” While they were civilians, they were issued military uniforms when operating on the front lines and given the rank of technical observer. The Coca-Cola Colonels often endured the same dangers the soldiers faced, and unfortunately, three of them were killed in action.

By the end of the war, Allied service personnel had consumed over 5 billion bottles of Coca-Cola; the company had become a quintessential part of the American identity, and the stage was set for its global expansion.

 

Nazi Germany

Much like in the US, Coca-Cola was incredibly popular in Germany as well. By 1929 Coca-Cola was being bottled and drunk in Germany, and by 1940, Coca-Cola was the undisputed soft-drink king in Germany, enjoyed by all levels of German society. According to some legends, Hitler himself was rumored to indulge in Coca-Cola while relaxing to watch Hollywood movies.

It would seem that the Atalanta-based company was unfazed and turned a blind eye to the events that were unfolding in the name of business. The company continued to supply its German subsidiary with syrup and other supplies during the early days of the war, and the head of the German subsidiary, Max Keith, is reported to have toured the facilities in occupied Holland and France to take over their businesses.

However, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US officially entered World War II, and American companies were ordered to immediately halt all business with the enemy. As a result, Coca-Cola HQ cut off its supply of syrup to Germany, leaving Keith stranded and Coca-Cola’s GmBH on the verge of collapse.

But ever resourceful, Keith worked with his chemists to develop a recipe that cleverly worked its way around wartime rationing by using leftovers like fruit shavings and apple fibers. While it may sound unappetizing by modern standards, the new product sold over three million cases and saved Coca-Cola GmBH. After the war, Coca-Cola refined the recipe and reintroduced this drink in April 1955, making its way to the US in 1958. This drink is none other than Fanta.

 

Breaching the Iron Curtain

It's 1945; World War II has ended, and a new war is on the horizon, a Cold War. The old world order had collapsed, replaced by the clash of ideologies between the two new superpowers, the US and the USSR.

With its actions in World War II, Coca-Cola identified itself around the world as an icon of American culture, and this did not go on well with the Soviet Union. Despite the colors aligning, Coca-Cola’s sweetness could not breach the Iron Curtain as the Soviets viewed it as a tool of western imperialism and wanted to stave off a ‘Cocacolanization’ of the Soviet people.

However, it was during the war that a prominent Russian general, one Georgy Konstantionvich Zhukov, developed a taste for Coke that he just couldn’t seem to shake. General Zhukov is no ordinary general; he was a marshal of the Soviet Union who oversaw some of the Red Army’s fiercest battles, including the legendary Battle of Kursk. He would go on to become the 1st Commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and later the Minister of Defense. Despite all the accolades and the high position in the USSR, not even he could enjoy a bottle of the famed American drink without great personal cost. Thus, he devised a clever plan that would allow him to enjoy his guilty pleasure without getting into hot water with the Communist Party.

Zhukov communicated to his US counterparts that if the iconic caramel coloring could be removed, he could pass the drink off as vodka, arguably Russia’s most famous beverage. As an added layer of security, he also mentioned that the Coke should not be filled in its usual bottles, lest some curious eyes recognize the distinct shape.

General Mark W. Clark communicated Zhukov’s request to President Truman, who then passed on the message to James Forley, the Chairman of the Coca-Cola Export Corporation. After some tinkering, the chemists at Coca-Cola managed to produce a clear variant of the iconic drink and filled it in unmarked straight bottles complete with a white lid that included a red star. Zhukov took the delivery of 50 of these Clear Coke crates, and the rest remains a mystery.

 

What happened to the Bottles?

We honestly don’t know what happened to those 50 crates. The fate of the Clear Coke seems to be one of those moments in history that have seeped through the cracks. Perhaps Zhukov indulged in guilty pleasure? Or was it confiscated by the Soviets? We may never know.

 

Did the efforts pay-off for Coca-Cola and the US?

In retrospect, you could say that the effort to make the Clear Coke and deliver it to Zhukov didn’t really pay off in the long or short term for Coca-Cola or the United States.

While Zhukov would have no doubt been personally thankful to his old American colleagues for delivering him the Coca-Cola, the interaction is relegated to history as an interesting footnote, and it did not help mend the deteriorating US-Soviet relations of the period.

At the same time, despite trade restrictions being lowered over time, Coca-Cola was effectively locked out of the Russian market due to clever marketing by their rival PepsiCo, involving the then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev (a story for another time). Pepsi effectively maintained a monopoly in the Russian market up until 1980 when Coke came into Russia through the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

 

Can you get Clear Coke today?   

Yes, you can. But Coca-Cola Clear is a Japan exclusive product. Its available in many major Japanese retail stores such as Lawson and Seven-Eleven. But thanks to online shopping and worldwide delivery services, you can enjoy this beverage from almost anywhere in the world.

 

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

 Sources

●      An American GI’s best friend: Coca-Cola

●      Articles - Rod Beemer | Author · Speaker · Historian 

●      Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993)

●      The USO & Coca-Cola: A Refreshing 80+ Year Partnership

●      How did Coca-Cola grow as an international business?

●      How Fanta Was Created for Nazi Germany - Gastro Obscura

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Few figures in history have reshaped the world map as profoundly as Genghis Khan, (Chinggis Khan), the legendary founder of the Mongol Empire. Born as Temüjin in 1162 near the Onon River in modern-day Mongolia, Genghis Khan forged a legacy through unyielding ambition, military genius, and unparalleled leadership. His rise from obscurity to becoming the "Universal Ruler" of a vast empire spanning from the Pacific Ocean to Eastern Europe remains one of history's most remarkable stories.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of Temüjin being proclaimed as Genghis Khan.

Early life and rise to power

Temüjin's early years were fraught with adversity. Following the death of his father, he and his family were cast out by their tribe, leaving them to survive in harsh conditions. Despite these struggles, Temüjin demonstrated an early aptitude for leadership by forging alliances and consolidating power among the fragmented Mongol tribes. In 1206, after years of tribal warfare, Temüjin united the Mongol clans under his leadership and was declared Genghis Khan, meaning "Universal Ruler." This unification marked the birth of the Mongol Empire and the beginning of an era of unparalleled conquest.

 

Genghis Khan: The mastermind of conquest

Genghis Khan's military campaigns reshaped the course of history, marked by strategic brilliance, adaptability, and psychological warfare that left lasting imprints across continents. His ability to combine superior tactics, highly mobile cavalry, and an acute understanding of his enemies' weaknesses made him a formidable conqueror whose empire spanned vast regions.

In 1211, Genghis Khan turned his sights on the wealthy Jin dynasty of northern China. The campaign, which lasted until 1215, showcased his mastery of warfare. Utilizing his highly mobile cavalry, Genghis overwhelmed the Jin armies with swift and unpredictable attacks. In 1215, the Mongols captured Zhongdu, modern-day Beijing, in a decisive victory that demonstrated the Khan's capacity to adapt his strategies to suit the terrain and enemy defenses. This conquest was not just a military success but a significant economic windfall, solidifying Mongol control over one of the wealthiest regions of Asia.

The Khwarazmian campaign of 1219–1221 is another testament to Genghis Khan's strategic acumen. Provoked by a diplomatic insult from the Khwarazmian ruler, he launched a devastating assault on the Central Asian empire. Cities like Samarkand and Bukhara were annihilated, with the Mongols employing siege engines and psychological tactics to spread fear and ensure swift capitulation. This campaign not only punished the Khwarazmian Empire but also opened up the Silk Road for Mongol dominance, enhancing trade and communication across the empire.

Genghis Khan's ambitions extended westward into the Caucasus and Eastern Europe during the 1220s, in addition to, returning to campaigning in the regions of China. His forces defeated Georgian and Russian armies, leaving a trail of fear and destruction that reverberated throughout the region. These incursions laid the groundwork for future Mongol expansions into Europe, underscoring the global impact of Genghis Khan's campaigns.

Through his conquests, Genghis Khan demonstrated unparalleled military genius, transforming the Mongol tribes into a unified force that conquered some of the world's most formidable civilizations. His campaigns were not only feats of military strategy but also harbingers of cultural and economic transformations that shaped the medieval world.

 

Political ambitions and governance

Genghis Khan's vision for his empire extended far beyond the battlefield. While his conquests reshaped the political map of his time, his true ambition lay in creating a unified and stable empire that could endure. To achieve this, he implemented innovative governance strategies that set the Mongol Empire apart from its contemporaries.

One cornerstone of Genghis Khan's rule was his commitment to meritocracy. He valued loyalty and skill above all else, often promoting individuals based on their abilities rather than their lineage or social standing. This approach fostered a sense of opportunity and fairness, encouraging talented individuals from diverse backgrounds to contribute to the empire's success.

Legal reform also played a crucial role in his vision. Genghis Khan introduced the Yassa, a comprehensive legal code that emphasized order, discipline, and loyalty. The Yassa served as the backbone of Mongol governance, providing clear guidelines that applied to all subjects of the empire, regardless of their origin.

Cultural tolerance was another defining feature of his leadership. Under Genghis Khan, the Mongol Empire became a mosaic of religious and cultural diversity. Conquered peoples were allowed to retain their traditions, fostering a sense of inclusion and stability within the empire's vast and varied population.

Finally, Genghis Khan revolutionized trade and communication through the establishment of the Yam system. This early postal and trade network spanned the empire's immense territory, enabling the swift exchange of information and goods. The Yam not only strengthened governance but also facilitated the flourishing of commerce and cultural exchange, laying the groundwork for the interconnected world we know today.

Through these strategies, Genghis Khan transformed the Mongol Empire into more than just a military powerhouse—it became a model of governance that blended innovation, inclusivity, and pragmatism.

 

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

Genghis Khan, one of history's most formidable conquerors, possessed strengths that set him apart as a military leader, statesman, and visionary. His unparalleled ability to adapt tactics to diverse terrains and opponents demonstrated his military genius. Whether navigating the open steppes or engaging in siege warfare against fortified cities, Genghis Khan's strategies consistently overwhelmed his adversaries. His keen understanding of the battlefield enabled the Mongol army to outmaneuver and out-think foes, ensuring victory even against numerically superior forces.

Beyond the battlefield, Genghis Khan's charismatic leadership played a pivotal role in his success. He inspired unwavering loyalty among his followers, forging a sense of unity that endured even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. This loyalty was not just born of fear or brute force but stemmed from his ability to recognise talent, reward merit, and create a shared vision for his people. By integrating conquered peoples into his ranks and promoting based on ability rather than lineage, he built a dynamic and loyal coalition.

As a statesman, Genghis Khan was remarkably visionary. He understood that conquest alone was insufficient to sustain an empire. His emphasis on governance, trade, and diplomacy transformed the Mongol Empire into a thriving and interconnected realm. He established legal codes, promoted religious tolerance, and fostered trade across the Silk Road, creating a legacy that reshaped Eurasian commerce and culture for generations. His blend of military brilliance and strategic foresight ensured that the ideas and concepts of his empire endured long after his time, leaving an indelible mark on world history.

 

Weaknesses:

While Genghis Khan's name evokes images of unparalleled power and conquest, his legacy is not without its darker facets and inherent vulnerabilities. One of the most prominent criticisms of his reign is the sheer brutality that characterized his campaigns. Genghis Khan's military strategies often prioritized the swift and total subjugation of cities and populations, leaving behind a trail of widespread destruction and staggering loss of life. Entire towns were razed to the ground, with survivors frequently left to spread tales of terror that would preemptively weaken the resolve of other potential adversaries. This reputation as a ruthless conqueror ensured compliance from some, but it also fostered enduring resentment and fear, casting a long shadow over his achievements.

Another significant weakness of Genghis Khan's empire lay in its dependence on his successors. The Mongol Empire, despite its extraordinary expansion under his leadership, was inherently fragile. Its stability was deeply tied to the competence and unity of those who inherited the mantle of leadership. Following his death, the vast territory he had unified began to fracture under the weight of internal power struggles and conflicting ambitions among his descendants. This fragmentation diluted the empire's might, preventing it from sustaining the cohesion and dominance that marked Genghis Khan's era.

These weaknesses underscore the complex and multifaceted nature of Genghis Khan's legacy. His ability to build one of history's largest empires is undeniable, but the human cost and the challenges of maintaining such a vast dominion reveal the limits of even the most formidable conquests.

 

Legacy

When Genghis Khan died in 1227, the Mongol Empire stretched across millions of square miles. His descendants continued his expansion, creating the largest contiguous empire in history. Despite the destruction he wrought, Genghis Khan also catalyzed cultural exchange, trade, and innovation. The Mongol Empire's Pax Mongolica era fostered the exchange of ideas and goods along the Silk Road, influencing the development of the modern world.

Genghis Khan's life and achievements represent a paradoxical legacy that continues to evoke both awe and controversy. On the one hand, he was a conqueror of unparalleled ambition, a visionary leader who united disparate tribes into a cohesive force that transformed the medieval world. His military strategies reshaped the map of Eurasia, and his governance innovations laid the groundwork for global trade and cultural exchange. As indicated the Pax Mongolica ushered in an era of unprecedented connectivity, enabling the transfer of ideas, technologies, and goods across continents, planting seeds for the modern interconnected world.

On the other hand, the human cost of his conquests was staggering. Cities were reduced to rubble, millions lost their lives, and his empire was built on a foundation of fear and subjugation. The brutality that characterized his campaigns cast a long shadow, leaving scars that resonate through history. Furthermore, the empire he painstakingly constructed was ultimately unable to withstand the centrifugal forces of internal division, underscoring the fragility of even the most monumental achievements.

Genghis Khan's legacy defies simple categorization. He was simultaneously a destroyer and a builder, a warlord and a statesman. His life demonstrates the heights of human ambition and ingenuity, as well as the depths of destruction that such ambition can entail. Few figures in history have shaped the world so profoundly, and fewer still have left a legacy as complex and enduring. Whether viewed as a hero, a tyrant, or both, Genghis Khan remains an indelible force in the tapestry of human history—an emblem of both the transformative potential and the devastating consequences of unyielding ambition.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

Notes:

Genghis Khan's conquered territory

Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire he established are credited with creating the largest contiguous land empire in history. By the time of his death in 1227, Genghis Khan's conquests had resulted in the control of an estimated 24 million square kilometers (9.27 million square miles) of territory.

This expanse stretched from modern-day China and Korea in the east to Eastern Europe in the west, including parts of Central Asia, the Middle East, and Russia. After his death, the Mongol Empire continued to expand under his successors, eventually reaching approximately 33 million square kilometers (12.74 million square miles) at its peak.

 

Point of interest:

Genghis Khan's genetic lineage

It is estimated that approximately 0.5% of the world's male population, or about 16 million men, can trace their lineage back to Genghis Khan through their Y chromosome. This estimation stems from a genetic study published in 2003 by a research team led by geneticist Chris Tyler-Smith. The study identified a specific Y-chromosomal lineage prevalent across regions that were historically part of the Mongol Empire.

 

Key factors supporting the estimate

Historical Polygamy: Genghis Khan and his descendants had numerous offspring, as Mongol rulers often engaged in polygamy and had many concubines.

Geographical Spread: The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire in history, spreading across Asia and parts of Europe. This facilitated the wide dissemination of this genetic lineage.

Y-Chromosome Inheritance: The study focused on a unique genetic marker in the Y-chromosome, which is passed almost unchanged from father to son.

 

Broader Context:

While the 0.5% refers to men directly linked to the Y-chromosomal lineage, the total number of people (including women) who could be connected to Genghis Khan through other ancestral lines is likely much higher. However, this is harder to quantify due to the complexities of non-paternal lineage tracing and the lack of specific markers.

The estimation is based on studies of specific genetic markers found predominantly in the regions conquered by Genghis Khan and his descendants, particularly in Central Asia, Mongolia, and parts of Eastern Europe. It highlights the profound demographic impact of his empire and the prolific nature of his lineage.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

Today, where quiet streets line a suburban Florida neighborhood, a small, bustling town of sorts once stood. When the Everglades were drained in the early 1900s, it created dry land that eventually became host to several Florida cities that were formed in the mid-twentieth century. For many of those new municipalities, agriculture was an interim stage in the history of the area before incorporation took place. One such city, Coral Springs, was the site of a vast farming and ranching enterprise which included a now-forgotten settlement that existed decades before the city was established.

Karl Miller explains.

President Harry Truman at Everglades National Park in December 1947.

Prior to 1900, southern Florida was dominated by the enormous Everglades wetlands area, precluding development of much of the region.  Florida leaders launched the Everglades Drainage District in 1913, a body that oversaw the construction of a series of canals to drain the wetlands. The success of these efforts led to an increase in available real estate, helping to create the Florida land boom of the 1920s.

 

1920s and 1930s

Henry Lawrence Lyons (1893-1952), a farmer based in Pompano Beach, a city in Broward County on the southeast Atlantic coast, began his Florida career in earnest in the 1920s. A Georgia native, Lyons participated in the real estate boom, purchasing tracts of vacant property several miles inland and gradually building up a sizeable ownership while also serving two terms as a county commissioner. This buying activity was capped by an enormous 6,200-acre purchase in 1934, property that would later become Coral Springs. (1)

Using heavy mechanical equipment, Lyons and his workers cleared his holdings of natural vegetation, occasionally resorting to dynamite for more difficult situations. He dug his own system of canals to increase drainage from the grounds, made gravel roads, and created three-acre plots throughout the area. Lyons then planted crops, predominantly green beans, which were harvested by a seasonal team of 600 laborers, then sent to a facility in Pompano Beach which cleaned and sorted the crop before packaging them for distribution across the United States.[1]  By 1938, his operations were “on a tremendous scale, his payrolls gigantic” with shipments running “. . . into the millions of packages.” ([2]) When the 1930s ended, his enterprise expanded further to include cattle raising. 

While Lyons lived in Pompano Beach, his roughly one hundred permanent employees lived year-round in the workers quarters, described by a 1939 visitor:


      . . . at the center of the farm there is a veritable town – a cluster of buildings which
      includes hurricane-proof cabins . . . anchored in concrete foundations.  Here are the

      stables, sheds, and the machine shop, which has just about every gadget imaginable

      for making home repairs to the fleet of tractors, trucks, plows, listers, planters,

      ground dusters, and countless other machines . . . ([3])

 

The group of buildings was the nucleus of farm activity. Workers were largely African American, including sharecroppers Lyons brought from Georgia with the promise of employment during the Great Depression. They worked long hours in the fields and dealt with a range of perils including mosquitoes, alligators, poisonous snakes, and extreme heat, before returning each day to their quarters. Their efforts were a main component driving Broward County green bean production from a 1930 reported value of $800,529 to 1950 sales of $5,638,227. ([4])

 

Post-war period

In 1945, the United States Geological Survey created a map of Pompano Beach, including the Lyons farm. Far removed to the west from the nearest part of the city, a cluster of over two dozen structures appeared in the middle of the farm just north of Pompano Canal. Today, it would have been located close to Three Mountains Park, a city recreational area near the intersection of Riverside Drive and Atlantic Boulevard. ([5])

In 1952, Lyons died, and ownership of his estate passed to Lena, his wife. She ran the farm for ten years before selling the entire property in 1962 for one million dollars to Coral Ridge Properties, a South Florida development corporation looking to meet enormous post-war demand for suburban housing. Coral Springs was formally incorporated by an act of the Florida legislature the following year, and agricultural operations wound down to a close.

As a planned community, Coral Springs was built according to an intentional design. A series of aerial views taken regularly by Broward County from 1963 onward showed as construction gradually changed the landscape around the old buildings until they were finally demolished in the mid-1970s. ([6]) A subdivision named Shadow Wood then rose over the site, leaving no trace of the Lyons era behind.

While the rapid growth of Florida in the twentieth century seemed to almost create residential areas from thin air, the land had a past. As with many other new Florida cities of the time, Coral Springs was built on ground that had previously been agricultural. While gone now, the farm it followed had itself supplanted the natural state of the environment, transforming it and preparing it, in a way, for the next phase in the history of the area.

 

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

 

[1] Clarence Woodbury, “Titan of the Bean Patch,” The Country Home Magazine 63(1), January 1939.

[2] Fort Lauderdale News, November 30, 1938.

[3] Woodbury, “Titan of the Bean Patch.”

[4] United States Census Bureau, 1930 Census: Agriculture Volume 2. Reports by States, with Statistics for Counties and a Summary for the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, accessed December 18, 2024 at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1930/agriculture-volume-2/03337983v2p2ch07.pdf; United States Census Bureau, 1950 Census of Agriculture. Part 18: Florida, Statistics for Counties. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, accessed December 18, 2024 at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/agriculture-volume-1/34059685v1p18ch2.pdf.

[5] United States Geological Survey, Fort Lauderdale North Quadrant, Scale 1:24000, Washington, DC, 1945.

[6] Broward County Urban Planning Division, Aerials 1963 to 2000, Broward County, Florida, Township 48, Range 41, Section 34, 2000, accessed December 17, 2024 at https://www.broward.org/Planning/Pages/GIS.aspx.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

George Armstrong Custer is well-known to every American as a Native American fighter following the U.S. Civil War, particularly highlighted by the events of the Last Stand at the Little Bighorn River, which has become a significant part of American folklore. The leadership he exhibited while commanding the 7th Cavalry, often accompanied by the tune of Garryowen, is familiar to many.

Custer's legacy is marked by deep controversy and division, as he has faced severe criticism for his actions against Native Americans, which many view as genocidal. Conversely, he is also regarded by some as a martyr for the cause of American expansionism. Both perspectives hold validity, rendering him a multifaceted and complex historical figure.

Less well known are Custer's military exploits as a young officer during the Civil War. His aggressive tactics, readiness to lead from the front lines, and ability to motivate his troops contributed to his rapid rise in fame and rank, despite the inherent dangers of his approach. However, this same aggressive disposition also resulted in notable failures and precarious situations.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

General George Armstrong Custer. From a photographic negative in Brady's National Portrait Gallery.

West Point

Custer was born in Ohio on December 5, 1839. He spent part of his youth in Michigan, with a half-sister and her husband, and would consider the state his adopted home. Despite his humble background and youthful indiscretions, a Michigan Congressman secured Custer a place at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point when he was 18. Custer entered West Point as a cadet on July 1, 1857, as a member of the class of 1862, which consisted of seventy-nine cadets engaged in a rigorous five-year program. He graduated at the bottom of his class, ranking 34th out of 34, as 23 of his peers had either dropped out due to academic challenges or resigned to join the Confederacy.

Throughout his tenure at West Point, Custer consistently challenged established norms and regulations. Over the course of four years, he accumulated an astonishing 726 demerits, marking one of the most notorious conduct records in the institution's history. Although he possessed considerable intelligence and talent, he largely disregarded the Academy's disciplinary measures and exhibited a lack of diligence in his studies. His behavior nearly led to expulsion on multiple occasions, and he ultimately graduated last in his class, a designation often referred to as the “goat.” With the onset of the American Civil War in 1861, the duration of the course was reduced to four years, allowing Custer and his classmates to graduate on June 24, 1861, a fortuitous moment for an aspiring military leader.

 

Outbreak of the Civil War

The United States Army faced a critical shortage of officers at the onset of the Civil War. In response to this urgent need, Custer received a commission as a second lieutenant and was assigned to the 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment. His initial responsibilities included training volunteers in Washington, D.C., and shortly thereafter, his unit was deployed to the front lines. During the First Battle of Bull Run, Custer served with his regiment, where Army commander Winfield Scott tasked him to deliver messages to Major General Irvin McDowell.

Following the battle, Custer remained engaged in the defense of Washington, D.C., until he fell ill in October 1861, which led to his absence from the unit until February 1862. Upon his return, he participated in the Peninsula Campaign in Virginia with the 2nd Cavalry, remaining active until early April 1862. His involvement during this critical period was significant as the campaign unfolded. 3. On April 5, 1862, Custer transferred to the 5th Cavalry Regiment, which was involved in the Siege of Yorktown from April 5 to May 4, where he served as aide to Major General George B. McClellan. By late May, he was entrusted with a leadership role that he executed with remarkable success, resulting in a promotion to Captain, although he would later face a demotion. Throughout this time, he participated in all the key battles of the Maryland campaign, further solidifying his military reputation.

During the Peninsula Campaign, on May 24, 1862, during the pursuit of General Joseph E Johnston, General George McClellan and his staff were reconnoitering a potential crossing point on the Chickahominy River. Custer overheard General John G. Barnard mutter, "I wish I knew how deep it is." Custer dashed forward on his horse out to the middle of the river, turned to the astonished officers, and shouted triumphantly, "McClellan, that's how deep it is, Genera!".

In his first battle command, He led an attack with four companies of the 4th Michigan Infantry across the Chickahominy River above New Bridge. The attack was successful, resulting in the capture of 50 Confederate soldiers and the seizing of the first Confederate battle flag of the war. McClellan congratulated Custer personally.

 

Antietam

Custer consistently maintained a positive rapport with his superiors throughout his military career. His collaboration with McClellan marked a significant turning point in his professional development. It is commonly understood that Custer's tenure under McClellan sparked his fascination with personal publicity, a factor that would have lasting implications for both his military engagements and his subsequent life.

During the Battle of Antietam, Custer served on McClellan’s staff, where he was responsible for the strategic placement of troops as directed by the commander. An order issued by McClellan specifically instructed General Sumner to maneuver Sedgwick and French across a creek at fords that "Captain Custer will show you," highlighting Custer's integral role in the operation. (On page 212 of Hartwig’s “I Dread the Thought of the Place”.)

 

Pennsylvania Campaign

Between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, there were huge changes in the command structure of the US Cavalry. Stoneman was relieved of his command and sent to Washington DC to become Chief of the Cavalry Bureau, which was a demotion. Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Pleasonton succeeded him as the commander of the Cavalry Corps. Additionally, Brigadier General John Buford and his brigade were reassigned to the 1st Cavalry Division, while Brigadier General Wesley Merritt took charge of the Reserve Brigade. The death of Colonel Benjamin Franklin “Grimes” Davis at Brandy Station led to Colonel William Gamble assuming command of Buford's 1st Brigade. Kilpatrick was promoted to command of the 3rd Cavalry Division on June 13.

On June 9, 1863, Custer was appointed as aide to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Pleasonton, who was tasked with the critical mission of locating General Robert E. Lee's army as it advanced northward through the Shenandoah Valley at the onset of the Gettysburg Campaign. In preparation for the Battle of Gettysburg, Custer played a pivotal role in the Battle of Aldie on June 17, contributing to the Cavalry Corps' operations in Loudoun Valley. His bold maneuvers were instrumental in delaying the Confederate cavalry, which was tasked with monitoring the movements of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. This engagement served as one of Custer's initial opportunities to demonstrate his capabilities in leading cavalry forces.

The Battle of Aldie on June 17, 1863, marked a pivotal moment in the series of cavalry skirmishes that constituted the Loudoun Valley Campaign, serving as a precursor to the more extensive Battle of Gettysburg. During this engagement, Union and Confederate cavalry forces clashed as General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia advanced northward into Pennsylvania. Custer emerged as a key figure in these confrontations, demonstrating his tactical acumen and leadership abilities.

The conflict commenced when Union cavalry, led by Brigadier General Judson Kilpatrick, sought to locate and confront the Confederate cavalry commanded by Colonel Thomas Munford, who was tasked with screening Lee's advancing forces. At this juncture, Custer, a young officer on the rise, was assigned to lead the 5th Michigan Cavalry regiment within Kilpatrick's division. His leadership was crucial as the Union forces aimed to disrupt the Confederate maneuvers.

As the battle progressed, Custer orchestrated several daring charges against the well-entrenched Confederate troops, who had fortified themselves along strategic roads and ridges. His aggressive strategies not only maintained pressure on the enemy but also resulted in significant casualties for his men. Notably, Custer's audacious charge succeeded in breaching a critical Confederate position, leading to the capture of several enemy soldiers and temporarily displacing Confederate forces from the battlefield. Throughout the engagement, Custer's visible presence and fearless leadership galvanized his troops.  The battle ended inconclusively, with both sides holding their ground as night fell. However, Custer’s regiment and the Union cavalry achieved their tactical objective of delaying the Confederate forces. This was important because it slowed Munford's cavalry, preventing them from fully screening Lee’s army, and allowed Union forces to gather more intelligence on Confederate movements.

On June 22, 1863, Pleasanton was elevated to the rank of major general in the U.S. Volunteers. Following a consultation with George Meade, the newly appointed commander of the Army of the Potomac, Pleasanton received directives that would significantly impact the course of the war. He was instructed to replace political generals with leaders who were ready to engage in combat and personally spearhead mounted assaults. Among his aides, he identified three individuals who exemplified the aggressive leadership he sought: Wesley Merritt, Elon J. Farnsworth, both of whom possessed command experience, and George Armstrong Custer. Each of these officers was promptly promoted to brigadier general, with Custer taking command of the Michigan Cavalry Brigade, known as the "Wolverines," which was part of Brigadier General Judson Kilpatrick's division. Notably, Custer, at the age of 23, became one of the youngest generals in the Union Army, despite lacking direct command experience. The so-called "Boy Generals" were poised to make significant contributions in the days to come, with Merritt and Custer embarking on distinguished careers, while Farnsworth tragically lost his life shortly thereafter.

On June 30, 1863, Custer and the First and Seventh Michigan Cavalry were advancing through Hanover, Pennsylvania, with the Fifth and Sixth Michigan Cavalry trailing approximately seven miles behind. Upon hearing the sounds of gunfire, Custer redirected his forces toward the source of the commotion. A courier informed him that Farnsworth's Brigade had come under attack from Confederate cavalry in the town's side streets. After regrouping his command, Custer received orders from Kilpatrick to confront the enemy to the northeast of town, near the railway station. He skillfully deployed his troops and initiated an advance. Following a brief exchange of fire, the Confederate forces retreated to the northeast.  This might seem surprising because Lee and his army were somewhere to the west, but Stuart was looking for Early who he thought was still at York; but Early had left that morning.  Early had gone west that morning on exactly the road Stuart was now taking east. Though this skirmish in itself was of little consequence, it was a major part of the reason Stuart.

Following the engagement at Hanover on June 30, Custer advanced through Abbottstown, Pennsylvania, in pursuit of Stuart. By July 1, the sounds of conflict from Gettysburg, located approximately 14 miles to the west and slightly south, began to reach them late that morning. On the same day, Custer encountered Confederate Brigadier General Wade Hampton at Hunterstown, where a skirmish ensued.

The following morning, July 2, Custer received orders to advance toward Culp’s Hill with the objective of disrupting enemy communications. As he neared Hunterstown in the afternoon, he learned that Stuart was in close proximity and had not yet detected his presence. Demonstrating exceptional courage, Custer took the initiative to scout ahead alone, discovering that the Confederate forces were unaware of his troops' arrival, which allowed him to conduct his own reconnaissance.

Upon returning to his command, Custer strategically positioned his forces along both sides of the road, ensuring they remained concealed from the enemy. He placed the First and Fifth Michigan Cavalry, along with his artillery, behind a low rise further down the road. To lure the Confederate cavalry into his trap, he rallied A Troop of the Sixth Michigan Cavalry, boldly declaring, "Come on boys, I'll lead you this time!" He charged directly at the unsuspecting rebels, who, as anticipated, pursued him. Despite suffering significant losses and being left on foot after his horse was shot, Custer was rescued by Private Norvell Francis Churchill. Ultimately, Custer and his remaining troops managed to escape, while the pursuing Confederates were repelled by rifle and artillery fire, leading to a withdrawal from both sides.

 

East Cavalry Field

Custer spent most of the night in the saddle, and reached Two Taverns, Pennsylvania, approximately five miles southeast of Gettysburg, at around 3:00 a.m. on July 3. The cavalry skirmishes that took place on this day in 1863 are noteworthy, even though they were not the central focus of the Gettysburg battle. At East Cavalry Field, located three miles east of Gettysburg, forces led by J.E.B. Stuart engaged with Gregg's division and Brigadier General George A. Custer's brigade from the 3rd Division. This encounter resulted in an extended mounted conflict, which included intense hand-to-hand combat, with both factions asserting they had emerged victorious.

Custer's involvement in the cavalry confrontations on the final day of the Battle of Gettysburg stands out as one of his most significant contributions during the war. Commanding a brigade of Michigan Cavalry, he fought valiantly at East Cavalry Field, where he played a pivotal role in thwarting Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart's attempts to launch an assault on the Union's rear during Pickett’s Charge. Custer's renowned charge, accompanied by the rallying cry “Come on, you Wolverines!” ignited a fierce battle that ultimately disrupted Stuart’s strategy and aided in securing a Union victory.

J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry finally arrived on the battlefield late on July 2, but the response from General Lee was less than enthusiastic. Lee instructed Stuart to maneuver behind the Union lines to penetrate their rear. By approximately 11 a.m., just three hours before Pickett’s Charge, Stuart had positioned his forces about three miles east of the Union line, intending to flank the Union left at Cress Ridge. However, Custer's troops, equipped with Spencer repeating rifles, held their ground resolutely, reminiscent of Buford’s brigades on the first day of battle. Consequently, at 1 p.m., Stuart ordered a direct assault led by Fitz Hugh Lee’s 1st Virginia Cavalry.

On July 3rd, Custer was reassigned from Kilpatrick's command to serve under the leadership of Gregg’s division. The overall command structure placed Buford at the helm of the 3rd Cavalry Division, with the majority of his forces positioned far from the conflict occurring in Westminster, Maryland. However, Buford's reserve brigade, commanded by Wesley Merritt, was stationed to the south of Gettysburg. At this juncture, David Gregg had two brigades under his command, one led by McIntosh and the other by Colonel J. Irvin Gregg, his cousin, both of which were deployed along the Baltimore Turnpike. Consequently, Gregg temporarily loaned one of his brigade divisions to Custer’s Michigan Brigade, while Kilpatrick and Farnsworth found themselves southwest of Little Round Top, resulting in a fragmented command structure.

The conventional narrative suggests that the Confederate forces were unaware of the Union cavalry's movements until Stuart signaled Lee with four artillery shots. However, this account raises questions, as Gregg had already established the positions for Custer and McIntosh earlier that day. Furthermore, Pleasonton had informed Gregg of Stuart's proximity, yet he still instructed Custer to return to Kilpatrick. Both Gregg and Custer deemed this order imprudent, leading them to disregard it and prepare for engagement instead.

In response to the situation, Gregg directed Custer and the 7th Michigan to launch a counterattack. Custer took the lead, rallying his men with the call, “Come on you Wolverines.” At that moment, the Virginia cavalry was positioned behind a fence, with over 700 horsemen engaged in combat using sabers, pistols, and rifles. Just as Custer appeared poised to force a retreat among the Virginians, Stuart countered by sending Wade Hampton to launch an attack, compelling Custer to withdraw. During the skirmish, Custer's horse was killed, prompting him to borrow his bugler's mount, which also met a similar fate. In response, Gregg ordered his remaining brigade to charge once more, but after approximately 40 minutes of intense fighting, both sides ultimately retreated. Custer's valor was particularly pronounced as he orchestrated a series of audacious cavalry charges against the Stuart. Despite facing overwhelming odds, His decisive actions were instrumental in thwarting Stuart’s cavalry from launching a surprise attack on Union troops, thereby playing a vital role in securing a Union victory.

This assault was conceived as part of a tripartite offensive that was meant to occur simultaneously, with Early and Pickett launching their attacks in a coordinated manner. This reflects the traditional military strategy of the time. However, a more contemporary interpretation suggests that Stuart was expected to approach Culp’s Hill from the south, while Early’s infantry would advance from the north. It is believed that Lee anticipated that if Pickett’s charge succeeded in pushing back the Union line and Stuart managed to penetrate their rear, it would create significant confusion among Union forces. While Lee recognized the necessity of coordinating his forces for a unified attack, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that he envisioned this operation as an envelopment, particularly given the limited size of Stuart’s contingent.

The casualties incurred during the 40 minutes of intense combat at East Cavalry Field were relatively modest, totaling 254 for the Union—of which 219 were from Custer's brigade—and 181 for the Confederates. Some reports indicate that Custer's losses were as high as 257, marking the most significant cavalry brigade loss in the battle. Stuart commanded approximately 6,000 troops, while Custer had 1,200 and McIntosh had 2,400. Although the engagement did not yield a decisive tactical outcome, it represented a strategic setback for both Stuart and Robert E. Lee, whose objective to penetrate the Union's rear were ultimately thwarted.

 

Williamsport

The Battle of Williamsport, which lasted from July 6–16, 1863, occurred during Lee’s retreat from Gettysburg. Union cavalry forces, including those under George Armstrong Custer, pursued the Confederate army as it retreated toward the Potomac River, attempting to cross back into Virginia. Custer played a notable role in these engagements, especially in harassing Lee's rear guard and attacking Confederate forces protecting their retreat.

After the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, Lee's army began retreating southward toward the Potomac River. Custer, commanding a brigade in General Judson Kilpatrick’s division, was part of the Union cavalry tasked with pursuing the retreating Confederates and disrupting their movement. His orders were to engage the Confederate rear guard, disrupt their wagon trains, and prevent them from crossing the Potomac, buying time for Union infantry to catch up.

Custer and his brigade engaged in several skirmishes with Confederate cavalry near Hagerstown and Williamsport. The Confederate forces were defending their supply trains and attempting to hold off the Union cavalry long enough to repair bridges and establish a crossing point at the Potomac River. Custer led his men in multiple aggressive attacks on Confederate positions, targeting both their cavalry and the wagon trains full of supplies. His boldness was consistent with his typical approach, charging Confederate lines in an effort to force them back.

During one of these engagements near Williamsport on July 6, Custer’s brigade became overextended after a particularly aggressive charge. He advanced too far ahead of supporting Union forces and was nearly encircled by Confederate infantry and cavalry. Custer’s position was briefly precarious, as he faced being surrounded and cut off. Despite this, Custer managed to organize a defense and retreat his brigade to a more secure position, avoiding disaster. His men were able to disengage and hold their ground until Union reinforcements arrived.

Over the course of the next several days, Custer and other Union cavalry units continued to pressure the Confederate forces around Williamsport, making repeated attempts to break through Confederate defenses and prevent Lee’s army from safely crossing the flooded Potomac River. While the Union cavalry, including Custer, succeeded in capturing a number of wagons and prisoners, they were ultimately unable to completely prevent the Confederates from repairing their bridges and making their escape into Virginia.

On the morning of July 14, Kilpatrick's and Buford's cavalry divisions approached from the north and east respectively. Before allowing Buford to gain a position on the flank and rear, Kilpatrick attacked the rearguard division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth, taking more than 500 prisoners. Confederate Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew was mortally wounded in the fight.

On July 16, cavalry approached Shepherdstown where the brigades of Brig. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and John R. Chambliss, supported by Col. Milton J. Ferguson's brigade, held the Potomac River fords against the Union infantry. Fitzhugh Lee and Chambliss attacked Gregg, who held out against several attacks and sorties, fighting sporadically until nightfall, when he withdrew. Custer was involved in these battles.

 

The Overland Campaign

When Major General Philip Sheridan moved east, the resulting alliance with Custer as his subordinate would produce huge dividends in many battles. On May 6 at 8 AM, Custer, commanding 1st brigade 1st division received movement orders from a position at a crossroads on Brock Road to attack Longstreet in the flank. But Longstreet wasn’t at that location. A huge battle ensued when it turned out he was moving in the vicinity of Fitzhugh Lee’s cavalry. The resulting, really unplanned and surprise firefight at Todd’s Tavern led to Lee’s retreat across the field.

 

The Battle of Trevilian Station occurred on June 11–12, 1864. It was the largest all-cavalry battle of the Civil War, Trevilian Station saw Custer lead his men in an aggressive attack against Confederate cavalry under Wade Hampton. Although the Union forces were ultimately forced to withdraw, Custer's brigade fought tenaciously.

Over 9000 Union troops faced about 6700 Confederates. It is estimated that the Union had over 1500 casualties including 150 killed, most from Custer’s brigade. The Confederates sustained over 800 casualties.

Custer’s participation at Trevilian shows the danger of his aggressiveness. Custer found himself and his division encircled by Confederate cavalry, yet he chose to stand firm rather than retreat. He inspired his men to maintain their defensive position until reinforcements arrived, allowing his unit to escape a precarious situation.  Sheridan was moving to destroy the Virginia Central Railroad and create a diversion while Grant crossed the James River. But Hampton beat Sheridan to the station, and what ensued was the largest cavalry of the war. Custer’s mission was to circle into Hampton’s rear. Instead, he got trapped and had to fight desperately to get out of it. This action has been called “Custer’s First Last Stand”.

On the first day of the battle), Custer was assigned to lead a brigade in Sheridan’s cavalry corps. As Sheridan’s force moved toward Trevilian Station, Custer launched an aggressive raid ahead of the main Union force. He moved boldly into the Confederate rear, cutting off General Wade Hampton’s Confederate cavalry from their supply trains and capturing over 800 men and Confederate wagons.

However, this aggressive maneuver placed Custer and his men in a precarious position. Once the Confederates realized Custer was isolated, they encircled his brigade. Custer found himself surrounded by Hampton’s cavalry, with no immediate support from the rest of Sheridan's force.

For several hours, Custer and his men were caught in a desperate defensive situation, with their position effectively cut off. His brigade formed a defensive circle to fend off repeated Confederate attacks, using their wagons as makeshift barricades. Despite being outnumbered and surrounded, Custer managed to hold out long enough for reinforcements from Sheridan’s other divisions to arrive and relieve him. During this time, Custer lost his personal battle flag, which was captured by Confederate forces—a symbolic loss, though he managed to avoid the complete destruction of his brigade.

On June 12, the second day of the battle, Custer’s brigade regrouped and continued to fight fiercely as part of the larger Union cavalry force. Sheridan’s troops launched repeated assaults against the entrenched Confederate cavalry at Trevilian Station, but despite their efforts, the Union cavalry failed to break through Hampton’s defenses.

Though Custer and his men fought valiantly, Sheridan’s overall raid did not achieve its primary objectives. Sheridan eventually withdrew, unable to destroy the railroad or link up with Hunter. While the battle was tactically inconclusive, the Confederates held the field, and Custer's performance, though audacious, had mixed results. His initial success in capturing Confederate supplies and disrupting their rear was overshadowed by the fact that his brigade was nearly destroyed during the encirclement.

Overall, Custer’s actions at Trevilian Station were typical of his aggressive, high-risk style of command. Although he narrowly avoided disaster, his ability to lead under fire and maintain discipline in dire circumstances earned him respect, even if the battle itself was a strategic setback for the Union.

 

Yellow Tavern

In this battle on May 11, 1864, General Philip Sheridan outmaneuvered and outmanned Stuart. In a surprise counterattack, Stuart was mortally wounded by a retreating Union soldier. Custer’s role in this battle was pivotal. During Sheridan’s raid toward Richmond, Custer’s men were heavily involved in the fighting, and the death of Stuart marked a turning point for Confederate cavalry leadership.

Sheridan amassed over 10-12,000 cavalry and 32 artillery pieces, stretching 13 miles long. This provided him with a two-to-one advantage – Stuart had about 4500 men. He had amassed 3 cavalry divisions to fight against 2 brigades. Moreover, Sheridan’s men were armed with rapid-fire Spencer Carbines. Sheridan’s three divisions were commanded by Brig. Gens. Wesley Merritt, David M. Gregg and James H. Wilson. Stuart’s forces included Brig. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee’s division, consisting of brigades under Brig. Gens. Lunsford Lomax and Williams C. Wickham and a brigade of North Carolinians commanded by Brig. Gen. James Gordon from Brig. Gen. William Henry Fitzhugh “Rooney” Lee’s division.

Having arrived just an hour ahead of Sheridan, Stuart chose to defend a low ridgeline bordering the road. Stuart placed his two brigades, under the commanders Lunsford L. Lomax and Williams C. Wickham, in a “Y” formation along the intersection of the two roads. On the Confederate left, Lomax’s men engaged the Union brigades of Thomas C. Devin, Alfred Gibbs, and George Armstrong Custer, and after intense fighting were driven back to the same ridge line occupied by Wickham. The initial Union charge was halted.

Stuart sent Gordon’s brigade to harass Sheridan’s rear. Sheridan wasn’t interested in outracing Stuart, he wanted to give battle. Stuart beat Sheridan to the crossroads of Telegraph Road and Mountain Road, which was necessary for Sheridan to pass through to get to Richmond. At this intersection was an old hotel called Yellow Tavern. He placed Wickham’s brigade on a high ridge and a right angle to Lomax’s brigade to form a pincher movement when Sheridan arrived. As planned, Merritt advanced toward the ridge and Lomax attacked at the flank. But, Merritt had a brigade led by Devin to flank Lomax, forcing a retreat. To protect the retreat, the 5th Virginia regrouped and Devin charged. This led to a stalemate in the area below the ridge.

After a brief lull, Sheridan renewed his attack. His men, both mounted and dismounted, charged amid the roar of a sudden thunderstorm. Custer’s brigade aimed for the center of the Confederate line. Union troops charged across Turner’s Run—a stream that bisected and ran perpendicular to the Telegraph Road—and up the ridge to the Confederate position. Witnessing the devastating break in his line, Stuart immediately galloped to the position of his old command, the 1st Virginia Cavalry. And then the 1st Virginia Cavalry countercharged, driving the Union troops back.

At this moment, at 4 pm, Custer proposed an attack along a small stream called Turner’s Run. Taking the 1st Michigan along with numerous other regiments, he made an initial lodgment in the Rebel line but was overwhelmed when reinforcements came up. In this retreat, a dismounted soldier shot Stuart in the abdomen, passing through him. As the 5th Michigan Cavalry retreated past Stuart, he was shot with a .44 caliber revolver from a distance of 10-30 yards. Stuart was killed by a dismounted Union private in retreat named John A Huff. Huff was a former sharpshooter with Berdan’s sharpshooters. Fitzhugh Lee took command and prevented a disorderly retreat. Meanwhile, Custer sent more men forward, forcing a full retreat.

 

Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864

Custer played a significant role in Union General Philip Sheridan’s efforts to defeat Confederate forces under General Jubal Early. The campaign's objective was to clear the Shenandoah Valley of Confederate control, as it was a crucial agricultural region and an important supply line for the South.

Third Battle of Winchester. In the Third Battle of Winchester on September 19, 1864, also known as the Battle of Opequon, Custer played a key role as a cavalry commander under Major General Philip Sheridan during the Shenandoah Valley Campaign. Custer was in command of one of Sheridan’s cavalry brigades. Custer performed several daring charges during the battle. His aggressive cavalry tactics helped to drive Early's forces back. Custer's success in leading repeated cavalry assaults allowed the Union forces to capture Confederate positions and force a retreat. Custer’s cavalry played a key role in routing Confederate forces, and his aggressive tactics helped deliver a decisive victory for the Union. His division broke through Confederate lines and captured many soldiers and artillery pieces, contributing to the campaign's overall success. His role was primarily to flank and harass the Confederate forces under Lieutenant General Jubal Early. The Union cavalry was tasked with cutting off Confederate escape routes and striking the enemy from unexpected angles while the Union infantry pressed the Confederate center and left.

Custer’s cavalry was directed to attack the Confederate right flank. This proved to be crucial as the Confederate line was already buckling under pressure from Union infantry assaults. Custer’s aggressive push on their flank contributed to the eventual collapse of Early’s forces.

As the Confederate line broke, Custer’s cavalry was among the first to exploit the breakthrough. He led his men in a vigorous pursuit of the retreating Confederate soldiers, cutting down those who fled and capturing prisoners, artillery pieces, and other valuable supplies. His men played a significant role in turning the Confederate retreat into a rout.

Custer's cavalry captured several artillery pieces during the battle, further demoralizing Early’s troops and preventing them from re-establishing defensive positions. This loss of artillery was a major blow to the Confederate forces, who were already struggling with inferior numbers and resources.

This battle was a decisive Union victory, and Custer’s cavalry, including his aggressive leadership and ability to inspire his men to press the attack, was a key factor. This victory opened the way for further Union advances in the Shenandoah Valley, helping to secure Sheridan's objectives in the region and weakening the Confederate war effort.

 

Battle of Fisher's Hill. Following Third Winchester, Sheridan’s forces pursued Early’s retreating army to Fisher’s Hill. On September 21-22, 1864, Custer's cavalry helped to flank the Confederate army, contributing to the Union victory. His rapid movements and aggressive use of cavalry were critical in keeping pressure on the retreating Confederate forces.

Battle of Cedar Creek. Custer's most celebrated actions during the Shenandoah Campaign occurred at the Battle of Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864. Initially, Early’s Confederates launched a surprise pre-dawn attack on the Union army, routing them from their camps and driving them back. Sheridan, who was away from the battlefield at the start of the attack, famously rallied his forces upon his return and began a counterattack in the afternoon.

During the battle, Custer commanded a cavalry division and played a pivotal role in Sheridan’s afternoon counteroffensive. On September 25th, Grant asked Sheridan to send either Torbert or Wilson to Georgia to take over the cavalry there. Sheridan chose Wilson and put Custer in command of Wilson’s 3rd Cavalry Division in time for Cedar Creek.  His leadership helped stabilize Union forces and allowed them to regroup after the initial Confederate assault. As Sheridan’s forces pressed forward, Custer's division launched aggressive cavalry charges that shattered the Confederate flanks. His relentless attacks helped turn the tide of battle, leading to a decisive Union victory. Many historians credit Custer’s bold charges as crucial in breaking Early’s army and turning a near Union disaster into a triumph.

Custer’s role in Sheridan’s Shenandoah Campaign, particularly at Cedar Creek, solidified his reputation as a brave and effective cavalry commander. His aggressive tactics were well-suited to the fast-moving and chaotic nature of cavalry warfare, and his actions contributed significantly to the Union's victory in the Shenandoah Valley, which deprived the Confederacy of a vital region and disrupted their plans to divert Union attention away from General Robert E. Lee's forces around Richmond.

 

Appomattox

Custer’s cavalry had a key role in blocking the retreat of General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia during the final days of the war. Custer’s men captured Confederate supply trains and were among the first to receive Lee’s flag of truce, leading to the surrender at Appomattox Court House, which effectively ended the war. During the closing days of the war, Custer’s relentless pursuit of the Army of Northern Virginia and Gen. Robert E. Lee helped to hasten their surrender. When Sheridan's troops overran Confederate defenses at Five Forks on Saturday, April 1, 1865, Lee decided to abandon the Petersburg defenses and, in doing so, to vacate Richmond. Once this decision was made, the war was essentially over.

The prelude to Five Forks was the day before, March 31. Recognizing that Five Forks was the key to control of the Southside RR, Union forces moved around the Confederate left flank. Two simultaneous battle movements, resulting in two separate actions, resulted. At the Battle of Dinwoodie Courthouse, Sheridan attempted a flanking maneuver. At the same time, Warren moved west on White Oak Road, where a battle ensued.

Lee anticipated these movements perfectly. He sent Pickett and cavalry under Fitz Hugh Lee to meet Sheridan. Although surprised, both Union attacks prevailed and the Confederate forces suffered 1500 casualties, a huge loss considering their dwindling numbers. They retreated to Five Forks.

After the Battle of Dinwiddie Court House, V Corps infantry began to arrive near the battlefield to reinforce Sheridan's cavalry. Pickett's orders from Lee were to defend Five Forks "at all hazards" because of its strategic importance. On March 30, Warren had occupied a crucial crossroads at Five Forks where Boydton Plank Road crossed Quaker Road.  Sheridan’s cavalry, meanwhile, was rapidly advancing in a left turn aimed at Five Forks.

Lee knew Grant wouldn’t make a frontal assault, and deduced his opponent’s best option. Lee ordered Pickett’s infantry to attack Warren and Fitzhugh Lee to attack Sheridan. These attacks came as a surprise, as the Union did not see these responses. Although Dinwiddie was a tactical victory for Fitzhugh Lee, by that evening, Sheridan and Warren had merged after having caused over 1500 casualties. At Five Forks, Sheridan had defeated Pickett, who famously was not present at the battle, instead being engaged in a shad bake (because of an acoustic shadow, he never heard the fighting).. The Union force inflicted over 1,000 casualties on the Confederates and took up to 4,000 prisoners while seizing Five Forks, a vital supply line and evacuation route. The end was near, and Custer had played a significant role.

During the closing days of the war, Custer’s relentless pursuit of the Army of Northern Virginia and Gen. Robert E. Lee helped to hasten their surrender.  After a truce was arranged, General Custer was escorted through the lines to meet General Longstreet, who described Custer as having flaxen locks flowing over his shoulders. Custer said, “In the name of General Sheridan I demand the unconditional surrender of this army.” Longstreet replied that he was not in command of the army, but if he was, he would not deal with messages from Sheridan. Custer responded it would be a pity to have more blood upon the field, to which Longstreet suggested the truce be respected, and then added “General Lee has gone to meet General Grant, and it is for them to determine the future of the armies.”

Custer was in attendance at the McLean House to witness the surrender. Pictured is the furniture upon which the surrender was signed by Generals Lee and Grant at the McLean House at Appomattox. The White table and wicker chair were those used by Lee. It was purchased by General Ord who donated it to the Chicago Historical Society. it is currently on display at the Chicago Historical Museum. The leather chair and round table were used by Grant. General Sheridan bought Grant’s furniture from the McLeans and presented it to General Custer's wife as a souvenir. She used it for several years in her home, then donated it to the Smithsonian. Sheridan included a note praising Custer's gallantry. Think about how truly awesome that is, and how much Sheridan must have valued his contributions.

On April 15, 1865, Custer was promoted to major general in the U.S. Volunteers, making him the youngest major general in the Union Army at age 25. He would go on to higher glory and a crushing defeat, in the Indian Wars of the 1860s and 1870s. His background with Sherman and Sheridan, who would both go on to become Commanding Generals of the United States Army, positioned him ideally for a leading role in that conflict.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

References

·       Ambrose, Stephen E. (1996). Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors. New York: Anchor Books.

·       "George Armstrong Custer". American Battlefield Trust. November 4, 2009. 

·       Wert, Jeffry D. (1996). Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer. New York: Simon & Schuster.

·       Wittenberg, Eric J. (2001). Glory Enough for All : Sheridan's Second Raid and the Battle of Trevilian Station. Brassey's Inc.

·       https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/george-armstrong-custer

·       https://www.americancivilwarstory.com/george-armstrong-custer.html

·       https://www.historynet.com/george-custer/

·       https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/george-armstrong-custer

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/custers-first-last-stand

Peter I of Russia, more famously known as Peter the Great (1672–1725), stands as one of history's most influential monarchs. A towering figure, both literally and figuratively, Peter reshaped Russia into a modern empire, expanding its territorial reach, and left an indelible legacy that transcends borders and centuries. His reign, marked by relentless reform, military conquest, and cultural transformation, defined Russia's path as a European power. However, his rule also reflected contradictions—strengths that propelled Russia forward and weaknesses that revealed the cost of progress.

Terry Bailey explains.

A 1717 portrait of Peter I of Russia by Jean-Marc Nattier.

Strengths of Peter the Great

Peter the Great was a ruler of exceptional vision and ambition, whose leadership transformed Russia into a major European power. His determination to modernize the nation and bring it closer to Western European standards drove nearly every policy he implemented. His Grand Embassy tour of Europe (1697–1698) played a pivotal role in shaping his goals. During this journey, Peter observed Western innovations in military organization, shipbuilding, and governance, which fueled his efforts to reform Russia's military, economy, and culture.

One of Peter's most remarkable achievements was his transformation of the Russian military. Recognizing the importance of naval power, he founded the Russian Navy, a groundbreaking step for a nation that planned to expand. Peter also modernized the army by adopting European tactics, introducing advanced training programs, and ensuring access to modern weaponry. His military reforms culminated in a decisive victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War (1700–1721), securing Russia's access to the Baltic Sea and marking its emergence as a significant force in European politics.

Peter's relentless drive for reform extended beyond the battlefield. He overhauled Russia's government structure, replacing outdated systems with the meritocratic Table of Ranks, which rewarded service and talent over noble birth. His economic policies promoted the growth of industries and trade, while his cultural reforms encouraged Western dress, customs, and education, sparking a cultural renaissance in Russia.

Perhaps Peter's most enduring legacy is the city of St. Petersburg, founded in 1703. Conceived as a "window to the West," the city exemplified Peter's vision of a modern, European Russia. It's elegant architecture and strategic location on the Baltic Sea symbolized the nation's transformation under his rule. Today, St. Petersburg remains a vibrant testament to Peter's foresight and determination.

 

Weaknesses of Peter the Great

Peter the Great is celebrated as a transformative figure in Russian history, yet his autocratic rule had significant flaws that left parts of Russian society alienated and strained. His sweeping reforms centralized power in his hands, enabling rapid modernization but stifling dissent. Opposition was ruthlessly crushed, culminating in the execution of his son, Alexei, for alleged treason. This brutal approach to governance not only silenced his critics but also alienated the old nobility, who resented the erosion of their traditional influence.

The human cost of Peter's reforms was staggering. His ambitious projects, such as the conscription of peasants and forced labour to construct the new capital, St. Petersburg, were carried out with little regard for human suffering. Thousands perished in grueling conditions, with entire communities uprooted to fulfill his vision of a modern Russia. For many, his reign was one of relentless toil and sacrifice rather than progress and enlightenment.

Peter's vision of Westernization, while transformative, often came at the expense of Russia's traditional culture. His reforms clashed with Orthodox Christian values and long-standing Russian customs, creating a deep cultural rift. Critics argued that his embrace of European ideals eroded Russia's unique identity, leaving a legacy of tension between modernization and tradition.

Despite his successes, Peter's relentless drive for expansion and reform pushed Russia to its limits. His military campaigns and monumental projects depleted the treasury, while the burden of heavy taxation fell on the population. These policies, though effective in securing Russia's status as a major European power, left the country economically and socially strained.

 

Political achievements

Peter's reign marked a seismic shift in Russian governance. His restructuring of the government centralized authority, replacing old feudal systems with a more bureaucratic state. The creation of the Senate and the establishment of the Table of Ranks as indicated ensured that merit, rather than birth, determined advancement in service. Peter also established the Holy Synod, bringing the Orthodox Church under state control, which weakened ecclesiastical power and strengthened the monarchy.

 

Military achievements

Peter's military reforms were groundbreaking. He transformed a feudal army into a disciplined, professional force. His navy, built from scratch, played a pivotal role in securing Russian victories. The Battle of Poltava (1709), a turning point in the Great Northern War, showcased his strategic brilliance. By the Treaty of Nystad (1721), Russia emerged as a dominant Baltic power, establishing itself as a European player.

 

Cultural influence

Peter's Westernization policies profoundly altered Russian society. He encouraged education, established the first Russian newspaper, and founded institutions such as the Academy of Sciences. His introduction of Western dress, language, and customs brought Russia into closer alignment with Europe. However, as could be expected these changes often alienated the traditionalist segments of Russian society, creating a cultural divide that persisted long after his death.

 

The Global and long-term influence of Peter the Great

Peter the Great's reign as the ruler of Russia left a mark not only on his nation but on the global stage. His sweeping reforms and visionary leadership provided a blueprint for modernization that resonated far beyond Russia's borders. By prioritizing education, infrastructure, and military advancement, Peter established a legacy that later reformist leaders across the world sought to emulate.

One of Peter's most profound achievements was elevating Russia to the status of a European powerhouse. His transformative policies reshaped the country's economic, political, and military structures, positioning Russia to play a pivotal role in global affairs. His strategic efforts to secure warm-water ports expanded Russia's trade capabilities and influence, laying the groundwork for the empire's dominance in the 18th and 19th centuries.

St. Petersburg, the city Peter founded, stands as a lasting testament to his vision. Built to embody Russia's new identity as a modern and European-oriented nation, the city became a symbol of urban innovation and architectural grandeur. To this day, St. Petersburg reflects Peter's ambitious legacy and continues to inspire admiration for its cultural and historical significance.

Peter's influence also extended to his successors. Leaders like Catherine the Great and Alexander II drew inspiration from his commitment to reform, adopting his ideals to pursue their modernization agendas. Through their efforts, Peter's legacy of innovation and progress was carried forward, cementing his role as one of history's most influential leaders.

In conclusion, the reign of Peter the Great represents a pivotal chapter in Russian history, one defined by transformation, ambition, and complexity. His visionary leadership propelled Russia into the ranks of European powers, reshaping its military, economy, and culture. Through monumental reforms and achievements, he bridged the gap between tradition and modernity, leaving a legacy that resonates far beyond his era.

However, Peter's legacy is not without its shadows. The human cost of his ambitions and the cultural divides his reforms deepened to reflect the complexities of his rule. While his drive for Westernization modernized Russia, it also alienated traditionalists and imposed immense hardship on many of his subjects. These contradictions serve as a reminder of the dual-edged nature of his reforms: unparalleled progress achieved at significant cost.

Ultimately, Peter the Great remains a towering figure in global history, his life a testament to the power of vision and determination to shape a nation. His contributions continue to inspire debates about leadership, modernization, and the intricate balance between progress and preservation. In his legacy lies the story of a leader whose ambitions forever altered the trajectory of Russia and its place in the world.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

There are many things that can be learned from studying the history of other parts of the world, but just what can the American city of Philadelphia learn from Medieval France and Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral? Michael Leibrandt considers this question.

A depiction of Napoleon Bonaparte arriving at NotreDame Cathedral for his coronation as emperor in December 1804.

In Philadelphia we like to think that our colonial roots in history — some of the oldest and most important from the inception of the U.S. — is pretty ancient. But when is comes to the history from across the pond — from our ancestors who spawned European colonization to these colonies — we’re actually relatively youthful.

What we do have, is some of the very first history given to us from the earliest days of William Penn’s Philadelphia. Penn wasn’t just interested in a temporary settlement at the convergence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers in the 17th century. His metropolis — who name was chosen from the roots of Greek mythology — was built to last.

This week, the historic Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral — located in the 4th arrondissement on an island in the River Seine in Paris, France — reopens to the public for the first time in nearly five years. In April of 2019, the Cathedral fell victim to a fire to its structure on the roof area including its iconic spire. The resulting damage led to Notre Dame not holding a Christmas Mass for the first year since 1803.

The vision of Bishop Maurice de Sully in 1163, Notre Dame Cathedral was finally substantially complete in 1260. Through the centuries, Notre Dame Cathedral was the site of many historic events. It saw the signing of the Magnificat which liberated Paris from German control during World War II eighty years ago, saw the funerals of many French Presidents, and even was the site of Emperor Napoleon’s coronation in 1804.

Back home in Philadelphia across the Atlantic Ocean, Philadelphia’s oldest remaining structure and oldest Church in Pennsylvania was damaged in April 1964 when lighting ignited a fire sixty years ago in Old Swedes (Gloria Dei) Church under Christopher Columbus Blvd. The resulting fire damaged the roof forcing repairs to be made.

Also in 1964 — South Philadelphia’s Third Baptist Church burned to the ground and could not be saved causing $400,000 worth of damage. Within five years, the church was rebuilt and was dedicated in September of 1969. The rebuilt structure kept alive the Third Baptist Church which had been a South Philadelphia landmark since 1811.

In May of 2021 in Northeast Philadelphia — St. Leo’s Catholic Church in Tacony was burned beyond repair. Four suspects were charged in the arson of the church whose original structure that dates between 1885–1895. St. Leo’s memories were relegated to its historical time capsules.

But what Notre Dame’s five year, $740 million restoration that included some 2,000 architects isn’t just a financial commitment of epic proportions. It’s paying a homage to the past that won’t let the most historic architecture be demolished when met with modern day disasters. Philadelphia — one of America’s oldest cities that still in 2024 contains architecture from the days of its founder William Penn — shares that same resolve.

 

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.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

War is full of unlikely stories, isn't it? But what happened at Castle Itter in May 1945 almost defies belief. Imagine this: American soldiers, disillusioned German troops, and French political prisoners standing shoulder to shoulder to fend off a Waffen-SS attack. It sounds like something out of a dramatic wartime novel, or a late-night history channel special, but it's not. This really happened, complete with all its strange twists and turns.

Richard Clements explains.

Major Josef Gangl.

Castle Itter: A Fortress of Contrasts

Nestled above the Austrian village of Itter, Castle Itter has seen its share of transformations over the centuries. Originally a medieval fortress, it evolved into a 19th-century Alpine retreat, the kind of place you'd imagine travelers visiting for fresh air and sweeping mountain views. Picture it: quiet mornings with coffee on the terrace, surrounded by the majesty of the Tyrolean Alps. But history has a way of disrupting even the most tranquil settings.

In 1938, when Nazi Germany annexed Austria, the castle's fate changed dramatically. The Nazis took over and, by 1943, had turned this once-idyllic spot into a high-security prison for France's most influential captives. I've always found it jarring to imagine, a place that once welcomed guests with charm now holding figures like former French premiers Édouard Daladier and Paul Reynaud under lock and key. The contrast between its picturesque exterior and the grim reality inside is hard to shake.

 

Desperation and Calls for Help

By early May 1945, the Third Reich was in free fall. Hitler was dead, Allied forces were advancing on all fronts, and German command structures were collapsing. Castle Itter's SS guards, sensing the end, fled their posts. For the prisoners, their temporary freedom was bittersweet. They were unarmed, surrounded by hostile forests teeming with Waffen-SS troops, and unsure of their fate.

Their first hope came in the form of Zvonimir Čučković, a Yugoslav handyman. Risking everything, Čučković slipped out of the castle with a plea for help. He eventually reached American troops near Innsbruck. Meanwhile, Andreas Krobot, the castle's Czech cook, pedaled to the nearby town of Wörgl, where he found Major Josef Gangl, a Wehrmacht officer who had turned against the Nazis. Gangl was already working with Austrian resistance fighters to protect local civilians from SS reprisals.

Gangl's decision to side with the Allies wasn't simple. A decorated veteran of the Eastern Front, he had seen more than his share of the horrors inflicted by Nazi ideology. By May 1945, his disillusionment was complete. Protecting the prisoners at Castle Itter wasn't just a strategic choice; it was a deeply personal stand against a regime he no longer believed in.

 

An Unlikely Alliance

Gangl sought out Captain Jack Lee, a tank commander in the U.S. 12th Armored Division. When I picture their first meeting, I imagine a tense moment. Gangl, a former enemy, approaching with a white flag, hoping the Americans wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later. To Lee's credit, he listened. Gangl explained the situation, and the two men devised a rescue mission. It wasn't a large force – just a handful of American soldiers, some of Gangl's defecting troops, and Lee's Sherman tank, nicknamed Besotten Jenny.

By the time they reached the castle, night was falling, and tensions were high. Inside the castle, the prisoners had armed themselves with whatever they could find. Jean Borotra, the French tennis star, had taken charge of organizing them, though most were untrained in combat. Lee and Gangl knew they were outnumbered and outgunned, but retreat wasn't an option.

 

The Battle Begins

The Waffen-SS launched their attack at dawn on May 5, 1945. Machine gun fire rained down on the castle, and the SS deployed a formidable 88mm flak cannon. Besotten Jenny provided critical support until it was destroyed by enemy fire. The defenders, American GIs, Wehrmacht defectors, and French prisoners, fought side by side. Gangl, ever the protector, was killed by a sniper while trying to shield one of the French leaders from harm.

Jean Borotra was an unexpected figure in this story. A celebrated tennis champion and former French official, he seemed far removed from the violence of war. Yet, by the time he stood with a rifle in Castle Itter, the choice was clear, fight or face certain death. His courage, like that of many others in this strange battle, was a testament to the resilience of those thrust into unimaginable circumstances.

As the situation grew desperate, Borotra volunteered for a daring mission. Scaling the castle wall, he slipped past enemy lines to find reinforcements. It's hard not to marvel at his courage. Imagine sprinting through a war zone, unarmed, knowing that every step could be your last. But Borotra succeeded. He reached a nearby U.S. unit, and by mid-afternoon, reinforcements arrived. Tanks rolled up the hill, scattering the SS and securing the castle.

 

Relief and Redemption

By the time the battle ended, the defenders had achieved the impossible. Around 100 SS soldiers were captured, and the castle was safe. But the victory came at a cost. Major Gangl's death was a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who stood against tyranny, even at great personal risk.

Gangl was posthumously honored as a hero of the Austrian resistance, with a street in Wörgl named after him. Captain Lee was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his leadership. The French prisoners, including Borotra, returned to France as symbols of resilience and survival.

 

A Moment of Shared Purpose

The Battle of Castle Itter is more than a bizarre historical event – it's a stark reminder of how humanity can emerge in even the darkest moments of war. Think about it: American soldiers and disillusioned Germans, once fierce adversaries, joining forces to defend French prisoners. For a few hours, all the labels – enemy, ally, prisoner, faded, leaving behind something simpler and more profound: the will to survive together.

When I reflect on this story, it's the humanity that stands out. War often draws hard lines between people, but this battle reminds us that those lines aren't as immovable as they seem. Sometimes, shared danger is enough to bring people together, even when everything else says they should be divided.

 

The Castle Today

Castle Itter still stands, quiet and unassuming, on its hill above the village. Its weathered stones, scarred from the events of May 1945, seem almost reluctant to reveal the extraordinary story they witnessed. To me, that makes its story even more compelling. It's not just a relic of history; it's a reminder of what can happen when courage and circumstance push people to rise above the divisions of war.

This is a tale worth telling, not just for its strangeness, but for the glimpse it offers into the complexities of human nature. The walls of Castle Itter hold more than memories; they hold a legacy of unity in the face of chaos.

 

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

·       Bell, Bethany. "The Austrian Castle Where Nazis Lost to German-US Force." BBC News, 7 May 2015.

·       Harding, Stephen. The Last Battle. Da Capo Press, 2013.

·       Rampe, Will. "Why the Battle of Castle Itter Is the Strangest Battle in History." The Spectator, 28 April 2022.

·       Wands, Christopher. "Strange History: The Battle of Castle Itter." The Historians Magazine, 2022.

·       Various authors, "Battle of Castle Itter," Wikipedia, accessed 2023.