Historica Sapientia June 2024

HISTORICA SAPIENTIA

HISTORICA SAPIENTIA 2024

Welcome, dear reader, to the second edition of Historica Sapientia.

Humility is certainly a virtue, but we think that this issue makes a strong case against the magazine being a mere ‘one-hit wonder’.

What do we proffer thee today? Well, as much as we would like to exalt the value of each and every article featured within, turning this editors’ note into an extended contents page would simply be poor form. From the legacy of Gorbachev, to shaking the shadow of colonialism, and even some historical linguistics, it seems a reasonable assumption that something will take your fancy. All this, along with an added dose of brevity since last year- the very soul of wit.

Hopefully this collage of ,we hope, both enlightening and entertaining pieces of writing from students spanning the whole lifecycle of Hampton School demonstrates the Hampton ethos which Mr. Knibbs will so proudly laud. We are sure that we speak on behalf of the History Department that the unique blend of historical knowhow and creativity found within each and every article makes us incredibly hopeful for the future of not only the magazine itself, but also the future of the community of historians that Hampton has helped to foster.

Of course, some acknowledgments are in order, for the sheer magnitude of labour which has formed into these pages. This year’s writing team has been the engine room of this issue- without them, we would have nothing- no hint of exaggeration! Our wonderful design team has taken the task of homogenising and formatting a plethora of different styles by the horns. Without too much self-aggrandisement, it is worth noting the efforts of our editors, distasteful as it feels to pen the words oneself. All errors are ours to have amended- nostra culpa, should anything be awry.

Perhaps our greatest thanks go to the dynamic duo who have served as the backbone of the project: Mr Roberts, and Miss Bellingan. From bedrock to summit, their contributions- great and small, advisory and administrative- can be found on every page. We are grateful in a magnitude which puts the world’s supply of superlatives at risk.

At risk of being nauseatingly sentimental, it has been an immense joy to have contributed to the magazine once again. As an avenue through which to pursue interests, where an excuse to write and research the topic had failed to present itself, the magazine has been a wonderful channel for this fascination.

I’m sure you spotted the upcoming call-to-action from a mile away. Nonetheless, with this being the valedictory issue for our entire editing and design teams, as well as for many of our writers, we firmly need your contributions, your ingenuity, and your passions, in order to ensure the continuity of the magazine. Chase your passion, leave your mark, join the History Magazine.

Especially in light of earlier promises of brevity, it seems our time is running out. Thus, we say ‘hasta la vista’, and, as ever, thank you ever so much for reading this edition of Historica Sapientia

Charles Blagden

SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH

THE FALKLANDS WAR

THE TROJAN WAR

THE MOST EVIL MEN IN HISTORY

WAS GORBACHEV A TRAITOR

THE EVOLUTION OF ENGLISH

WORLD WAR TWO QUIZ

THE BATTLE OF CARRHAE

THE YEAR OF AFRICA

GENERAL REVANCHE - TOM WHITEHILL - ALEC HAMILTON - DIGBY JOICE - RORY MCEWAN - FINN WATTON - GABRIEL KNOWLES - SAMRITH POONIA - CHARLES BLAGDEN - RISHI VIJAYAN

FYEDOR ARKHIPOV

The Persistence of Slavery in the American South

Tom Whitehill

One would be forgiven for thinking that slavery came to an end in the US after the Civil War, but written in the 13th Amendment itself is a clause that states the legality of ‘involuntary servitude’ as a punishment. This led to a practice called convict leasing, whichwasused topayoff legaldebts,andwasheavilylinkedtodebt peonage – where adebtor wouldpay back his orher debtbysigning themselvesonto an employer. Such a process would continuefarintothe20th century,80years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed,andthehopeforfreedomwasfirst found.

To understand how debt peonage persisted,onemustdelveintoitshistory.

It was used most prominently in America from the 1850s onward, particularly in New Mexico, and predominantly involved Native Americans. The practice of slavery was actually utilised by the Natives long beforewesterninterference;warring

tribes would seize captives from each other and trade them across the region. James Calhoun, the first US Governor for NewMexico,saidthatitsinhabitantswere so accustomed to the use of involuntary servitudethat“itceasedtoberegardedas wrong”. The difference from the 1850s on was that such servitude was propagated under the guise of freedom – indebted natives would bind themselves to a landowner to receive wages and repay their debts. But, most landowners had power in local markets and commodity prices were often inflated, effectively trappingthedebtorinlabour.

Fast forward to 1867, and the Reconstruction era, and authorities estimated that 3000 Navajos were still enslaved; clearly the abolitionists had failed. The Republicans in Congress (who had a majority at the time) were dead-set on making debt peonage illegal, but New Mexican masters echoed the same arguments that chattel slavers had used

against abolition, that they were saving natives from their paganism and introducing them to a good Christian life. This time the arguments didn’t hold up, and the Republicans managed to secure the criminalisation of the practise, however, once Reconstruction began to wane, and the Republicans lost power (and interest), the act was lost amidst the evolvinglandscapeofJimCrowlawsanda non-interventionistfederalgovernment.

So, only 289 peons were freed in New Mexico, but what about the African Americans who were the primary victims ofchattelslavery?

Well, due to the failure of the federal government to make substantial progress towards racial equality during Reconstruction, African Americans were denied the economic autonomy and politicalfreedomtheywerepromised,and consequently many ended up sharecropping (leasing farmland from whitelandowners).Thelandownerswould takeadvantageoftheirlackofliteracyand put terms in their contracts that allowed them to take part of the sharecroppers’ proceeds and keep them in perpetual labour.

Forthosewhodidn’tendupinagriculture, the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes of the south criminalised actions like switching employers, riding freight cars, or even vagrancy, and so many would incur legal fines that they were unable to pay. Therefore, many were sold into labour to pay off their debts, this time in industries such as iron and steel works, mines, sawmills and railroad companies. Those sent to these sites often faced far harsher working conditions than in agriculture, andinjuriesanddeathswerefrequent.

Whilst a Reconstruction Era government may have done something about this, Teddy Roosevelt’s administration only made matters worse with its reorganisationofthefirmUSSteel(ahuge employer),thatusedconvictlendingforits labour.

It was not until 1941 that the US Department of Justice issued Departmental Circular #3591, which finally classed debt peonage in the same way as slavery and demanded its immediatecessation,andsothelastslave in America, Alfred Irving, was freed in September1942.

Thatbeingsaid,slaveryremainsapressing issue outside of the US. There are an estimated 8.1 million people still retained in involuntary servitude a shocking statistic which, while outside the remit of thisarticle,isworthmentioning.

How close was the United Kingdom to losing the Falklands War?

Alec Hamilton

The roots of the Falklands War can be traced back to the 19th century when Argentina and Britain asserted competing claims over the islands. Despite Britain's control overthe Falklandssince1833 asa Crown colony, Argentina never relinquished its sovereignty claims and to Argentina the islands are known as Las Malvinas. Argentina had made multiple attempts to negotiate with the British Government over sovereignty of the islands including attempts to buy the islands in 1953, but the Government saw this as ‘inconceivable’. Thus, in 1982 ArgentinainvadedtheFalklandIslands.

It is clear that Argentina also wanted to control the Falklands. Whilst its invasion of the islands and other British South AtlanticterritoriesinApril1982caughtthe international community off guard, the invasionmadeperfectsenseforArgentina fortwomainreasons.

Firstly, Argentina had been under the control of a military Junta since 1976, and in 1982 at its head was Leopoldo Galtieri. Galtieri’s invasion of the Islands in April 1982 was to rally the support of the Argentinian people behind the regime, in order to distract from the dire socioeconomicconditionsinArgentina.

Secondly, Argentina and Galtieri thought Britian under Thatcher would not act to retain the islands. This was due to British defence cuts in 1981, including the removalofHMSEndurance(anicepatrol vessel and the Royal Navy’s only constant surface ship in the south Atlantic), as well as the removal of 8,000 Royal Navy personnel. This apparent weakness and disregard for defence spending by the ThatcherGovernment,aswellasaneedto divertpublicattentionawayfromthecrisis in Argentina formed the perfect storm for theinvasion Contrary toGaltieri’sbeliefs,

the British response was swift and decisive, but fraught with difficulties. A task force was hastily assembled, comprising ship, aircraft and troops from across the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, and British Army. Britain faced numerous challenges and setbacks throughout the conflict which could have tipped the scales in Argentina's favour and led to BritishdefeatintheSouthAtlantic.

First and foremost was the logistical challenge ofprojecting military powerand sustaining a conflict for an unknown period of time, over 8,000 miles from home with the Argentinians just 450 miles from home. Supply lines stretched thin, and the vulnerability of the British task force to Argentine air and naval attacks wasaconstantconcern,asthelossofonly a few merchant ships carrying crucial supplies and equipment for the British Taskforce could have crippled the invasion. Had Argentina effectively disrupted British supply lines or inflicted significant damage on the task force, Britain's ability to sustain the campaign would have been severely compromised and the war may have been lost before it hadevenbegun.

As the task force closed in on the Falklands, the situation grew increasingly dire. The British battle for Naval supremacy around the islands would be where it would suffer major casualties, losses,andsetbacks.

The Argentinian Air Force was well equipped with French-made Exocet antiship missiles which proved lethal against the Royal Navy and merchant supply ships. The Royal Navy was to suffer particularlyheavylossesbetweenthe21st and 25th of May, during the Battle of San Carlos one the west coast of East Falkland.ThegoalonBritishforces wasto establish a beachhead from which British troops could march on Port Stanley (the capitaloftheislands)andendthewar. The goal was achieved, the British paid a heavy price. The British would lose 1 frigate,HMSArdentand2destroyers(HMS Coventry and HMS Sheffield) on the 4th Mayaccountingfor62deathsatthehands of Argentinian air raids. Many other Royal Navy ships were damaged including HMS AntelopeandHMSBrilliant.

However, it was not only Royal Navyships that came under attack but also Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Civilian ships being used by the taskforce. One of the most significant losses was that of the MV Atlantic Conveyor, a cargo ship carrying vital supplies to support the invasions. Its cargo included Chinook helicopters to ferry troops, tents, food, and ammunition. Its loss proved to be a major logistical blow; however, the situation could have been far worse for the Royal Navy, as 13 bombs hit British ships but failed to detonate, meaning that casualties and loses could have been much higher. This would have acted as a much greater challengefortheinvasiontosucceed.

ThelossofagreaternumberofRoyalNavy and civilian ships would have meant less protection for the British landing force, attempting to create a beachhead and startthemarchonPortStanley.Therefore, whilst the Royal Navy suffered, it diverted attention and attacks by the Argentines away from British troops on the ground, thus allowing a beachhead to be established, ultimately allowing the Argentinianstoberepelledsuccessfully.

Ultimately, British Forces were not close to losing the FalklandsWar in 1982 due to a multitude of factors. The possession of large amounts of military equipment meantlosses werenotcatastrophic,welltrained and disciplined troops who were able to cross East Falkland without helicopters, and the use of British Overseas Territories such as the Ascension Islands to enable supplies to constantly be flown to the troops once they had built a temporary runway. However, this is not to say that a British victory in the Falklands war was guaranteed.

There were losses of large quantities of supplies, making life for British troops more uncomfortable but not impossible. The loss of Royal Navy ships also made securing naval supremacy around the Falklands harder but evidently not impossible. So, whilst Britian never came close to losing the Falklands War, it was mademuchmoredifficultthanithadtobe due to the underestimation of the quality ofArgentinaasanenemy,andattimesthe sheer arrogance of the British invasion forceinthinkingvictorywasguaranteed.

The Trojan War

Digby Joice

In this is article, we will be bringing you back to an ancient era of heroes and gods, where mighty heroes and ancient kings were mere pawns in the games of the gods.

The tale of the conflict between the two mighty armies of Troy and Greece is one of trickery and conquest between two superpowers.

Although it really started high up in the heavens, when Discord, having not been invited to a wedding, rolled a singular apple labelled ‘for the fairest of the goddesses’ into the midst of Athena, Aphrodite, and Hera, three of the guests, to spark chaos as an act of revenge.

The trio of goddesses immediately started debating, before realising that the only way to settle the matter was to find the most diplomatic prince in the land and ask him. Aftermuch deliberation,theydecided on the kind and fair prince of Troy: Paris. They each offered him massive bribes: whole armies to command, or an empire that spanned across the world. In the end, however, he chose Aphrodite’s offer the most beautiful woman on Earth, Helen of Troy.

Here is where things get a little bit complicated. Helen of Troy was already married to Menelaus of Sparta, brother to Agamemnon, king of the mighty Greek empireMycenae. So, when Paris, withhelp from Aphrodite, whisked Helen away, Menelaus and the rest of the Greeks were far from pleased. After this event they launched an immense invasion, in the name of love, to burn Troy to the ground and retake Helen.

After eight years of sailing and a feud with the goddess Artemis, the Trojans landed and started their siege. They ended up besiegingTroy for eight long years in which they spent waiting outside the walls of Troy and looting and pillaging the Trojan’s allies in an attempt to provoke the unbreakable city. During these raids the Greeks attacked Lyrnessus and Hypoplacian Thebes, capturing Briseis, with whom Achilles had fallen in love, and Chryseis who was the daughter of Chryses (a priest of Apollo).

Chryses came to Agamemnon and begged for his daughter back, but Agamemnon scorned him and refused. Chryses decided topraytoApolloforrevengeon theGreeks and an angry Apollo sentdown a plague on the Greek forces. After this, Agamemnon was forced to send Chryseis back to Chryses to stop the plague.

Duringthisconflict,oneherohad managed to destroy the Trojan forces and sent any attempts to wipe out the Greeks besieging the city scattered- it had seemed that even the strongest of the blades would merely bounce off his armour and arrows would never seem to hit him. This was, of course, Achilles, and his great power came from the fact that he was 99% immortal. You see, as a young child he had been bathed in the River Styx by his mother, an event that caused him unspeakable agony in the moment but granted him power in kind. Achilles was such an asset to the Greeks, that Trojans would run when they saw him charging into battle in his famed golden armour. So, the day that Agamemnon decidedtotakeAchilles’loverBriseisashis wife while at war, Achilles refused to fight.

This led to a massive change in the tide in the war as the Trojans gained a massive advantage cutting through the Greeks, who now lacked their indomitable hero. When the Trojans came to raid the Greek camp, Achilles agreed to let his best friend Patroclus go into battle wearing the former’s armour, giving the appearance that Achilles himself had come to the battle. Disaster would strike as the noble and perceptive Hector, a Trojan prince and brother to Paris, saw through the ruse and slew Patroclus in a one-on-one fight. Agamemnon relented Briseis to Achilles, who, filled with rage charged into battle, cutting down innumerable Trojans and finally found his blade in Hector, who had been cursed by Athena. In continued frenzy at his best friend’s death, Achilles refused to return the dead body of Hector, instead parading the cadaver around Troy dragged behind his chariot.

Later that night, King Priam (ruler of Troy and father to Hector and Paris) visited Achilles in a dream, imploring him to return Hector’s body for a proper burial. After the funeral rites for both Hector and Patroclus were said and done, the war continued. After slaying Priam’s stepbrother Memnon, Achilles charged into Troy in pursuit of the Trojan troops, playingintotheperceptionandpredictions of Paris. He drew his bow saying a prayer to Apollo, before taking aim at the only weak spot on Apollo’s whole body, his heel. With a single arrow notched, aimed, and loosed, one of the strongest heroes since Hercules was slain.

AfterAchillesandHector’sdeaths,thewar came to a standstill with neither side gaining an edge until two prophecies were

made. These prophecies stated that Troy would not fall without the Palladium, and Heracles’ bow. After these prophecies were made, Odysseus and Diomedes attended to the matter, finding people to send out to find these sacred weaponsPhiloctetes found and used Heracles bow, to kill Paris.

After a decade of continuous fighting, the Greeks were weary of war. Hence, Odysseus devised a plan to end the siege once and for all.

The Greeks retreated back further away from Troy and started work on a massive wooden horse. A large group of their elite warriors hid inside the massive horse, the remaining Greeks attached a letter of retreat claiming that the Greeks had sailed away and had left this horse as a gift to Poseidon (god of horses). One Trojan man named Laocoön warned the Trojans of this horse and told them not to trust the Greeks but was soon afterward devoured by two great serpents from the sea. The Trojans accepted their gift and were ravaged by the Greeks, led by Odysseus. The war was won. Now, all that remained for the Greeks, was the small matter of getting back home.

The Top Ten Most Evil Men in History

Rory McEwan

As many say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme, and this has been proven time and time again. Here are ten people (interestingly, all men) that I believe that history could have done without.

10. Gavrilo Princip: This hopeless revolutionary started the bloodiest war theworldhadeverseen.Amemberofthe BlackHandGroup,hekilledtheArchduke Franz Ferdinand after his driver took a wrong turn, and the initial aim was to free Serbia from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, this assassination threw the world into turmoil for four years and causedthedeathsofmillions.Nevereven atoningforhisactions,hediedinprisonin 1918 having caused one of the most brutal and bloodiest conflicts in our world’shistory.

9. Vladimir Lenin: Whilst Karl Marx tried to create a utopia, Lenin’s Russia was anything but. Millions were killed and any lingeringcriticismwasquicklyeradicated. Lenincreatedapolarisedsocietythathad littletonofreewillatthebestoftimesand he paved the way for the rise of Stalin, whose rule was even longer and even bloodierthanthatofLenin’s.Whilstmany blame Stalin for Russia’s global decline, I am inclined to blame Lenin for Russia’s woes, as he was the one who allowed Stalin to rise up the ranks and later seize power.

8. Osama Bin Laden: Potentially the most famous terrorist in the world, Bin Laden was the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist group and was responsible for the deaths of nearly three thousand people during the 9/11 crisis as well as orchestrating other attacks on American military targets. This sparked a ten-year manhunt and ignited America’s ‘war on terror’. When Bin Laden was killed, the only people who mourned his death would have been Al Qaeda members, many of whom he used as suicide bombers and who were also hunted after the 9/11 attacks. This singularly evil man was a figurehead for international terrorism, and he inspired many others to carry out similar atrocities, albeit with lesser consequences than the 9/11 attack. The ripple effects of Bin Laden’s actions are still felt to this very day.

7. Emperor Nero: The Emperor of Rome from AD 54 to AD 68. He was said to have fiddled whilst Rome burnt during the Great Fire of Rome, a fire which is said to be caused by him but was blamed on the Christians.Itwasalsosaidthathekilledhis mother, as well as his first and second wives and his stepbrother. Eventually, there was a rebellion that overthrew Nero, however, it led to great unrest in Rome, seeing a year which would crown Four Emperors, via civil war. Nero fled and later tookhisownlife.Hewasatyrannicalbrute, who achieved little in the way of Roman prosperity and caused unrest throughout Romeduringandafterhisreign.

6. Mao Zedong: China’s first communist leader, his ‘Great Leap Forward’ killed roughly 40 million Chinese people between 1959 to 1961- that is more deaths than the total number of civilians who lost their lives during WWII. He also aimedtocausepoliticalunrestduringthe Cold War, often pressuring Stalin and other world leaders who were allies into trying to attack Western democracies Mao was an evil man who ruled through fear and violence, and his China was a good example as any of an oppressive dictatorship.

5. Attila the Hun: After killing his brother to become the sole ruler of his empire, Attila led many vicious attacks on the Roman Empire, raping and killingmillions of people. It is said that his attack on the city of Naissus was so brutal that the Danube River was clogged with bodies of the dead for many years after the attack. According to sources, he ate two of his own sons and impaled deserters. He was so brutal and so feared that many wealthier Romans were said to have paid bribesjusttokeephimaway.

4. Emperor Hirohito: Emperor of Japan throughout WWII, Hirohito led Japan through all manners of atrocities, including the Nanking Massacre (which was responsible for the deaths of at least 40,000 Chinese soldiers, although some estimates say that the total number was 300,000) and the secretive Unit 731, who testedhorrificbiologicalweaponsthatled tothedeathsof300,000people.Thiswas aman who encouraged the belief of a superior Japanese race that viewed others as subhuman, and allowed the massacre of thousands to go unpunished. The true injustice, however, was that the emperor lived without consequence and was allowed to retain hispositionuntilhisdeathin1989.

3. King Leopold II of Belgium: A brutal leader that killed 10 million Congolese people for an economic profit Leopold had the hands of uncompliant rubber workers cut off as an example to others, as well as committing numerous other atrocities,despiteneverhavingsetfootin the region. Eventually, he was forced to hand ownership of the Congo to the Belgian government for a huge cash payment to him. It is estimated that Leopold made 1 billion American dollars off the Congo, all while halving the populationoveratwenty-yearperiod.

2. Genghis Khan: A brutal but brilliant military tactician, Genghis Khan was responsible for around 40 million deaths, around 11% of the world’s population at thattime.Heledviciousattacksoncities, was unsympathetic to rebellions throughout his empire, and laid waste to any opposition. His merciless crushing of any and all uprisings gave him a level of controlthatallowedhisMongolempireto spanmostofAsiaandEuropeatitspeak.

1. Adolf Hitler: Many will know of how he sent six million Jewish people to concentration camps to die, and he startedtheconflictthatwouldgoontokill around 50 million people. His hate filled speeches influenced manys’ views on Jewish people and this was to have devastating impacts for the six million Jews he was responsible for killing. He was narcissistic, antisemitic and racist, all characteristics that he would demonstrate time and time again throughouthispoliticalcareer.

Honourablementionsgotopeopleinhistorywhoseatrocitieswerehorrificbutstilldid notmakeitintothetop10.ThesepeopleincludeStalin,PolPot,Caligula,Ivanthe TerribleandVladtheImpaler.Theywereall responsibleforthedeathsofthousands,if notmillions.Controversially,perhapsChurchillandTrumanshouldalsogethonourable mentionsfortheirdecisionsduringWWII.Theirdecisionscauseduntoldnumbersof deathsinIndiaandJapanwithlonglasting effects, butperhaps their ‘evil’was necessarytodefeatagreaterone.Iwillendthisharrowingepiloguewithaquotemost oftenattributedtoEdmundBurke,whosaid,

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’

Was Gorbachev the last Bolshevik

or a traitor to the cause?

Finn Watton

Gorbachev, the final leader of the Soviet Union,isahighlydivisivefigureacrossthe world. In the West, we see him as a liberator of the Russian people from the shacklesofauthoritarian communistrule, but this view is not consistent with that of the Soviet die-hards within Russia that lived through the dissolution of the Union. To them, Gorbachev was not a liberator, butratheratraitortotheSovietpeopleand a counter-revolutionary against the Bolshevik cause. This sentiment is encapsulated by Vladimir Putin’s infamous remark that “the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatestgeopolitical catastrophe ofthe century”.

Seemingly, then, this was no liberation, it was a ‘catastrophe’ to many older Russians. In fact,70% of Russians concur with this, agreeing “their country had moved in a negative direction during [Gorbachev’s] rule”, according to a staterun pollster. Well, it is a state-run poll, perhaps they’re employing a populist tactic and appealing to the glorious, stable, and (cough) authoritarian past? Perhaps, but the findings are reflected in his move to seek re-election in 1996, securing only 1% of the vote, with the Communist Party candidate winning 40.7% of the vote, showing that he probably was just highly disliked by the Russians.

Butwhy?Well,Sovietnostalgiainaneraof hopelessness (especially during ‘90s Shock Therapy Russia) must be seen as a factor. But how did Gorbachev become the villain in this equation? Surely it was Yeltsin and the liberals who should be to blameforanywoesinpost-SovietRussia?

Was the collapse of the communist system Gorbachev’s intention or not? Historian Orlando Figes seems to disagree,labelling Gorbachevas“theLast Bolshevik”.

These questions, then, can be rephrased as: “Was Gorbachev the Last Bolshevik or a traitor to the Bolshevikcause?”

The truth is, many Russians view Gorbachev as a bona fide traitor that ruinedtheir‘superior’wayoflifewithinthe Union. This sentiment was obvious even duringhispremiership.Intheearlydaysof the market economy reforms (Perestroika), disgruntled Soviet citizens had not only set a private pig farm alight just outside of Moscow, but had also constantly denounced the first cooperatively owned restaurant in Moscow totheauthorities,bothstemmingfromhis Perestroika reforms. So, the economic legacy left by the Bolsheviks of central planning had seemingly been uprooted by Gorbachev, and then further uprooted by the liberals that he let in. The lacklustre but relatively stable economy under ‘true’ communists like Brezhnev became the lacklustre and unstable economy throughout the 90s, according to Old GuardRussians.Thereistruthtothis,with mortality rate in Russia, which often reflects the economic situation of a country,jumpingfrom7.4per1000in1960 to 16.2 per 1000 in 2003 (for context, in Russia, mortality rates reached 16.7 per 1000 during Covid, showing just how dire thesituationwaspost-shocktherapy).But the concerningly astute reader may be asking ‘what of the New Economic Policy under Lenin? Was that not also the

opening of the private sector? How can Gorbachev be a traitor to communism if the very founder of the Soviet Union is guiltyof thesame thing?’.

Theseareallquestionswhicharevalidyet borderline impossible to answer, what with theinside ofGorbachev’sbrainatthe timebeinginaccessible.

Lenin justified this policy as “a strategical retreat”to“reorganiseeverything,butona firmer basis” after the devastation of World War 1 and the Russian Civil War. Doesthatringabell?Thisaimveryclosely reflects the defence Gorbachev deployed to justify his reforms. In fact, the name ‘Perestroika’ (‘Restructuring’) itself implied adesire toworkwithin thesystem rather than tear it down, and he justified his policies by claiming they were to save the USSR fromthe jawsof collapse aftera prolongedEraofStagnation.So,atleastin motivation, Gorbachev seems to only be as much a traitor to Soviet communism in the economic sphere as Vladimir Lenin himself. Perhaps his economic reforms laidthegroundworkforthestrugglesinthe 90s after the collapse, but his intentions seem to have been to continue the legacy of the Bolsheviks into a new globalised world, rather than to expedite the fall of thesocialistsystem.

‘Okay’, I hear the many Soviet Union loyalist readers interjecting, ‘but what about the dissolution of the Union itself? Why would he let the Soviet borders collapse?’. Well, Gorbachev did wish to keep the Union together, with his ‘New Union Treaty’ being an attempt to reform the centralised ‘1922 Treaty on the Creation of the USSR’ which provoked nationalist movements. Ironically, the newtreatyprovokedfurthertensions,with 6 Republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova)

boycottingtheproceedings.Nevertheless, a referendum in the Republics that did go ahead with the treaty found 76% agreed with the revised agreement. Seemingly, his efforts weren’t so ‘traitorous’ in 1991 when the referendum was called, but ostensibly the public opinion has shifted since. It is often claimed that it was The August Coup Attempt, in 1991, which led Gorbachev to accept the dissolution, but this is entirely unconvincing, seeing as on the 5th of September 1991 (just a month after the coup attempt) he formed the State Council of the Soviet Union, which soughttocoordinatethevariousrepublics under a single leadership. Furthermore, it was Yeltsin and leaders of the republics that got together to sign the Belavezha Accords and the more significant AlmaAta Protocol that dissolved the Union, not Gorbachev.

Therefore, not only in intention but also in deed, Gorbachev clearly did not want to dissolve the Union: it was simply the culmination of tensions between Moscow and the various other regional identities that can be observed throughout the historyoftheSovietUnion.

An often cited positive of Gorbachev was his commitment to democracy. He did, in fact, turn back the Bolshevik principles of Democratic Centralism and the Revolutionary Vanguard. In the words of Lenin, “educated representatives of the propertied classes" should lead the Revolution.Inthe(simpler)wordsofme:a strong unified party that would (theoretically) work in favour of the working class but led by intellectuals who ‘knewbetter’shouldleadthecountry.This was only partially rejected by Gorbachev, with semi-competitive elections taking place in March 1989, with around 20% of party candidates put forward being beaten. His democratic credentials must

not be overstated, however. Despite the elections, there was still an entire chamber reserved for the Communist Party and various Communist Partyaffiliatedgroupsandunions.Furthermore, almost three quarters of those in Russian government were former Nomenklatura members (Soviet officials), showing that this democratisation was limited to say the least. Nevertheless, this partial democratisation did spit in the face of prior Bolshevik governance, albeit in a limitedway.

Similarly, despite his reputation, his human rights record must not be overstated. In 1986, human rights protestor Yuri Orlov was arrested and imprisoned, and later deported and stripped of his Soviet citizenship, for criticising the authoritarian nature of the Soviet state. This is also seen in the treatment of Anatoly Marchenko, a political dissident who died in prison during a hunger strike, an event that played a significant role in Gorbachev’s later decision to mass release political prisonersin1987.

Just to drive the point home, this state oppression can be seen on a larger scale, when 26,000 Soviet troops were sent to Baku in response to an anti-Armenian Pogrom which led to 48 deaths in light of separatist tensions. This Soviet force killedupto300civilians,whichtheHuman Rights Watch labelled an “exercise in collective punishment” used to “deal harshly with nationalist movements", rather than a truly moral intervention. Overall, state repression and antidemocratic values did persist but the steps Gorbachev took to ‘partially democratise’theSovietUnion showsome intention to change part of the Bolshevik legacy.

In summary, it is perhaps unfair to characteriseGorbachevasa‘traitortothe Soviet system’. However, many of his policies were used to move further away from what the Bolsheviks intended, especially withregardtoeconomyandhis failedNewUnionTreaty.Thesepoliciesdo not in themselves justify the moniker ‘traitortotheBolsheviks’,butdorepresent a limited departure from such principles. Poetically, the divisiveness of his character is reflected in his internal conflict between Bolshevism and somethingnew.Butitisthemiddleground in whichhe foundhimself, tomaintainthe Soviet Union with some reforms, that has led to him being labelled as either “the Last Bolshevik” or as an attacker of Bolshevism; that is to say, his legacy is deeply confused due to his failure to appeal to either side. Despite it seeming like an irreconcilable contradiction (a dialectic, to stay on theme), perhaps it is best to characterise him as both at the same time: a revolutionary who sought to unroot deep flaws within the system he came to lead through ‘counterrevolutionary’means.

How has the English Language evolved over time?

Gabriel Knowles

In this article I will explore the English language which, because we speak it, is not always truly appreciated for its complexity. Not because it’s ‘hard to learn’,butinthewaythatlinguisticallyitis almosta meta-language.Thelanguagewe know today is so different from its Germanic roots, that even after the Norman conquest – only one small event in the language’s history – it would be hard, truly hard, to be able to understand thelanguageagenerationback.

It would be remiss to omit the Norman conquestbecauseitseemsapointintime when the language truly stepped into a newera.Oneofthefirstmisconceptionsis that the language changes only occurred after the invasion. This is false: during this period many words were still borrowed from French due to contact with their nobility. This too is of interest, because French also comes from Germanic roots, only then being influenced by Latin and becoming a Romance language. This shows an historian that even shortly after languages develop, becauseofgeography and circumstance, they can come becomeentirelydifferent.

The other interesting thing about the Norman invasion is that it was less a politicalshift,whichcausedthechangein dialect, but a socio-cultural shift. English wasthoughtofastheprimitivelanguageof the hoi polloi: not the nobility, not the higher classes in the feudal system, they spoke French. However, English still received influences from French because they were intertwined, through common use within the country. An example of this is how the languages merged. Words of higher status to do with law, military and dining were all French words, whilst the words for farming and crude words are from English. It is interesting how such a large cultural dynamic had significant impactonlanguage.

TheBlackDeathisusuallyassociatedwith a terrible disease that killed most of England,whichwascertainlythecase,but anothereffectithadwasonlanguage.The disease was not classist, it killed both princes and paupers. Because of the feudal system, there was more of a proportional impact on the rich because there were less of them. A gap was left where there were not enough refined French people to fill the fancy roles,

meaningthatthe “filthy” Englishhadtofill theroles.

An often-repeated phrase which was reportedly saidby Edward IIIwas“the Law shouldbepleadedintheEnglishTongue… the French Tongue… is unknown to the Realm.”ThisshiftinlanguagegaveEnglish more prestige and less of a commoner appeal. In 1362 Parliament was talking in English,in1389royalinquiriesweresaidin English,andin1399amonarchdecidedto speakinEnglish,revolutionaryatthetime! However, this was not the only evolution with English. Because of people from the country moving to replace the dead workersinthecitychangedthevernacular andaccentofmostofthecity.Anexample of this would be the Great Vowel Shift. Before this change words were pronounced almost the same as the spelling,SteakwouldrhythmwithBleakas anexample.

AnotherevolutionoftheEnglishlanguage, perhaps not as major though, was the creation of the King James bible. The King James bible has so many phrases that are still used today such as “scapegoat”, for example, but that is only the beginning of howliteratureaffectslanguage.

Another major influence was Shakespeare.Notonlyforhisinfluenceon English culture but his influence on language is most likely more important. The most important vernacular change he made was standardizing the English language. For example, he spelled words one way, and then these spellings were adopted into common usage. He also created many words that we use today, suchasvomit,aswellasaddingsuffixesto words. This is also leads us to what he is best known for, plays. Shakespeare created themes such as prodigal son, a person trying to meet expectations, as

well as quintessential love plots like Romeo and Juliet and the Two Gentlemen of Verona which are still exploited to this day.

Finally,wecometothemodernera,which Ithinkisoneofthemostinterestingerasof linguistic development because of the multicultural developments of the English language.WordslikeKindergarten,Candy, Karaoke are all from other languages –loan words – and then you also have even more interesting words such as anime, this word came from animation to Japan and then came back to England as anime, goinginafullcircle!Thiscomesaswellas modern day linguistics having to keep up with modern day science and technology. People are creating new words every day for different technologies. An example of thiswouldbetelevisionwhichcomesfrom atadistance – tele – andvision.Thisshows us that most words that are new, are not new. Telephone comes from tele and phone meaning sound in Greek. All words are compound but with modern day language, because of the fact that these words which are being compounded are still being used, people know what vision meansbutmightnot know old Anglican, it almostfeelstwowordssplicedtogether.

In conclusion, the English language is complex and sophisticated in so many ways and we must recognize that English has become a language influenced by the world, as well as influencing the world. What I have shown is a brief taster in not only how the English language develops but also the worlds languages develop. Every book, every article and every sentence spoken influences language as people are exposed to different media. Language is not a fancy linguistics term whichpeopledecideon.Itisinfluencedby you and every single person who speaks it!

World War Two Quiz

WorldWarTwowasthedeadliestmilitaryaffairofalltime.With38millionciviliandeaths andoveramillionhousesdamagedorbombedmakesthisalsothewarwiththebiggest impacttocivilians.Theimpetusforallthesedeathswasthesuddenboomintechnologyfor long rangewarfare,suchastheGermanV-1andV-2unguidedcruisemissilesandthe extendedrangeofplanes.Anothersignificanttheatreofthewarthataffectedcivilianwas thebattlefortheseas,withU-boatattacksonshippingconvoysthroughouttheAtlantic cuttingBritainofffromvitalsupplies,greatlyreducing themoraleoftheAlliedPowers.One ofthegreateventsofWW2wasD-Dayinwhichthousandsofsoldierslosttheirlives.Itis oneofthelargestscaleattackstotakeplaceinWW2andhappenedonthe6thofJune 1944.

Quiz:

1-WhatyeardidOperationDynamo(Dunkirk)takeplacein?

2- Whichbattle iswidelyrecognised as the turning point in Hitler’s invasion of the East?

3-WhatdatedidD-daytakeplace?

4-WhowastheleaderofTheUSSR?

5-WhatwasthetacticHitlerusedtoinvadeEurope?

6-WhichfamousattackbyJapanesenaval/airforcesprovokedAmericatojointhewar?

7-Whatwasthepact thatformalisedtheEasternBlocafterthewar?

8- HowmanyyearsdidWW2last?

Answersforthequizareatthebackofthemagazine

Samrith Poonia

The Battle of Carrhae

Charles Blagden

Itisnevereasytointroduceanarticle- ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears’ felta touchon-the-nose.Nonetheless,here,theBattleofCarrhaeshallbediscussed-thesituation fromwhichitarose;thecourseofthebattle(naturallyincludingwhythisbattlewasso devastatinglylost);andhow,asexpectedofanationaltragedy, itwasusedbysuccessive generationsofpolitytotheirownends.

In the wake of (and indeed amid)Caesar’s Gallic campaign, theredidn’tseemtobe much militaryglorylefttogoaround.ForaleadingmanofRome,forwhomtheever-bellicose gloria waschiefamongvirtues,thiswasuntenable.

BustofMarcusLiciniusCrassus,Louvre Museum

Take Marcus Licinius Crassus. Formerly the nemesis of Pompey the Great, but recently overshadowed by Caesar’s frankly meteoric rise.Normally,onemight expect a Roman general to face no difficulty in finding a rowdy province to subdue, but Syria was quiet, and other potentially ‘difficult’ enemies were stunned into compliance by Caesar’s triumph. Where then, was Crassus to turn?Parthiawouldbesettledupon.

Unfortunately for Crassus, Parthia had been the most significant power in the Roman world (other than Rome herself) since Hannibal’s Carthaginians and Mithridates’ Pontians. Crassus, a man avaricious like no other, saw the wealth and glory to be found in a victory over Parthia, and denarii-signs rolled in his eyes.

How hard could it be? After all, the ParthianKingOrodeshadonlyestablished himself a year or so prior, and might therefore be easy to capture. Advancing over the Euphrates with his army, he ravaged the lands through which he passed, fording the river with ease, due to the Parthians not expecting any Roman aggression at this point. Crassus found victory against Silaces, the governor of Mesopotamia, who, injured in body and stung in pride, personally reported Crassus’ invasion to Orodes. While the Romans found allies in the GrecoMacedonian colonists at Nicephorium, the denizens of Zenodotium, on the pretence of revolt against Parthia, lulled someRomansintotheirtown,massacring them.

TheRomanRepublicanEmpireinthe1stcen.BC.ViaDigitalMapsoftheAncientWorld

Crassus, taking victories via quick and unexpected assaults, might have seen victory, had he continued to prey on the confusion created in the wake of his attack,yethedesiredmorethananything, an easy victory in Syria, still quiet. He would have to wait. Crassus therefore gave the Parthians time to prepare for open battle. This decision would not go unpunished. Orodes sent envoys to Crassus, who were given the typically flimsy and far-fetched casus belli of a Romaninvadingforce.

At Rome, the omens around consular elections,amidotherissues,weresohard toplacethattheconsulswerenotinstated until July. Crassus, however was greeted with a portent far less opaque: one of the aquila, the Roman legionary standards, had affixed itself to the ground, like Excaliburintotherock.Aflagdenotingthe armyanditscommander-in-chief,fellinto ariver.Thebridgecreatedtofordsaidriver also collapsed, before everyone had crossed. These, among other omens, did notbodewellfor Crassus’

campaign. In an effort to rouse morale, Crassussaid:

“Be not alarmed, soldiers, because the bridge has been destroyed nor think because of this that any disaster is portended. ForIdeclaretoyouuponoath that I have decided to make my return marchthroughArmenia."

This would have been all well and good, hadhenotthenpropheticallydeclared:

“"Be of good cheer; for none of us shall comebackthisway."

Thesoldierytookthistooasanomen,and notafavourableone.

Finally – Carrhae.Aftersomeinitialchaseand-retreat between the Romans and the Parthians, Crassus’ son, in command of some cavalry, pursued the Parthian horsemen, and, like Godwinson at Hastings,fellforafeignedretreat,andlike Godwinson, died for it- Caesar and Plutarchgiveitassuicidetosavehismen, but Cassius Dio gives it as a death in action.

The Roman infantry rushed to avenge Crassus the Younger, but, due to a betrayal by Abgarus, King of Osroene, ostensible ally of Crassus, but traitor for Parthia (at this point only via espionage), combined with the Parthian numerical superiority, the Romans were losing ground. Neither able to stay still, nor manoeuvre, the situation was dire. This was the difficulty against the enemy they hadexpectedtofight,butAbgarus,likethe StanleysatBosworth,sweptontothefield from the Roman rear, providing the hammer to the Parthian anvil, to smash theRomancontingent.

Cassius Dio says that every Roman there would have been killed, “but for the fact that some of the pikes of the barbarians were bent and others were broken, while the bowstrings snapped under the constant shooting, the missiles were exhausted, the swords all blunted, and, most ofall, thatthe menthemselves grew weary of the slaughter”. This should give somescopetothemassacreatCarrhae.

The fatigue of their assailants in their onslaught gave the Roman survivors, Crassus among them, some reprieve. Crassus’ forces set off for Carrhae, what of them who could- many died of their injuriesonthefield-orbytheirownhands. Others, paralysed by their wounds, were capturedthenextdaybytheParthians.

Crassus felt that even behind the walls of Carrhae,hewouldnotbesafe,planningto flee- foiled by the treachery of a full moon’s light. After waiting for a moonless night, the Roman forcesdeparted through a dense, hanging, darkness, hostile territory, in an unknown land. The forces scattered.

The ParthiangeneralSurenascaughtwind of their plans to escape, and, fearful that

they might simply make war on them again,decidedtoparleyfor atruce,where Rome would lose all territory East of the Euphrates. Crassus readily accepted the invitation to meet- and perhaps escape with his life, but, delaying his decision upon meeting Surenas, had the reigns of hishorsepulled,withtheensuingviolence seeing Crassus killed in the chaos. Perhaps worst of all, to the Roman zeitgeist,threestandardshad beenlostto Parthia- an inconceivable humiliation to thestatepredicatedonitsmilitarymight.

Not exactly a glorious end to a commander, but then again, none of the First Triumvirate died in battle. Pompey the Great would be killed by forces of Ptolemy XIII on the shores of Egypt after his loss to Caesar at Pharsalus; Caesar, would of course be assassinated on the Ides of March in 44BC. Only Crassus even died in the presence of his rival generalthe most military death among peers known as generals, given to the financier. Crassus’corpsewas,byvariousaccounts and in various manners desecrated. Dio says that the Parthians poured molten gold down the throat of his cadaver, mocking his wealth (George R.R. Martin took notes, it would appear). Plutarch, in his biography of Crassus, gives the account differently, as the body having beendecapitated,withtheheadusedasa propinaplay.

Ghastlystuffeitherway.

ThemutilationofCrassus,(Jacob Tomsen,1703)

What legacy then, does Carrhae hold? Of course,thedeathofCrassusmeantthatin the immediate term, no significant thumb on the scale existed, should Pompey and Caesar fall out of alliance. The Pharsalia and its civil conflict ensued. Caesar, victorious,hadplannedareturntoParthia in early 44BC, but Brutus, and Cassius- in fact a lieutenant of Crassus on this campaign- had other ideas. This campaign,itisspeculated,andhaditgone ahead, would have supplied Caesar with enough gloria to go entirely unchallenged inestablishingamonarchyagainatRome. The political prestige of ‘subduing’ Parthia would go to Caesar’s adoptive son, Augustus,whonegotiatedthereturnofthe standards via his own son Tiberius, commemoratedonthePrimaportaStatue, andvariouscoinseries.

DenariusofAugustus,27BC, commemoratingthereceptionofthe Parthian standards, ‘SIGN RECE’, with kneelingParthianpresentingstandard.

To others in antiquity, it represented an unmitigated disaster. Plutarch compares the life of Crassus to Nicias, the Athenian general who led the ill-fated Sicilian Expedition, regarded as one of the worst losses,ifnottheworstinGreekHistory.

Wereturnagaintotheissueofbookending an article. In this case, adapting a part of Antony’s funerary speech seems appropriate: “My heart is there in the coffin withCrassus,andImustpausetillitcome back to me”. Thank you ever so much for reading.

The Year of Africa

Rishi Vijayan

In December 1959, French President Charles de Gaulle agreed that any African state that requested independence should be granted its sovereignty. This led to every colony of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa becoming independent inthe nextyear as he started the process of finding a resolution to the brutal Algerian War of Independence. In February 1960, British Prime Minister HaroldMacmillan,afterspendingamonth visiting several British colonies in Africa, delivered his famous acknowledgement that the ‘wind of change’ through Africa left his country no longer able to impede the independence of any others. With such momentous developments like these, 1960 was a year of great potential forthecauseofcontinentalindependence and, fortunately, we’re able to look back onthatpotentialasfulfilled,asitwouldgo down in history as the ‘Year of Africa’. However, as you’ve surely surmised from the title and the presence of the paragraphs that lie in wait for you, the question of whether the events of 1960 really constituted the birth of an independent continent has a particularly nuanced answer. So, without any further ado (that our-word limit simply doesn’t allowfor),let’sexplorethecontinentmost synonymous with colonialism and oppression in the year 1960 to evaluate theextenttowhichthe‘YearofAfrica’truly brought about African independence and liberationfromoppression.

On the surface it would be entirely understandable to see 1960 as the year the world saw the emergence of an independent Africa. Simply put, 1960 saw thegreatestleapforwardintheprogressof Africanindependenceoutofanyyearin

the history of the continent. Seventeen nations from Nigeria to Somalia became independent,andthegroundworkwaslaid for others (namely Sierra Leone and Algeria) to celebrate their first independence days in the near future, coming in 1961 and 1962 respectively. With 95 million independent Africans in 9 countries growing to 180 million in 26, it should be obvious why it was such a significantyear. Theendof colonisationin any country is a great triumph, and whilst thisarticlewillgoontoprovidearguments fortheyearnotbeingacompletesuccess, the scale of the achievements it did see cannot be understated. The year also saw a growthininternationalrespect forAfrica and recognition of it as rightfully independent; in Rome in the summer of ‘60, Ethiopian Abebe Bikila became the first Black African to win an Olympic Gold Medalforhismarathonvictory,asourceof great pride for the continent as a whole. Further adding to the progress towards an independent Africa was the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 in December, which affirmed the right of independence from colonial rule, passing without a single vote against, reflecting an internationalrecognitionoftherightofthe continenttoitsindependence.Inthisway, it could certainly be argued that these successes did amount to 1960 seeing the emergenceofanindependentcontinent.

However, upon looking not just at countries that did not come closer to liberation from oppression, but even also ones that had gained their independence in 1960, it becomes more convincing to interpret the year as one in which Africa became more independent, but, not completely independent. For example, unlike France, Britain, and Belgium, PortugalfailedtowithdrawfromitsAfrican colonies and instead would go to war the following year to suppress armed independence movements in Angola, Guinea-Bissau,andMozambique.Thefact that what would be known as the PortugueseColonialWarwouldstretchon for 13 years and is estimated to have claimed the lives of close to 100,000 civilians reflects that 1960 simply did not see an end to colonial oppression in Africa.

It was inevitable that South Africa, the African country most well-known for apartheid, would be brought up in this article and it is imperative that I mention the infamous Sharpeville Massacre, when on 21 April 1960 police fired on a crowdof blackpeople,killing69andwoundingover 180. It is simply not possible to argue in good conscience that 1960 truly saw the emergence of an independent continent when in one of its most powerful countries,therewouldstillbe31yearsleft of apartheid legislation enabling the infamous oppression exemplified in events like the massacre. With 1960 also seeing the most prominent anti-apartheid movements in the African National CongressandthePanAfricanistCongress shifting away from peaceful noncooperation in favour ofarmed resistance intheaftermathofSharpeville,itisclear

that there were many, many hardships ahead.

As for the countries that had gained their independence in 1960, we must also consider two different types of power Western actors retained over Africans: economic and political. Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah’s assertion in 1965 that “In place of colonialism, as the main instrument of imperialism, we have todayneo-colonialism” (being theindirect control of former colonies by their former colonisers) is quite an indictment of the supposedindependenceenjoyedbythose 17countriesaftertheeventsof1960(given that Ghana was one of them). Now of course, even those readers not cool enough to have experience with A-Level history canunderstandthat wemust treat all sources with a pinch of salt – Mr. Nkrumah, though he had been responsibleformanygreatachievements, had by this point became a dictator who had every reason to dismiss the West as imperialists to strengthen the cult of personality that was the key to his authoritarianism. However, when one looksat thepolitical andeconomicaffairs of some of the countries who gained ‘independence’ in 1960, it appears that Nkrumah had a point. For example, the 1961 execution of Patrice Lumumba, the

DRC’s first Prime Minister after a coup d’etat, tacitly backed by Belgian officials concerned by Lumumba’s Soviet sympathies, revealed a level of influence Belgium retained in its former colony that ultimately elicited a 2022 apology from its Prime Minister Alexander de Croo for how his country“contributedtothedecisionto put an end to the days of the first prime minister ofthe independentCongo”.

In addition, despite all of French West Africa becoming independent in 1960, financially the new states remained anythingbut.Frenchcompaniesenjoyeda highly privileged position within the economies of its former colonies (who would continue to use the Colonial Franc) andFrenchsocietybenefittedfromawide range of cheap, imported raw materials from these countries from uranium to palm oil. In these ways, it is clear that oppressors and ex-colonisers retained inordinate control in Africa, reducing the strength of an argument that 1960 really was the emergence of an independent continent.

Overall, 1960 was still a significant progression of the cause of African independence – it would be remiss of anyone to downplay the tremendous achievements that saw almost ninety millionpeopleliberatedfromcolonialismand it should nevertheless continue to be perceived as a year of triumph for the continent. However, one must recognise that the independence brought about by

the events of this year was limited by the clear and grossly disproportionate influence former colonisers retained in nominally independent states, and that the struggle against oppression persisted formillionsofAfricans.Therewasstillalot of work to be done beyond 1960 and therefore, whilst we can celebrate the 'Year of Africa’, it ultimately cannot be seenastheyearatrulyindependentAfrica emerged.

Général Revanche

Alsace-Lorraine is a province whose ownerscanhardlybe countedaccurately. FromCaesartoHitler,fromtheHabsburgs to the Hohenzollerns, soldiers from all sorts of countries have marched through thisland,land thatwaschanginghandsat an enviable rate. In 1871, the Germans were the masters of Alsace, and while nowadays we know the land as "AlsaceLorraine", in the newly formed Empire it was known as "Reichsland ElsaßLothringen". The inhabitants of the province also changed their names – for example, Guillaume Schnaebele became Wilhelm. Schnaebele would hardly have become known to the public, and even to yours truly, if not for his arrest in 1887 on the Franco-German border. There are many hypotheses as to why this arrest took place. According to one, the German police that arrested Schnaebele were doingthebiddingofBismarck,whowished in this way to provoke war or tension, and to test French society as to its readiness for war. It was not so much war that the French society was so interested in, but revenge.GeneralRevenge.

Thisgeneralisreal;noabstractmetaphor, but rather an exaggeration of the hopes of the French, embodied in one man. His name was Georges Boulanger and he was the one who could turn the history of France in… anunknowndirection.

ThebirthoftheThirdFrenchRepublictook place at a time of desperate defeats, and the legacy of the Second Empire as humiliationatSedanwasonetheRepublic could not shake off. The bitterness of defeat would accompany France right up to the First World War, and in the meantime revanchism would mature and lead the Republic (and its soldiers) ever closer to a new war. Boulanger was an intelligent man; he realised that the French wanted revenge. And when he became Minister ofWarin 1886, he began to change from a quiet, executive, and harmless moustachioed man into a boisterous balaguer, scourging traitorous circles of corruption. This patriotic demagogue nevertheless introduced serious reforms in the army to improve food and living conditions for soldiers,

GeorgesBoulanger

Fyedor Arkhipov

taking their side in disputes with the military administration. Being elegant and handsome, he soon gained popularity. Boulanger's popularity increased even more after the case of Schnaebele, already mentioned. The fact is that Bismarck, having apparently achieved his aims,releasedSchnaebele,anditseemed that war was averted. This, however, was precededbyBoulanger'stalkofmobilising an army corps. Putting these two factors together, it would seem that it was the decisive Boulanger who forced Bismarck to retreat. The very Bismarck who had oncebroughtFrancetoitsknees!

NewBoulangistSongs,byGaston Villemer,1888.

Obviously, the French public cheered and idolised this general with the elegant beard. Soon a whole ideological trend emerged; a bizarre political chimera called Boulangism. The president and parliament looked warily at the man who had been quietly appointed to his post a

yearearlier.Hebegantoappearasathreat tostability;apotentialdictatorwhowould have no trouble staging a coup. France spent the entire 19th century choosing between monarchy and republic, and no one knew whether the Third Republic would survive the crisis. Of the choice between republic and monarchy, it is worth noting the perhaps expected sympathy for Boulanger among monarchists – they hoped he would overthrow the republic. He resembled Napoleon, although without significant military victories. It can be said that the crowd had a demand for Napoleon, and anycandidateevenremotelysimilartothe first Emperor of the French would be "appointed" by the crowd as the next Napoleon, i.e. the saviour of the Fatherland. And the “appointment” would have been made even against the will of the "candidate" himself. Boulanger was not a fanatical warrior who was eager to becomeausurper.Onthecontrary,hedid not object when he was removed as Minister of War and exiled to the provinces. He might have wished to object,buthewouldhavebeendeclareda rebel. As Boulanger was leaving Paris, the people intervened, crowding the railway station – women were laying down on the tracks to prevent the departure of the train. "Général Revanche" was frightened by such “career prospects” and immediatelyleftthecapital.

Fate, however, gave him another chance. In October 1887, a corruption scandal broke out in the Republic: President Grevy's son-in-law used his influence to trade posts. This was superimposed on the fact that of the President's brothers, one was a general and the other was Governor of Algiers. The public was stirred; people joked that if the President hadapriestbrotherinhisfamily,hewould immediately become a cardinal. The

President resigned, to the delight of the triumphing Boulangists. Elections were looming and Boulangists consolidated around the “League of Patriots” party. The young nationalist writer Maurice Barrès dubbed it "a call to the soldier"- to Boulanger. The personality cult of the potential dictator had already reached impressive proportions. First, Boulanger was elected to parliament. His friends cheered: "To the Elysée Palace!". The collective hysteria reached such an extreme that many people called Boulanger the Lord of France. Except Boulanger himself. He did not believe in this reckless venture. As soon as he appearedinParliament,CharlesFlocquet, President of the Council, made in his addressthemockingremark:"Byyourage, sir, Napoleon is already dead!". The squabbles between the newly minted deputy and the chairman continued and ended with Boulanger challenging Flocquet to a duel (one recalls that this is what Boulanger was doing instead of preparing to seize power). In the meantime, the "League of Patriots" was dissolvedbytheeffortsofthegovernment, and Boulanger could be arrested. The General left for Brussels at once, fearing not imprisonment but separation from his belovedMargueriteBonnemain.

His supporters followed him everywhere, but he didn't care; all his attention was focused on his tuberculosis-stricken companion. Unlike many populists Boulanger was not married to his country, in this sense he was very human. Boulanger, unfortunately, did not have timetomarryMargueriteeither.Whenshe died in 1891, the general shot himself on her grave. Clemenceau summarised: "He died as he lived, as a second lieutenant", the journalist Severin believed that "he beganlikeCaesar,continuedlikeCatiline, andendedlikeRomeo".

Anewspaperdistributorhandingout portraitsofGeneral Boulangertoa peasantfamily,byJean-EugèneBuland

TheSuicideofGeneralBoulanger

World War Two Quiz Answers

RICA SAPIENTIA 2024

WITH THANKS TO OUR

WRITERS

Alec Hamilton

Digby Joice

Rory McEwan

Rishi Vijayan

Kiran Grover

Tom Whitehill

Fedor Arkhipov

Charles Blagden

Samrith Poonia

Gabriel Knowles

EDITORS

Mr Roberts

Miss Bellingan

Charles Blagden

Finn Watton

DESIGNERS

Zac Nolan

Theo Evison