The British in India and Native Soldiers – Image of the week

Our image of the week shows an impact of British colonial rule in India, the use of Indian soldiers as British forces.

The British ran India – or at least parts of it – for hundreds of years. This led to a number of, shall we say, interesting outcomes. From bizarre social customs to ‘White Mughals’, there were a number of fascinating results.

Another of these interesting outcomes is shown below in our image of the week.

The image shows us a group of redcoats, British soldiers, but with a twist. Rather than coming from Britain, these soldiers were Indian. Known as sepoys these troops were very important to British rule in India. Indeed, without them it would have been nearly impossible to run a country the size - and with the population - of India.

In the painting we can see troops in a variety of different-colored clothing, turbans, flags in their hands, and a variety of facial hair! Behind them are troops high-up on camels. A fascinating scene.

You can find more about the British in India in the new issue of History Is Now Magazine. The magazine is free now for one month or more on both Android and the iOS store.

Click here for more details: Android | Apple iOS

Image source

http://history1800s.about.com

The tale of the last American World War I Battle – That took place for a bath

In this sadly fascinating article, Robert Walsh considers an American battle that took place on the last day of World War I – and the absurd and terrible reason behind it.

You’re a General, a Divisional commander no less. You have 10,000-12,000 soldiers under your personal command. You know the war is hours away from ending, that a peace deal has been agreed. It’s just a matter of ordering your men to hold their positions, keep their heads down and wait until the war officially ends. So you would, wouldn’t you? After all, there’s no sense in ordering your division to attack and cause heavy casualties, on both sides, when if you wait a few more hours they can march through former enemy territory without a shot fired.

This is exactly what US Army General William Wright, commanding the 89th infantry Division, DIDN’T do.

General William Wright, who ordered his 89th Infantry Division to take Stenay so they could take a bath.

Even more bizarre than committing his division regardless of there being no military need was his stated reason for ordering his men to take the French town of Stenay. Stenay was the last French town captured by American troops. It was (and still is) just a pleasant-looking town of no real military value and didn’t have much worth fighting over. It did have public bathing facilities, though, and it was so his men could have a wash and shave that Wright sent them to take the town.

Yes, with only hours left in the war, Wright sent an entire division risking their lives so the ones who didn’t die taking Stenay could have a bath there. Orders being orders, they didn’t get to choose whether or not to risk dying so they could have a soak in the tub. They were simply handed their orders and sent into battle even after they’d been told the Armistice was only hours away. Pershing knew about the Armistice. Wright knew about the Armistice. Everybody down to the newest Private in the Division knew about the Armistice, but they were sent anyway. Assuming the attack wasn’t repulsed, assuming the Americans captured Stenay without being wiped out, assuming that the public baths hadn’t been destroyed and that they actually had enough water to cater for a division of tired, cold, wet, filthy soldiers who’d been in the line for nearly two weeks, any American who wasn’t killed capturing the baths could get to sit in one. The 89th Infantry Division would have the distinction of taking the last objective to fall to American troops during the First World War. Their commander would have the distinction of ordering one of the most pointless attacks in military history.

THE BATTLE FOR A BATH

Despite the fact that the war was within hours of ending, Stenay wasn’t what you’d call a soft target. Although the German Army was a shadow of its previous size and effectiveness the troops holding Stenay had artillery, machine guns, large numbers of infantry and the infantryman’s most feared and hated adversary, snipers, who were operating in numbers around Stenay. Plus, Stenay was on a hill overlooking the Meuse River. American troops would have to cross the Meuse in single file, on improvised walkways, under heavy artillery, rifle, machine gun and sniper fire because the bridges had all been blown before they arrived. Stenay wasn’t in the league of the Hindenburg Line, but it certainly wasn’t a walk in the park either.

So, regardless of it being totally unnecessary, likely to cause heavy casualties on both sides and the actual objective being entirely absurd, the 89th went forward and captured Stenay. From starting their advance towards Stenay at around 8am on November 11, 1918 until the official start of the Armistice at 11am, the 89th Infantry Division suffered 365 casualties. 61 men killed, 304 wounded, just because the Divisional commander thought those who survived might want to have a bath and a shave. It’s perhaps no coincidence that, while the attack on Stenay was the last action fought by the 89th, it was also the last day in command for General Wright. On November 12, Major General Frank Winn (one of the 89th’s previous commanders) arrived at Divisional HQ and immediately replaced Wright as the 89th’s commander.

When Wright’s decision to attack and his reason became public knowledge there was an outcry back home. Americans, not least the friends and relatives of the soldiers killed attacking Stenay, demanded to know exactly why Wright had made so dreadful a decision. Despite a public inquiry into events of November 11 and the pointless attacks ordered by Wright and some other American commanders, Wright himself was never disciplined. Following the war, General Wright became the Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the United States Army and acting Army Chief of Staff, and then commanded IX Corps. Before his retirement in 1923 he commanded the Department of the Philippines. In retirement he resided in Washington, D.C. It isn’t just that he wasn’t disciplined over Stenay, he was rewarded with plum Washington postings.

With Remembrance in mind, it would be unfair and ignorant not to acknowledge the full scope of Wright’s culpability. The 365 Americans killed or wounded were attacking on Wright’s orders. Wright’s stated objective had no military value, the Americans could simply have waited a few hours and then walked into Stenay without so much as a shot fired. And let’s not forget the German casualties. The Germans also suffered significant casualties during the fighting around Stenay. Those Germans died within hours of the Armistice, and they died in a totally unnecessary battle that only General William Wright seemed to think was a good idea.

This article was provided by Robert Walsh from robertwalshwriter.wordpress.com, an enjoyable and diverse site.

If you want to tell others about the article, please like it, tweet about it, or share it! Click one of the buttons below.

How the Other Half Lived: Rich and Poor Women in Victorian Britain

In her latest article, Georgie Broad reflects on the life of women in Victorian Britain. She does so by contrasting the lives of rich and poor – and then showing just what these two very different groups had in common.

Few eras in history can evoke such ideas of contrast between the lives of different people as that of the Victorian era of 1837-1901 in Britain. The reign of Queen Victoria brought with it an age of prosperity and national pride in Britain, and is often considered one of the most important and influential times in the country’s history.

As easy as it is to romanticize this period, especially given the push toward arts, a more gentile and sentimentalized way of life, and the stirrings of a more liberal type of politics, we must also remember the vast divides in lifestyle, and gender and class equality. This can be seen in the rigid class division of the time. Four main classes existed: the nobility and gentry at the top of the ladder, trailed by the middle class (often these two are combined to cover the “upper class” in general), and then the “upper” working class, swiftly followed by the poorest of the poor, the “lower” working class (again, these latter two are often combined to form the “lower class” as a whole).

The best way to not only explain and investigate class differences, but to highlight just how vast the problems of inequality and division were at the time, is to consider rich and poor in turn. There was the rich lady, who led the nostalgically stylized view of Victorian life – all bustles, petticoats and jewels, and conversely there was the somewhat less rosy existence of the poor woman; a life of chimney sweeping, workhouses, and prostitution.

PART I: THE RICH

Victorian England was a man’s world. More specifically, it was a rich, upper-class, man’s world, and even better if you had land, a large house, a title, and a doting wife. Women of this class enjoyed a life full of all the things money could buy; travel, fine clothes, good food and of course, servants and staff to do chores for them. 

The Victorian upper-classes in their fine clothes.

Their allotted goal in life was to marry, have children and raise them in an appropriate and respectful manner. This in itself was seen to be sufficient fulfillment for an upper class woman and the role of devoted wife and mother was highly idealized in Victorian Britain. The perfect role model for the domesticity expected of upper, and especially middle class women, was that of Victoria herself, who doted upon her husband and children, and after Albert’s death remained loyal, modest and demure – engrossing herself in her regal affairs.

Unlike their lower class counterparts, upper class Victorian women more often than not had staff to help with the running of their home and the raising of their children, leaving them with plenty of time to enjoy the finer things in life. Dancing and grand social parties were commonplace in the lives of wealthy Victorian women, and offered them a chance to mingle with other women of similar backgrounds and to show off their fineries. However, in doing so, the ladies had to remember to adhere to certain unspoken rules of etiquette, lest they come across as vulgar and gain an unsavory reputation among the other members of the elite. The rules ranged from what kind of jewelry to wear, to where and with whom they were allowed to walk.

Aside from the work (or lack thereof) that upper class Victorian women did, the most interesting and noticeable way to distinguish between rich and poor women was clothing. The images we have today of Victorian women, clad in fine fabrics, grand dresses, bonnets and petticoats, are the clothes of the upper classes. They would be expensive, exotic and made to impress – but also came imbued with many subtle reminders of the upper class woman’s place. It was at this time in the 19th century that women’s clothes in the upper echelons of society came to be more sexualized. Women’s clothing accentuated and exaggerated the hips, breasts and derriere not only to make the wearer seem more attractive, but to separate these wealthy ladies from the world of work. Obviously, it would be beyond impractical to be in a workhouse or cleaning in a heavy and corseted dress, and so in wearing such clothes, the rich were making a subtle but definitive statement: no manual labor for us. Instead, the garments were designed beautifully so that women may resemble and compliment the décor of their lavish home, where they could look after their family and entertain, minus the strains and stresses of working and getting messy.

PART II: THE POOR

So, although the upper class life seemed pretty settled, they weren’t as secure as they may have appeared, as many of the middle class women risked slipping into the “upper” sector of the lower class through the death of a father or husband. As was and is often the case in noble families, inheritance would go to the eldest male child or next-of-kin, so many women were often left by the wayside, without money or a home. These women would be employed in jobs that required skills, often ones that had been acquired during their time in the upper and middle classes, such as teachers and governesses. Some even worked in shops or as bookkeepers. They had a comfortable life, not being exactly poor, with steady jobs and no manual labor involved; however it was a far cry from their previous lives of leisure, and an even further cry from the lives of the lowest class of Victorian women; those of the “lower” working class. 

Women working in the 'wash-house at the Brixton prison.'

t was the “lower” working class that we generally associate with the “other end of the spectrum” that we contrast with the lavish lifestyle of the ladies of leisure. Their food was tasteless and consisted of anything that they could afford, their clothes were vastly different from the luxurious outfits of the upper class women – consisting of rag and cheap cloth, and their homes would be cold, dank and dark. These women were usually single, and relied only upon themselves for support, often working among men of the same class in workhouses. Life in the workhouses was arduous and dangerous, but as long as the women were pronounced as “able bodied” they had to work, not only because of the legal requirement to do so, but to scrape together any money they could.

Another trade which lower class women could turn their hand to was that of domestic service. Although it was not as physically draining as factory work, it had its own difficulties. Catering for the demanding upper class ladies all day and cleaning up after their families seven days a week, for at least twelve hours a day, was in itself a monumental task, especially when if anything were to go wrong in the family it would be the servants who were to get the blame.

One of the less grim work options for women of this class was to turn to prostitution. Prostitution in Victorian Britain was a prevalent and often well earning business, with streets and streets dedicated to its work. Many girls turned to prostitution, viewing it as a means to an end - a way to build up capital so that they may invest in a business or live a more comfortable life. However, many of these young women had their lives cut tragically short by untreated sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), which of course they passed on to a great many of their customers who could also fall victim to the more fatal side of the trade.

NOT SO DIFFERENT

Although women in the upper and lower classes had many differences, they also had some similarities. Women in the Victorian era were very much seen as second best to men, as a trophy, a wife and a mother, and were expected to be content with this role in society. It was toward the end of the Victorian era that the women’s suffrage movement began in the United Kingdom. Women of every class came together to stand against the injustice and inequality of the voting system and to lobby for their right to vote.

So despite the vast differences between the women in this era, their similarities encouraged a change that shaped the history of Britain. Between the idealized view of Victorian life demonstrated by upper class women and the less desirable lifestyle of poorer women, we can learn a lot about the society of Victorian Britain, and begin to sense the stirrings of one of the most important and dramatic social changes in history.

Now, listen to our new podcast about a dark crime in Victorian London. Click here.

And if you enjoyed the article, like it, tweet about it, or share it! Click one of the buttons below.

References

Images

• http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6fgaguD08Jg/TV8-JCZxhbI/AAAAAAAAAo0/kHfS_ga-0rI/s1600/Victorian_fashions.jpg
• http://waywardwomen.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/brixton-prison.gif

Text sources

• www.newsteg.com/index.php/females-in-victorian-era
• www.bl.uk/learning/hiscitizen/victorians/peor/workingclass.htm
• kspot.org/holmes/kelsey.htm
• www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/jonesc/jonesc_index/teaching/birth/uk11_victorian_britain_handout.pdf 

The Poignant Bubble Boy – Image of the Week

This week we have a painting that we want you to reflect on. We printed it recently in an article of ours, but it seems powerful for so many reasons.

The Bubble Boy is a painting by the artist Paul Peel from 1884 that is housed in the Art Gallery of Ontario. We’re deliberately not going to write about the painting, except to say that it seems to us to be very poignant.

We’ll let you decide what exactly that poignancy may be….

What do you think? Do please share below.

The painting The Bubble Boy is included in the new issue of History is Now magazine – click here to download it and find out why (note – this is the iOS link; the Android release is imminent!).

George Levrier-Jones

Victory against the odds? Scotland, Civil War and the Battle of Inverlochy

In this article, Chris Marsh continues his tale of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in Scotland, and concludes with the legendary Battle of Inverlochy.

At the end of the last post, we left Montrose and Alasdair and their small army marching away from Inverary in mid-January 1645. A force of some 3,000 men, they were laden with booty and the principal township of the lands of Clan Campbell sat a smoking ruin behind them.

This small Royalist army, fighting to secure Scotland for King Charles I, had won two of the six victories that they were ultimately to secure, but the circumstances in which they now found themselves could scarcely be less favorable. They were deep in the hostile territory of Argyll in the depths of winter. The Marquis of Argyll, Chief of Clan Campbell and de facto head of Scotland’s covenanting government was assembling strong forces to attack them and avenge this assault on his home territory and, equally importantly, his personal political status.

Additionally, but probably unbeknownst to Montrose, General William Baillie had been newly appointed as the commander in chief of the government forces. An old soldier of Gustavus Adolphus and veteran of Marston Moor, Baillie was his own man and did not hesitate in refusing to take instructions from Argyll when they met to discuss the pursuit of the Royalist army. Although he did transfer to the Earl’s command some 1,100 of his regular troops, Baillie now sat in Perth with a sizeable force thus constituting a significant but unknown threat to the eastern flank of Montrose’s route north.

The Old Inverlochy Castle, with Ben Nevis in the background. Source: DJ Macpherson, from geograph.org.uk. 2008.

The whole campaign, this famous Year of Victories, is often presented as a random perambulation of epic marches over snow-bound mountain passes punctuated by spectacular military victories with perhaps insufficient effort taken to understand the aims and purpose of the King’s Captain-General.

And it is at this point that we might more closely examine the situation in which he found himself and the options that were open to him, all seen within the context of what it was he was trying to achieve.

In England, the King’s army under Prince Rupert had suffered a heavy defeat at Marston Moor the previous summer but was still in the field and final victory remained possible. Ultimately the field actions which would determine the winner in the struggle between the King and his parliaments would be fought in the southern Kingdom. Montrose, therefore, had to first win Scotland for his King then take his army south to join with Rupert and defeat the army of the English Parliament. Only then could Charles be restored to the unified throne.

IN HOSTILE TERRITORY

All of this was still a long way off. The immediate task facing Montrose was to defeat conclusively the various armies of the Scottish covenanting parliament.  As he marched his army north from Argyll negotiating the comb-fretted difficulties of the landscape of the west highland coast where the land was punctuated by deep sea lochs and boats were a scarcity, he would have been considering how best to achieve this goal.

Within a week they had made it to Inverlochy in the friendly territory of Lochaber where, as they rested, they were joined by further reinforcements as various clan chiefs, pushed off the fence of vacillation by the outcome of the remarkable attack on Inveraray now, rallied to the King’s standard.

However, much of Scotland was still hostile territory for the King’s army. In the far north at Inverness, the Earl of Seaforth, Clan Chief of the MacKenzies, who like many powerful men in Scotland had for long avoided full commitment to either cause had recently declared against the King. It was likely that he would soon be heading south down the Great Glen at the head of another sizeable force, bent on the destruction of Montrose’s command. By now Montrose would be aware of Baillie’s army positioned to the east in Perth and confirmation was also received that the Earl of Argyll approached from the south with the remainder of his Clan Campbell’s soldiery as well as the 1,100 hundred men supplied by Baillie.

Positioned thus between three hostile forces, each of which matched or exceeded his own in size, he probably determined that the best course of action was to seek out Clan Gordon in the north east. The Gordons were second only in size and martial strength to the Campbells. And alone among the highland clans they had a measurable element of mounted men at their disposal. The Marquis of Huntly, Chief of Clan Gordon, had hitherto declined to declare support for his beleaguered monarch. Partly through resentment that Montrose had been given the royal commission in the first place, a rank which diminished his own of Lieutenancy of the North, and partly also due to previous disagreements between the two men during the Bishops Wars half a dozen years previously.

Nonetheless, in Montrose’s eyes, despite his victories at the Battles of Tippermuir and Justice Mills and the recent outstanding success in sacking Inverary, the struggle in Scotland now required the input of the Gordons if it were to be ultimately successful. And it was this challenge of persuading Huntly to throw in his lot with his King which would have pre-occupied Montrose’s mind as he led his army up the Great Glen where they overnighted at Kilcumin (now Fort Augustus) on the evening of January 31.

MONTROSE CHANGES THE PLAN

Events, however, were about to overtake him and his plans for sweet-talking the Marquis of Huntly would have to be shelved forthwith. Firstly a messenger arrived at their camp confirming that the Earl of Seaforth had assembled some five thousand men, Mackenzies and Frasers mostly but also two regiments of regular soldiery. Presently, some thirty miles away, they were about to march directly down the Great Glen to engage him. As he weighed up the implications of this news another messenger arrived. He had been sent north from Lochaber by the Chief of the Camerons of Lochiel and advised that the Earl of Argyll had arrived at Inverlochy, thirty odd miles to the south, with over three thousand men and was on the point of heading up the Great Glen to find and engage Montrose.

So what now for the King’s Captain-General? A numerically superior force approached from the north, with another heading up from the south similar in size to his own and hell-bent on revenge. Baillie’s army blocked the route east, and to the west there was only the winter-gripped barrenness of the highland seaboard.

Negotiations with Huntly and the work of increasing the size of the King’s army would now have to wait as the fate of the royalist army, with it, the King’s cause in Scotland, and perhaps throughout the three kingdoms, was now threatened with disastrous defeat.

Stood around the campfire on that winter’s evening, Montrose, Alasdair MacColla and the principal clan chiefs now discussed their options. Seaforth’s force was perhaps twice their size, but the caliber of much of that they knew to be questionable. But Argyll’s assembly of Clan Campbell’s finest fighting stock, notwithstanding the losses suffered in the attack on Inverary, was a different matter altogether and included the 1,100 regulars handed over by Baillie. And even if Montrose were to engage and defeat Seaforth, Argyll’s men would still need to be faced in turn. Furthermore it was clear that as this force had made their way north they had taken time to burn and pillage through the territory of any believed to be in sympathy with Montrose. Men who stood with him now were moved to protect their own lands.

Thus the decision as to their next move made itself. Once victorious over Argyll they could then march to Gordon country, with a greater likelihood of success in persuading them to join forces.

INTO HISTORY

However, to simply turn about and head back down the glen to attack Argyll was to invite defeat. It would require a different approach if their unlikely record of success was to be maintained. And so in the dark of the following morning, Friday January 31, Montrose and his army of three thousand men embarked on that legendary flank march which has been deemed one of the great exploits of arms in the history of the British Isles. With the Great Glen carving a gash from south east to north west, they disappeared south east up the rocky course of the little River Tarff and disappeared into the mountains.

Over the next thirty-six hours they covered over thirty miles in weather as unkind as the Scottish winter can deliver, as Argyll and Seaforth’s scouts combed the Great Glen fruitlessly. Late on the Saturday evening they crossed over the northern buttress of Ben Nevis’ long slope and looked down upon the dark mass of Inverlochy Castle with the many camp fires of Clan Campbell dotted around it. The surprise was complete. Montrose, who had been confirmed at Loch Ness not two days before, now stood at the head of his army ready to attack them.

Argyll himself, recently injured in a horse fall and with little stomach for pitched battle, conferred full authority on his kinsman Duncan Auchenbreck, who he had, to be truthful, recalled from Ireland specifically to lead this army. And the Chief of Clan Campbell was rowed out to his waiting galley which sat at anchor safely out on Lich Linnhie.

Both armies lined up in battle order and waited out the remainder of the freezing night. As soon as there was deemed to be enough light to fight by, Alasdair, at Montrose’s direction led the two flanks of Irishmen forward. When they were close to the enemy they fired their muskets, then followed up with sword and dirk. In just a few minutes the enemy flanks were in disarray and the center quickly followed suit with many of the regular troops fleeing the field. At this point Montrose took the royalist center forward and completed the rout.

Inverlochy was to be one of the bloodiest battles fought on Scottish soil, and as is so often the case in such circumstances, the majority of the slaughter was carried out on a terrified and defeated rabble as they fled the field. About 1,800 men of Argyll’s force met their end, some as far away as ten miles from the battlefield.

This success following so close on from the triumph of the raid on Inveraray would have been more than Montrose could have hoped for just two months previously. In the immediate aftermath of the fight he wrote a comprehensive dispatch to his King detailing the recent successes and anticipating, not without some cause, ultimate victory.

This article was written by Chris Marsh, who blogs at www.bonniedundee1689.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the article? If so, like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below!

How Empires made our world. History is Now Magazine – May Issue

Empires define the world we live in. And they still touch many aspects of our lives from wars people we know are involved in to which television programs we watch. So the new issue of History is Now magazine is an Empire special in which across a number of articles we look at various aspects of empires past and present.

The new issue of History is Now magazine is out now.

To find out more, take up a free trial of the magazine for up to 2 months and download your free copy of our interactive digital magazine for the iPad and iPhone today!

Click here for more information!

Plus, the new issue is available in a text version – perfect for smaller devices.

And coming within the next week – History is Now magazine for Android!

And here is what our editor has to say about the new issue…

Welcome to the May issue of History is Now magazine! As you may have guessed from our cover, we’ve done something a bit different this month…

We have a special issue that has a focus on empire. More specifically, we’re going to be looking at a range of views and stories on empires. And unfortunately for those who think that empire was good for the world, the views expressed are often less than positive. We have an article on the British in India in which the intriguing customs that sprung up in British India are considered. The article also looks at the importance of women in British rule, as well as the often racist views that underpinned the system. Following, we have another article by somebody who had less than flattering views on empire – famed writer George Orwell. He spent time working in British Burma and grew to loathe empire. Then we have a piece on the remnants of American Empire and how a colonial legacy has left one island in limbo.

Finally on empire, we have an article by somebody who did like empire. We explore the Ashanti Wars and the views of George Clarke Musgrave, a journalist who accompanied the British military to West Africa. There he came face-to-face with a brutal king and saw his beloved Britain regain control of a troublesome region.

But there is more. We also look at the story of one of the greatest economic bubbles in history. This tale involves Mississippi, France, and an outlandish Scotsman. Then we take a look at the stories behind some beautiful maps from the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. And to finish, we’ll also be starting an occasional feature in which we bring you some of the best articles from our blog. This month we shall be sharing an article on a bizarre World War I invention with you.

Click here for more information and to take up your free trial

With all that and more, come and join us inside for a free trial of up to 2 months…

Just click here for more information! Alternatively search for History is Now on the iOS app store.

George Levrier-Jones

The legend of Giuseppe Garibaldi – A hero for all ages?

In this article, Helen Saker-Parsons considers the enduring legacy of Giuseppe Garibaldi, one of the founders of modern-day Italy. In his own lifetime he led armies and had numerous relationships. He was also adored by the great men of his age – and later ages. 

What makes a person more important, the legacy they leave or the reputation they hold whilst alive? For Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807 -1882), one of Italy’s founding fathers, his popularity since his death is only matched by the accolades he received when alive. At the time many women sought locks of his hair, some left their husbands and a few aristocratic ladies risked their reputations for him. American generals wanted him on their side in the US Civil War; Russian peasants carried his icon; Balkan revolutionaries waited for him to lead them and an Anglo-French dispute erupted when a bullet went missing in his ankle. In Italy there are streets, piazzas and buildings that bear his name. In England he was the inspiration for a football (soccer) kit, and more significantly, for a biscuit. So why is the ‘French’ mercenary soldier heralded as an Italian and international hero?

Giuseppe Garibaldi by Gerolamo Induno

Garibaldi was born in Nice in 1807, a town that vacillated between France and Italy throughout his life. He started his career as a merchant seaman and his travels brought him into contact with Giuseppe Mazzini’s Young Italy movement, la Giovine Italia – whose main aim was to bring about the Risorgimento or creation of a united Italian republic. It was his role in the failed Mazzini insurrection in Genoa in 1834 that forced his exile to South America and was to shape the person that became the legend. For twelve years Garibaldi combined sea-faring with guerrilla warfare in South America, fighting for the independence of southern Brazil and Uruguay. He discovered an aptitude for military leadership and a fascination for the gaucho traditions of his new home: adopting their fashions of red shirts and ponchos. When the Revolutions of 1848 broke out across Europe, he returned to Italy and led a heroic defense of the Republic of Rome against French and Papal forces. This brave but ultimately disastrous attempt won him fame and fans – both of which increased further after his conquest of Sicily in 1860. The world spoke of the charismatic commander who led an army of volunteers known as “The Thousand.” This army adorned red shirts like the gauchos and lassoed stray animals, but also vanquished a large professional army, swept across southern Italy and entered Naples in triumph - all within four months. Popular support for Garibaldi in Europe and the Americas reached near-hysterical proportions.

SPORT AND BISCUITS

When exiled to America, in the early 1850s, Garibaldi’s host in Staten Island was Antonio Meucci, the man often accredited with inventing the first telephone but now also renowned for having employed Garibaldi in his candle factory. Garibaldi’s reputation stretched further in the Americas; US President Abraham Lincoln even offered him the role of Major General in the US Army. But Britain was not to be outdone in its adulation. Having no Civil War to fight it honored the hero in other ways. In 1864 ‘Garibaldimania’ swept through England as Garibaldi paid a visit. After alighting from his train in London the newspapers reported it took him six hours to travel three miles through the crowds. Potteries in Staffordshire released popular figurines of him. Nottingham Forest football club, founded in 1865, designed their red kit in honor of him. But arguably more impressive was the honor bestowed by a Bermondsey factory, Peek Freans, which in 1861 gave their new biscuit his name - although the reasons why are disputed. In 1854, when visiting Tynemouth, Garibaldi allegedly sat on an Eccles Cake and flattened it, thus producing the familiar looking snack. Others claim that it was so-called because it had the appearance of the raison bread served to his troops, or more grotesquely that it resembled bread and berries soaked in horse’s blood which the redshirts were given and which attracted the flies.

Garibaldi’s international reputation was not merely on the political stage; it was also on the personal one. He proved a hit amongst the world’s women, as they adorned red dresses and blouses in honor of the Garibaldini. He showed a certain penchant for younger ladies and was already in his thirties when he acquired his first wife, a married Brazilian teenager: Anna Maria Reveira da Silva (known as Anita). Anita had been forced to marry a local shoemaker at fifteen, but he left her for army service. Whilst still only eighteen in 1839, she had been standing on a hill when Garibaldi’s ship sailed into port. He had spotted her through his telescope and on disembarkation made it his mission to find the woman who had entranced him so. He succeeded and she immediately fell for his charms, left with him, gave him a child, and eventually became his wife three years later, once widowed. She travelled to Europe to fight alongside her hero husband and bear him several more children. But in 1849, when fleeing Rome and heavily pregnant, she succumbed to malaria and died.

ADORED BY WOMEN AND INTELLECTUALS

Garibaldi’s love-life throughout the 1850s was less committed with several alleged engagements, at least one illegitimate child, and a marriage which lasted a day. His lovers were varied. They included the Englishwomen Emma Roberts and Jesse White, an Italian countess called Maria della Torre (the rebellious daughter of the Count of Salasco), and a divorced German baroness - Esperanza von Schwartz (who refused his proposal in 1857). He completed the decade through a dalliance with the housekeeper from Caprera (the island he bought in 1854 with money earned in America), Battistina Ravello, with whom he had a daughter in 1859. He began the next decade with his second marriage to Guisippina Raimondi, but he left her the following day having heard rumors she had spent the night before with another man and/or was five months pregnant with his child. Garibaldi was able to continue his merry-making simultaneously with his political campaigning. In 1879 he combined a trip to Rome to organize parliamentary opposition with having his 20 year marriage annulled so he could marry for a third time. Francesca Armasino had already borne him several children, and continued his preference for younger woman. She had arrived on Caprera in 1867, aged nineteen, as a nurse to Garibaldi’s grandchildren.

Garibaldi was a charismatic man with many honorable policies. He aroused the admiration of contemporary intellectuals such as Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas, as well as subsequent ones: the historian AJP Taylor describes him as the ‘only wholly admirable figure in history.’ He had seen for himself the hard democracy of the pampas, where all men were treated as equals. He was a republican foremost, but somebody who accepted the role of the monarchy as a means to an end. He called for the legal and political emancipation of women, racial equality, and the abolition of capital punishment. He was a tireless combatant against the clerical power of the Catholic Church, which he saw as the bastardization of religion, and instead adhered to the beliefs of St. Simonianism whose creed was: "from each according to his capacity: to each according to his works; the end of the exploitation of man by man; and the abolition of all privileges of birth.” Indeed, in 1861 he refused Abraham Lincoln’s requests to join his army when Lincoln would not make the abolition of slavery one of his war aims.

CREATING A NATION

Flattery and public adulation, however, never deflected Garibaldi from his chief objective, which was to free Italy from foreign oppression and bring about its unification. He had moved some way from the ideals of la Giovine Italia, believing that unification under the Piedmontese monarch was more viable than a republic. These aims were partly fulfilled in 1860 with the annexation of southern Italy to the Kingdom of Piedmont and the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, but neither Venice nor Rome and the Papal States formed part of the new political entity. Garibaldi was determined that Rome, the symbol of a united Italy, should be at the heart of the Kingdom of Italy. Although the Italian government was reluctant to launch a military campaign against the Pope, Garibaldi resolved to take matters into his own hands - with the aid of three thousand Garibaldini. Thus in August 1862 a sea of red marched on Rome in open defiance of Victor Emanuel II to whom he had previously pledged loyalty. Fearing international reactions, the Italian government hastily dispatched troops to stop his advance. The two armies came face to face on the mountain of Aspromonte in Calabria on August 29, 1862. When the regular troops opened fire, Garibaldi could not bring himself to shoot at fellow Italians and ordered a cease-fire. During the confusion he received three gunshot wounds, one of which entered his right ankle. Briefly imprisoned for treason in Spezia, Garibaldi continued to inspire support and sympathy from all quarters: Lady Palmerston sent him an invalid bed in which to recuperate. Without the benefit of x-rays, visiting physicians were unable to conclude whether the bullet remained in the ankle and it brought eminent experts from France and England in to dispute. Eventually the French won by inventing a porcelain-tipped probe that stained with the presence of lead and proved the existence of the bullet.

But the French were not to win against the Prussians in the war of 1870-71, and Italy took advantage of the French defeat to finally expel the last of the French troops from its land and achieve its Risorgimento in 1871. The ultimate success might have owed more to the pragmatic politician Camillo di Cavour than Garibaldi, but it is the latter who remains the resonating romantic hero. Garibaldi was a visionary; many of his ideals became reality. Italy has remained unified despite some toing and froing of territory during the two world wars and in spite of examples of extreme regional rivalries (especially over who has the best cuisine!). But another of Garibaldi’s dreams has also been theoretically realized – that of a unified Europe. He also believed that this would best be led by Germany. And so Garibaldi could add ‘visionary’ to his long list of admirable qualities. And if he were alive today, of which long-lasting legacy would he be most proud? I think he would be impressed with the achievements of the European community and Italy’s role within it. Europe as a united, peace-making body has progressed with the times in the post-war era; unfortunately the same cannot be said for the lowly ranked Nottingham Forest!

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The fascinating book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Helen has also written a historical fiction book related to World War I, Searching for Cecil. It is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

If you enjoyed the article, please like, tweet about, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

Charles Dickens & Poverty – And what he might think of Britain today

In this article, Jennifer Johnstone looks at what Charles Dickens thought about poverty in 19th century Britain. And considers what Dickens may think about modern-day attempts to reduce the size of the British Welfare State.

No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.

- Charles Dickens

By observing Charles Dickens’ work, what is clear is that poverty is a major theme. Dickens was an outspoken social critic in general, but especially about poverty. Before the birth of Britain’s Welfare State, which aims to support the poor, Dickens sought to help the poor by highlighting the social inequality in his country. In this respect, Charles Dickens was a man ahead of his time. The British Welfare State was founded in 1945, with the aim of providing people with a safety net ‘from cradle to grave.’ Dickens identified the reality of poverty many years before that. He acknowledged that poverty was not the fault of the people who endured it, but rather, the fault of the establishment, including the government. Indeed, I daresay that he would be of the same view today – that poverty is the fault of the government.

Mr Bumble, the beadle from the workhouse, leading Oliver Twist. The painting is based on the book Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens.

How would Charles Dickens view modern poverty?

The short answer is: he would have had as much contempt for the way society treats the poor today as he did when he was alive. With modern Britain vilifying the poor, or those on benefits, Dickens would have seen this as an attack on the poor; instead of society trying to eradicate poverty, society is blaming the poor for something that is outside of their control. Victorian Britain condemned ‘idleness.’  This Victorian attitude is something that we see creeping back into modern society. Since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain has been slowly eradicating its Welfare State. This weakening of the Welfare State is essentially attacking the poor, because, the poor rely on the Welfare State, whether they are the working poor, or the unemployed poor.

Dickens would have seen this as classism. And condemned it as such. He quite clearly condemns classism in Oliver Twist, and A Christmas Carol. Dickens, in both these works, portrays the rich as greedy, and as people who are unsympathetic to the poor.

The Poor Law

Dickens condemned ‘The Poor Law.’ This law resulted in the middle and upper-classes paying less to support the poor. In much the same way, Dickens would have said that cutting poor people’s benefits in modern Britain, was about punishing the poor. The book A Christmas Carol comes to mind at this point; we can view Scrooge as the symbol of taking more and more from the poor. We can see similarities with the Poor Law, and cuts to unemployment benefits today.

But, was Dickens right, was the Poor Law an attack on those who were poor? I think the answer is yes. The first reason is that The Poor Law attacked the impoverished, and meant that the richest contributed less. The second reason why the Poor Law attacked the poorest was because it forced people into the horrible workhouses. Workhouses were deliberately cruel. Usually one would only enter a workhouse as a last resort; they were internationally hard places to live in, forcing people into work in harsh conditions, even children. Not only that, but, as we see in Oliver Twist, people were not given an adequate living area, and nor were they fed well. Proper nutrition was absent within workhouses, except for the rich who worked in them.

Within the workhouses, people were essentially treated like prisoners; not human beings who were just unlucky enough to be born into poverty. The only seeming difference with workhouses and prisons was that the door was always open with workhouses. But, in reality, people did not have the choice to leave as they had no means to support themselves.

Oliver Twist

Dickens novel Oliver Twist is about an orphan boy. In the novel, Oliver is born within a poorhouse, but his mother dies. Later Oliver is sent to an ‘infant farm.’ Finally escaping the poorhouse, Oliver is sent spinning into the dark underworld of London, working for a gang of thieves led by Fagan and the Artful Dodger, Bill Sykes and Nancy. The reader sees through Nancy’s character, that those who are forced into this criminal underworld (in Nancy’s case - prostitution), are forced into poverty because of the problems in the system. Not only does it destroy their lives, but it also has a negative impact on society at large. We often see Nancy as a sympathetic character, one who tries to get Oliver out of this life of crime. It is interesting that Dickens uses Nancy’s character, as a symbol of domestic abuse. Not only does Nancy represent domestic abuse, but she also seems to be symbolic of the Victorian’s beating down on those who were sympathetic to the poor. It also seems like an indirect criticism from Charles Dickens to the state for having such an attitude.

In Conclusion

Dickens was a writer who often injected his work with realism and social criticism. His work may have included ghosts or time travel (A Christmas Carol), but Dickens work was more about reality than fantasy. And that is what makes Dickens’ novels so memorable; we are being educated about Victorian Britain, but in a way that is engaging to the reader. At the very heart of Dickens’ writing is a very serious message: the tragedy of inequality, poverty, and deprivation. In the second part of my analysis of Dickens, I want to turn to what can only be described as the dark side of Dickens.

Part 2 in this series will follow soon. In the meantime you can read more about crime in 19th century Britain here.

Now, if you enjoyed the article, please like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

• http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html
• http://classiclit.about.com/od/dickenscharles2/a/aa_cdickensquot.htm
• http://exec.typepad.com/greatexpectations/dickens-attitude-to-the-law.html
• http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/diniejko.html
• http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16907648
• http://www.dickens.port.ac.uk/poverty/
• http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html
• http://charlesdickenspage.com/twist.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/jan/12/welfare-reform-charles-dickens
• Little Dorrit: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/LittleDorrit6x9.pdf
• Olive Twist: http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/Oliver-Twist.pdf
• A Christmas Carol: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Dickens/Carol/Dickens_Carol.pdf
• The Noble Savage: http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2529/

The Declaration of Arbroath: A Medieval Social Contract that Shaped the American Revolution and the Modern World

In this brilliant article, David C. Weinczok looks at an often unknown 14th century declaration in Scotland – and how it has influenced some of the most important revolutions in history as well as the modern world itself.

The evolution of Western political thought has been driven and accompanied by a pantheon of great works, documents not only of theory but of praxis that help to steer, redirect, or indeed even rebuild the ship of state. Beginning, perhaps, with Plato’s Republic, we can trace this pantheon through various points of political, and therefore historical, development and upheaval: Machiavelli’s The Prince and oft-neglected Discourses, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract and John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government being among the best known and most influential of them. Documents veering further from the realm of theory and grounded more firmly in concrete political incidences, such as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence of the United States, are nonetheless heavily influenced by the philosophical environments in which they were conceived. There is one constant and notable absence from this assemblage, however, that deserves a restoration in the democratic consciousness – Scotland’s Declaration of Arbroath, written as a fervent assertion of national sovereignty and, most significantly, of the reciprocal relationship between rulers and the people.

Robert Bruce, King of Scots, kills Sir Henry de Bohun in the Battle of Bannockburn, 1314. From a Chronicle of England: 55 BC - 1485 AD. Published 1864. 

Plea of a nation

The Declaration of Arbroath was one part of a diplomatic package of appeal sent by the Scots to Pope John XXII, whose court was in Avignon. Robert Bruce, King of Scots (1306-1329), had been excommunicated in 1319 after the Scots had broken a Papal truce by recapturing Berwick-upon-Tweed from the English the year before. This and other hostile actions against the northern shires of England were part of a concerted effort to bring the English king, Edward II, to the negotiating table concerning Scotland’s status as an independent nation, an effort which had so far been for naught. Bruce himself was summoned to appear before the pope in May 1320, but instead sent the Declaration alongside a personal letter stressing the longstanding relationship between the Papacy and Scotland, its ‘special daughter.’ The Declaration was signed by 49 Scots nobles in addition to Bruce himself, including Walter Steward, progenitor of the Stewart line of Scottish and later British kings, as well as the infamous James ‘the Black’ Douglas, the scourge of northern England.

Largely forgotten following its publication, the Declaration of Arbroath was only rediscovered in the 17th century, and it was not until the 19th and 20th centuries that it “acquired the status of a surrogate Scottish constitution” (Lynch, 111). In approximately 1,200 words the Declaration reinforced for its audience the mythological foundation of Scotland, its desperation in the face of relentless attempts towards its subjugation, and its right to be recognized once again as a nation of its own as it had been from the 9th century until 1296.  It came at a delicate time – Scotland was reeling from the exhaustion of the Wars of Independence, which saw it struggling against not only the might of England but from internecine rivalries and civil war.

Many modern Scots know by heart the most famous passage from the Declaration:

 …for as long as one hundred of us remain alive, we will never consent to subject ourselves to the English.

However, the passage that deserves international attention, and which earns the Declaration of Arbroath a place among the great documents in the evolution of political thought, immediately follows the defiant words above:

But after all, if this prince [King Robert] shall leave those principles which he hath so nobly pursued, and consent that we or our kingdom be subjected to the king or people of England, we will immediately endeavor to expel him as our enemy, and as the subverter of both his own and our rights, and will choose another king who will defend our liberties.

Robert Bruce, Scotland’s hero-king and champion of the Wars of Independence, put his name to a document declaring in no uncertain terms that he would be driven out just the same as the English if he betrayed his nation’s cause. How could such a thing be possible in the fourteenth century, an age of the Divine Right of Kings and absolute monarchy?

The Scottish Wars of Independence: Setting the stage for a social contract

The Scottish Wars of Independence were essential to the political and intellectual environment from which the Declaration of Arbroath would emerge. In 1286 the Scottish king, Alexander III, fell to his death during a terrible storm and so triggered a crisis of succession. The English king, Edward I, a respected Machiavellian monarch of the highest order, was brought in to arbitrate the dispute between the Scottish families vying for the crown. His choice was John Balliol, who proved to be an ineffectual leader hopelessly caught between the irreconcilable demands of Edward and the Scottish nobility and clergy. In 1296 Balliol bit the hand that fed him by forging what would become known as the ‘Auld Alliance’ with France, enraging Edward and resulting in Balliol being ceremonially stripped of his royal regalia and the Scottish throne itself. Edward had enough of puppetry – no longer willing to rule by proxy, he set himself upon the course for conquest.

So began eighteen years of English military occupation of Scotland, beginning with the horrendous sack of Berwick, then a part of Scotland, in which most of the city’s 15,000 inhabitants were put to the sword, and ending with Robert Bruce’s resounding victory over the English army under Edward II at Bannockburn. Before Bruce’s controversial coronation in 1306 (the controversy being due to his murder of his main rival to the throne, John Comyn, at the high altar of Greyfriars Kirk in Dumfries only weeks before), many Scots still thought of Balliol as the rightful king of Scotland despite his political failings. In 1302 William Lamberton, Bishop of St Andrews, sought a legal justification for renouncing Balliol in favor of a more assertive king. He found the crux of his argument in the teachings of Duns Scotus, a philosopher-theologian, whom he met with in Paris. Scotus argued that:

The real root of royal authority…had nothing to do with inheritance. A king whose power was legitimate was king because his people granted him their consent, and if that consent were to be withdrawn for any reason then the man was king no more. (Oliver, 126-127)

A king (or queen) was therefore not one thanks to any ‘right’ attained through wealth, title or divine assent, but because of their service to their people and community. The failure of Balliol to act as a steward for Scotland’s best interests, combined with the disasters that befell Scotland during the Wars of Independence, gave Duns Scotus’ conception of a custodian-king a great deal of appeal. It helped, of course, that there was one ready made in the person of Robert Bruce.

For the Scots, one of the consequences of the Wars of Independence was an emergent sense of a single political community and national identity. The publication of several works in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries amounting to an ‘official’ history of Scotland, including John Barbour’s Brus and Walter Bower’s Scotichronicon, helped to instill a hitherto unprecedented level of Scottish self-awareness (Lynch, 112-113). This self-awareness came alongside vigilance, not only against external enemies but internal ones as well. Scots had learned the hard way that the national interest, that being the wellbeing of the people, must be preserved against the constant threat of the waywardness and ambitions of those chosen to rule.

The legacy of Arbroath

This notion of kingship would largely recede during the reign of the Stewart kings of Scotland (and later Britain), which, especially during the reigns of James IV, V and VI, entrenched absolute monarchy back into the depths of the Scottish political mindset. One would not be remiss in asking, then, to what extent the Declaration of Arbroath changed the political scene at all, given its fall into obscurity very shortly after its reception at the Papal court. There remained, however, a telling difference between Scottish kings and other European monarchs throughout the Medieval period, one that harkened back to the kingly ideal put forward by Duns Scotus. The King of Scots, until the Union of Crowns in 1603, was precisely that – the King of Scots, rather than the King of Scotland. It was a subtle difference, but in an age dominated by kings who asserted their authority over the very earth upon which their nations were built, it is one that warrants further attention.

The Declaration of Arbroath would influence the minds and pens of those men and women who set their hearts to the work of democracy in the modern age. For instance, as many as one third of the signatories to the American Declaration of Independence were Scotsmen or of Scottish descent. Thomas Jefferson, who claimed Robert Bruce as an ancestor, was undoubtedly affected by the Declaration of Arbroath due to his education at the college of William and Mary under the Scotsman William Small, who Jefferson would describe as being “as a father” to him (Caledonian Mercury, 2011). More fundamentally, though, the Declaration of Arbroath was a deep chink in the armor of any system that sustained itself through the self-interested actions of the individual(s) in charge. Hence its sentiments, whether consciously or not, would emerge again and again in struggles such as the French and American Revolutions, as well as in the general popularization of accountable political structures that would ultimately be expressed through the spread of democratic governance.

In such ways has the Declaration of Arbroath, a letter from a king to a pope at the height of the Medieval world, shaped the modern one. In so doing, it has surely earned a place among the standard works to be studied by learners of politics, history, ideas and power. 

Now, read on! Here is an article about intrigue in 15th century England – The Princes in the Tower.

PS - Please like or share the article by clicking on the links below!!

Works Cited

Caledonian Mercury. ‘The Scottish influence on the US Declaration of Independence, from Arbroath to the Enlightenment.’ Feb. 2011. Web.  http://caledonianmercury.com/2011/02/10/the-scottish-influence-on-the-us-declaration-of-independence-from-arbroath-to-the-enlightenment/0013857

Caroline Erskine, Alan R MacDonald & Michael Penman (Eds.). ‘Scotland: The Making and Unmaking of the Nations c.1100-1707.’ Dundee University Press in association with The Open University in Scotland: Dundee, UK. 2007.

Lynch, Michael. ‘Scotland: A New History.’ Pimlico: London, UK. 1992.

Neil Oliver. ‘A History of Scotland.’ Phoenix: London, UK. 2010.

The many wives of King Henry VIII – Images of the Week

This week we show you all of King Henry VIII’s six wives. Plus, we will tell you how to find out about the one that got away – ‘wife’ number seven.

We all know that King Henry had six wives and here they all are... That’s right, scroll on down for images of all of King Henry VIII of England’s wives. Plus, find out about number seven!

Number 1. Catherine of Aragon. Divorced 1533.

Number 2. Anne Boleyn. Beheaded 1536.

Number 3. Jane Seymour. Died 1537.

Number 4. Anne of Cleves. Divorced 1540.

Number 5. Catherine Howard. Beheaded 1542.

Number 6. Catherine Parr. Outlived King Henry VIII.

And what about wife number 7?

Here is the story of the nearly wife… Click here!

George Levrier-Jones