Septuagenarian Saviour of the West Whilst taking a break from inventing the perfect vacuum cleaner Herbert Hoover once said that it was old men who start wars but young men who fight and die in them. Whilst wars would undoubtedly be much shorter, less bloody and with far more breaks for a sit down if this weren‘t the case, there are occasional and notable exceptions. One such exception was what has come to be known as the First Siege of Malta (to distinguish it from either the later German invasion of 1942 or indeed a sit in at a Taverna by England fans who had had their Ouzo confiscated prior to World Cup qualifier in 1993.) From May through to September of 1565, the tiny islands of Malta and Gozo held out against an Ottoman invasion force of 30,000 men. The islands were home to the Knightly Order of St John (a sect of the Hospitallers: a throwback to the era of Crusades) and its leader; the 71 year old Grand Master Jean Parisot de la Valette, an ancient leader (for the times) referred to by his men behind his back as Grandma Jean. The Order, whose sole function was to fight Islam in servitude to God, drew volunteers from all over Europe. These were hardy aggressive types who thought nothing of shaving in cold water with a blunt knife and doing good in the service of God. The times however, they were a-changing. Ideas such as nationalism were spreading across the Continent in place of Papal allegiance and this shift began to marginalise the Orders. For the past hundred years, the Knights had resorted to piracy both to fight the Ottoman Turks whilst making some money on the side, and this inevitably created enemies on both sides; from Muslims whose wealth they appropriated and from Christian monarchs jealous of the Knight‘s increasing prosperity and their ability to afford customised cod pieces.
Valette was an undoubtedly strong man. He joined the Order at twenty, and was captured in the 1540s by a Turkish galley. For a year the young man struggled to survive as a galley slave. By the age of seventy, he was a man hardened by a life spent fighting, a man of fanatical devotion to his cause and greatly respected by the Order. By the early 1560s, Suleiman the Magnificent, leader of one of the most powerful empires in history, had had enough. He had evicted the Knights from their previous stronghold of Rhodes 43 years earlier, but their new home had become another thorn in his side. Numerous cargo ships travelling across the Mediterranean were snatched every year and the attacks were becoming more frequent as the Knight‘s navy grew in strength. This, combined with
Did the Ming discover America?
Mention naval power in the Middle Ages and great names such as Columbus, Magellan and Vasco de Gama spring to mind. These are names synonymous with the period of naval dominance displayed by the west from the fifteenth century, right up until the peak of the British Empire in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth century. However something which is often overlooked in the history lessons charting Columbus‘ remarkable voyage of discovery to the new world, is that it could have very nearly been the Chinese whom we talk about when considering the naval elite rather than the Spanish, Italian, English or Portuguese. For a brief period in the Ming Dynasty under the emperor Zhu Di at the start of the fifteenth century, China amassed an insurmountable naval superiority over the rest of the world. Some of the most impressive wooden ships of all time were ordered to be built by an emperor with the ambition to achieve a maritime empire spanning the oceans. Hundreds of vessels, up to 400 feet long and more than 150 feet wide, which could carry tens of thousands of men, were built. This naval power may have even been incomprehensible to the likes of Columbus had he known that his own ship, the Santa Maria, which took him to the New World was a mere fifth of the length of these remarkable ―treasure ships‖ in the Chinese fleet. Some of the great contemporary travellers to the east such as Marco Polo or Ibn Battuta experienced these ships first hand and Ibn Battuta commented on their nature. ―The Chinese vessels are of three kinds: large ships called chunks (junks), middle sized ones called zaws (dhows) and the small ones kakams.‖ An important question to ask oneself is what motivated Di‘s desire to expand China‘s reach throughout Asia and the world. One reason was the evident ideological desire to become known as the single greatest superpower. Perhaps he wanted to impose and spread the political, religious and cultural values of the Chinese. Indeed, part of this ideological factor was the new emperor‘s need to legitimise his
position, which he had taken from his father, Zhu Yuanzhang. This legitimisation of power has been shown by emperors or kings throughout the world in medieval times. For example William the Conqueror or Henry II both immediately acted in ways which consolidated their kingship. This is exactly what Zhu Di was doing by expanding China‘s naval power and inviting back foreign leaders to create strong diplomatic ties. However the chief admiral who was sent out on these voyages, the eunuch Zheng He, would not shirk violence. He dealt with pirates in the Indian Ocean, as well as using military force in the Middle East and Africa when he was threatened. This use of force could impress foreign dignitaries and help foge alliances just as much as diplomatic talks also could. Alternatively, there were strong economic incentives playing a part in the decision to launch a large programme of ship building. Countless opportunities would have arisen to increase trade with foreign lands, throughout Asia, the Middle East and even Africa, increasing China‘s might as a global economic power. Arrays of exotic African animals were brought back to China including giraffes and zebras. In return silk and porcelain, to name just two Chinese goods, were exchanged. So how far did the Chinese actually get on their great voyages of discovery from 14051421? Well we know for sure that the admiral, Zheng He, got to South East Asia, India, Ceylon, Persia and the Arab dominion. His Muslim religion, which came to China via the
Mongol invasion of Genghis Khan, and his dynasty which ruled previous to the Ming Dynasty, would have been beneficial from a diplomatic point of view as the voyages covered mainly Muslim regions. Zheng He was approachable to the leaders of the Arab world, as he shared a common religion. As far as his voyages are concerned we have been able to ascertain from charts and maps which have been left behind, the general passage which the ―treasure ships‖ took. These charts would seem to suggest that the routes taken will have been down the various coasts. Starting southwards by China‘s eastern coast and then heading West through the Indian Ocean. From the southern tip of India on separate journeys, the fleets sailed either further north to the Arabian lands, or simply across the ocean to East Africa. Subsequent emperors would retreat to the Forbidden City, as they restricted contact with the outside world. They halted expeditions as well as banning ship building, and after Zhu Di‘s reign the naval dominance of Chine eventually petered out. However some dispute emerges as to whether Zheng He sailed a great distance further than is currently agreed by most of the historical community. In his book 1421, Gavin Menzies, not a historian, but a former navy officer, argues that the Chinese sailed down the coast of East Africa, to the Cape of Good Hope. This is where things start to get interesting. Menzies presents the idea that the direction of currents at the Cape of Good Hope sent the Chinese fleets across the Atlantic Ocean to South America. He then goes on to claim that as well as the Americas the Chinese continued to discover the Antarctic, the Arctic as well as New Zealand and Australia. What evidence has he provided for these ludicrous claims I hear you say? Well Menzies‘ findings are the result of the study of various lost charts, destroyed by Mandarin bureaucrats, from which he concluded that someone had discovered the new world earlier than it is conventionally thought. He states ―On some early European world maps, it appears that someone had charted and surveyed lands supposedly unknown to the Europeans. Who could have charted and surveyed these lands before they were "discovered"? The answer is according to Menzies that only the Chinese had the naval power and potential capabilities to stage such a feat. These views have been strongly dismissed by the historical community with the book even being described as ―a work
of sheer fiction‖, by a group of scholars and navigators from Indonesia. However despite this the question remains what if this did happen and what would the consequences have been whether it happened or not? If Zheng He accidentally discovered these new lands, but emperors after Zhu Di had still stunted the naval growth of China, the consequences may not have been that significant. However if the rapidly developing naval culture had been continued there could have been a huge impact for world history. For a start the slave system started by the Europeans may never have emerged. If the Chinese had established an alliance with the East African coast, which they inevitably would have done if they were going to attempt continued contact with the Americas, the Portuguese offensive against these countries may have been resisted. The great Atlantic slave trade may never have been. China as an economic superpower will have developed greatly with contact from more lands, as more trade occurred. China, already a mighty force on the world stage may have proceeded to dominate the world further. The inevitable fantasy which would emerge from these ―what if‖ questions, is how would history have developed differently had China reached the New World. The Aztecs for a start may have survived. The smallpox brought by the Spanish would not have effectively killed off the population, and if the Spanish still did invade it is likely that the invasion will have been resisted. China may also have established itself in America rather than the Europeans. No one can ever be sure what would have happened, however what you can be sure is that we would be looking at a drastically different world had China reached and settled in America.
Zheng He—The Great Chinese Navigator
ambitions to invade the underbelly of Europe (Italy) using Malta (with its superb naval bases) as a springboard, led Suleiman to be persuaded by his advisers to ‗crush and destroy those sons of dogs!‘ – intemperate language even in the less polished diplomatic circles of the day. Sensing an attack was imminent, Valette began to prepare the island to withstand an invasion. Aid was requested from most of the sovereign states of Europe, but the most mustered was a financial sum given by the King of Spain… along with a case of Rioja and a Good Luck card. The defences were subsequently bolstered and by the late spring of 1565, Valette was in command of a small force of 600 Knights and servants-at-arms and 3500 Maltese irregulars. This number added to the navy totalled a force of around 8000 men. With all the grain on the island harvested and stored in the four great strongholds of St Elmo, St Michael, Birgu and St Angelo, all the island wells poisoned, and the ―Welcome to Malta mats‖ ripped up the Knights awaited the arrival of the Ottomans. On 18th May, the Turkish fleet was sighted and four days later, the heavy Ottoman cannon began to bombard the fort of St Elmo. Within a week, it had been reduced to rubble. For an entire month the Knights held the fort against the waves of janissary attacks. A contemporary historian stated that the Ottoman leaders ‗sacrificed thousands and thousands of men with callous indifference‘, all the time being sent messages from Valette in Birgu to remain at their posts for as long as possible (easy for him to say!). At the beginning of the siege, Valette had summoned one of his commanders and upon being told that the fort would last no longer than eight days he passionately delivered a speech berating the officer and vowing to lead the defence himself. The oration worked, the general was immediately dismissed as an unreliable source and the knights defended the fort for a month with no more requests for help. The old man had managed to inspire 1500 men to fight to the last (all were killed, attached to crucifixes and floated across the bay towards Birgu), and yet, he did not lack compassion. Upon being told that the fort had been closed up by the Turks, Valette‘s ‘noble features were clouded with a deeper sadness as he felt he must now abandon his brave comrades to their fate‘.
He was indeed reported to be so moved that he pushed his plate of Hummus to one side and rejected a second helping of Baklava that evening.On the 7th August, the Turks turned their guns towards Birgu, St Angelo and St Michael. After alternating between barrage and assault, the Turkish engineers planted a mine under the defences of Birgu. Upon triggering it Janissaries were poured into the breach and the first to receive them was the aged Valette, sword in hand surrounded by a hundred knights. With his small band of fanatical warriors, Valette is reported to have remained in the most dangerous part of the battlefield until the Turks were forced to retreat. This episode was a regular occurrence during the siege, with the Grand Master ignoring the advice of his officers and partaking in the fight personally. Valette then vetoed every attempt to retreat to one of the other strong holds, believing the Ottomans to be near collapse. Indeed he was correct, having lost a third of their forces from fighting and disease, and with a relief force having already landed, the Ottomans had no choice but to turn back. After the victory, money began pouring into Malta enabling Valette to construct the fortified city of Valetta. Whether you see Valette as a heroic warrior or a fanatical geriatric, it is indisputable that he had a pivotal role in ensuring that the Knights of Saint John were victorious in holding out against a far superior force (certainly in terms of numbers and average age) It would appear that Hoover‘s adage does not allow for some exceptional pensioners.
On the Edge of Revolution?
―We shall bring about a state of war…Hunger and poverty have driven the Dock and Ship workers to this present resort, and neither your police, your soldiers, your murder nor Cossacks will avert the disaster coming to this country‖ – Ben Tillet, August 1911
The Rowntree Report: The State of a Nation ―House very dirty…husband not quite steady…very poor, little work…nine young children. Had parish relief stopped for illegitimate child‖…‖House very dirty, probably used as a house of ill-fame‖… ―Nearby, 16 families share one tap. The
grating under this tap is used for the disposal of human excreta and was partially blocked when inspected.‖ Just a few note book jottings capturing minutiae of everyday life in Edwardian Britain. They were a small part of a much wider survey which would eventually form one of the seminal works of social study, Poverty: A Study of Town Life. It examines the everyday lives of the citizens of the world‘s foremost imperial power, and not those living in inner city London, Manchester, Liverpool or any other of the great industrial cities, but the medium sized town of York, famous for cathedral and walled city. The author was Seebohm Rowntree (of confectionary fame) who with the help of hundreds of investigators compiled a survey of over 10,000 families at the turn of the century. He concluded that in the town of York in 1901, over a third of the population was living
below ―mere physical efficiency‖; the amount of money needed to provide a family of five with food, clothing and shelter. To understand what even just living on the edge of such abject poverty really means, we can turn to Rowntree‘s survey itself. ―A family living on mere physical efficiency… must never spend a penny on railway fares or omnibus. They must never go into the country unless they walk. They must never purchase a newspaper or spend a penny to go to a popular concert. They must write no letters… for they cannot afford the postage…The children must have no pocket money for dolls, marbles or sweets. The father must smoke no tobacco, and must drink no beer. The mother may buy no pretty clothes…Finally, the wage earner must never be absent from his work for a single day.‖ - Poverty: A Study of Town Life It is a stark portrait of a nation in the grips of poverty and want, although on the evidence of The Times and other newspapers, it seems the majority of the Edwardian middle and upper classes believed poverty was the result of drunkenness and immorality on the part of the workers. Against such a background, it is easier for us to understand the increasing social unrest which was to follow.
those with military experience to join his new transport workers civilian police force, he claims he will shoot Lord Devonport, the largest employer in the dockyards, and within weeks there are strikers and strike-breakers armed with revolvers fighting in the streets. Meanwhile, a vast nationwide coalminers‘ strike takes place, with close to a million workers downing tools. The following year 5 strikers are killed and over a thousand injured in the transport union strikes in Dublin. In London there is panic. Many of those in the higher echelons of society now carry revolvers, and there are army encampments in all the London parks; every British soldier is on standby.
Class War Despite brutal working conditions, it isn‘t until 1910 that widespread opposition to the establishment begins. In November, in the Welsh mining town of Tonypandy, a riot grows so large over three days that police can no longer control it. Simultaneously, riots are taking place in Liverpool and Birkenhead, beginning with the dock workers, and then spreading to the rail workers, who will later strike nation-wide. The mayor of Birkenhead writes a letter to the Home Secretary, telling him that he can no longer guarantee the safety of lives and property as the situation worsens. While huge crowds met in the city, the entire Aldershot garrison and a warship are posted north. Strikes continue into 1911, the most severe being the first and second London dock workers strike lead by the infamous militant unionist, Ben Tillet. A figure to strike terror into the hearts of any well to do middle class Edwardian, he unites and incenses the crowd with his inflammatory calls for violence. As unrest continues into 1912, his rhetoric becomes wilder and wilder; he calls for all
Women’s Suffrage Meanwhile the suffragette movement gathers momentum and is no less violent in its approach than those of the miners and dockers, arguably more so. The most militant of all the women‘s suffrage groups is the women‘s social and political union (WSPU) founded by the Pankhurst sisters in their Manchester family home. Although the suffragettes are against violence, their marches in the capital turn ugly; shop windows are smashed, buildings are set on fire and famous paintings are shredded. They disrupt court cases, heckle politicians, and refuse to eat in jail, meaning they have to be force fed. Winston Churchill is hit in the face with a riding whip and Lloyd-George is punched, and has slates and even an axe thrown at his car. Bombs demolish buildings in Kew Gardens and Lloyd-George‘s new stately home. Famously in 1913, Emily Davidson throws herself under the King‘s horse at the Epsom derby.
Labour and the Liberals It would be wrong to imply, however, that all attempts to improve equality in British society were based on violent uprisings. The Labour Representative Committee was founded in 1900, a collection of socialist groups and workers organisations, the nucleus that would eventually grow into the Labour Party we know today. It is important to try and understand the ethos behind the founding of the party. Many of their demands were fairly modest; small increases in pay, free school meals for their children and a small old-age pension. Many of the organisations were based around Labour churches. Kier Hardie was a lay preacher before becoming the first leader of the labour party, leading Morgan Phillips to remark that British socialism ―owed more to Methodism than to Marx.‖ Many Labour supporters were even opposed to social welfare as they thought it would damage the close knit community help groups which had been set up and run by the people themselves. Determined though they were, the Labour leaders were not committed to a violent action or a ―socialist revolution‖. We must also remember that since 1906 the liberals had held power, and Asquith and Lloyd -George were considered radicals themselves by many. The 1909 budget was billed by Lloyd-George as a ―revolutionary budget‖, with new plans to tax the rich in order to fund a new system of social welfare similar to that LloydGeorge had witnessed in Germany. But the lords were determined to oppose the program, blocking the commons‘ measures at every turn. Lloyd-George had always been opposed to the landed gentry and his rhetoric was appropriately antagonistic. The king wrote him an angry letter, claiming his speeches were designed to set ―class against class and inflame the passions of the working class.‖ The anti-democratic class war the lords had started would do them no good in the end of course, leading to the inevitable reduction in their powers, as the upper house was deluged in newly created peers, in spite of the manic Tory opposition to such plans. The people‘s budget passed. It‘s clear therefore, that militant protesting and violent riots were not the only response to the social issues of the early 20th century. They certainly may, however, have
accelerated the change advocated by the liberals. Anger and dissatisfaction was expressed through the ballot box, as well as through confrontational opposition
Lloyd-George - A radical of his time
Revolution? Thus, in the light of so much social unrest, would it be right to venture that Britain would have been on the edge of open civil conflict without the intervention of the First World War? We must of course try and see past the vehement rhetoric of the union leaders to the vast majority of an essentially class bound and conservative society. For all the violence of the protest, the overthrow of the government as happened in Russia seems unlikely… 1) The majority of reformers were committed to a peaceful and democratic resolution. While more militant organisations such as the WSPU had a membership of about 2000, the far more moderate women‘s suffrage organisation NUWSS had over 100,000. The Labour Party was obviously close to the trade unions, but its rapid growth is a testament to the effectiveness of their peaceful efforts in order to achieve greater social equality. After several libel cases which exacted impossibly heavy fines against unions which had damaged private property, most senior labour figures recognised the need for change to be worked through the establishment. 2) The party in power, the Liberals, were still seen as sufficiently radical to be an agent of social change. Lloyd-George described his 1909 budget as a ―war budget…to wage warfare against
poverty and squalidness‖, and he was well aware that the liberals had to press forward with radical reform if they were to survive as the major party of the left. Asquith too was seen as a radical, even more so perhaps than Lloyd-George. Although more and more people saw the liberals as having too much of a vested interest in the status quo to represent the more ambitious sectors of the working class, after the 1906 landslide they enjoyed widespread support until after the war. 3) Unlike in Russia, many of the demands of the British working class were actually granted. Let us be clear; British society was not utterly transformed during the Edwardian period. It was still class-bound, lacked an advanced system of social welfare and working conditions were poor by modern standards. Progress was virtually nonexistent in the decade after the war. Nevertheless, shorter working hours and better pay were achieved for the vast majority of workers as a result of successful strike actions and efforts of the Labour party in the commons. I imagine that some readers may feel a little cheated; an intriguing title persuaded you to read on, yet all I have done is merely confirm what you suspected all along. Yet examination of such widespread social unrest should impact our preconceptions about Edwardian Britain. A popular perception of the Edwardian period is that of a ―Golden Age‖ of glamour and garden parties, largely shaped by the nostalgia of the post war generation. Others see it a period characterised by imperialistic jingoism, a generation arrogantly revelling in the glory of an empire, while heading unwittingly towards the resulting cataclysm of world war. Still others see it as almost a ―nothing‖ period, a hiatus between the Victorian era and the First World War. In fact, none of these views are accurate. Though there was certainly a nationalistic outlook in Britain and widespread support for her empire, we should recognise that the Edwardian Britain was already beginning to question itself about its national destiny, and the structure of its society. Neither would it be right of us to assert that the First World War was the cataclysmic event which broke down the old world order. Though it may have been a catalyst in changing pre-war attitudes, the
widespread calls for change and often violent upheavals before the conflict show that the Victorian ―imperial‖ way of thinking would most likely have come to an end without the intervention of world-wide war. In the face of the external threats of the rise of USA and Germany, and domestic threats internally, the old assurances and preconceptions were falling away. Churchill sums up a growing national doubt about the state of affairs: ―Although [the empire] is magnificent, [the poor] would have a better chance of happiness if they had been born cannibal islanders of the South Seas. This is surely a fact that our unbridled imperialists, who have no thoughts but to pile up armaments, taxation and territory should not lose sight of. For my own part I see little glory in a nation which can rule the waves and is unable to flush its own sewers.‖
The London Poor
Blenheim palace—the birthplace of home secretary Winston Churchill
Julius Caesar - Motivated or mad?
Gaius Julius Caesar was responsible for shaping and controlling the Roman Empire from 49-44 BC, but was he a motivated great man, or a mad power-crazed dictator, not so far from today‘s Gaddafi? He certainly shared a thirst for power, took no prisoners and built up his assets until the only way to remove him was through his death. Caesar may be known as a great man, the dictator or even a salad, but either way his relationship with power represents an addiction, rather than an affliction. He clawed his way to political standing from a noble yet undistinguished family and never showed any mercy or compassion for anyone, marrying his daughter to Pompey to consolidate their agreement and even marrying Cleopatra, for political gain in the eastern Mediterranean. Once at the top Caesar cemented his position with four key aspects of presentation to the Roman mob. The first was his mystique. Most senators or consuls possessed this simply through their extravagant clothes, parties and guards which separated them from the mob and Caesar was no different, constantly presenting himself as the ―great‖ Caesar once in power. His second quality was that he kept in touch with what the people of Rome wanted, less corruption and military success, both of which he delivered through his reforms by seizing power from the ―corrupt‖ senate and so eliminating the middle men. More importantly, however, Caesar presented himself as being the leader of the ―people‖ by sending home treasure and gold from the spoils of the Gallic war, to be distributed between the people of Rome. He also achieve his mystique and understanding through propaganda, whereby the mob were informed through Caesar‘s friend Mark Antony who was elected as Tribune of the Plebeians, a powerful position in Rome. The third quality was Caesar‘s charisma. This made people love him, just as British people loved Churchill, the Romans loved Caesar. Finally, Caesar knew that legitimacy was key if he was to be loved by his people. After all, who trusts a cheat? Therefore he achieved legitimacy through appointing himself as consul after the Civil
War, when he had already pronounced himself as Dictator, thus legitimising his position as leader. All of these actions demonstrate a man in very clear touch with his mind and all support the ―motivated‖ view of Caesar. We must, however, acknowledge that Caesar possessed these qualities before he tasted power, and if we are to say that Caesar was mad, then it was undoubtedly power that made him mad. So perhaps these qualities should not be used as such strong evidence of Caesar‘s cultured state of mind. His dealings were for his own gain, and if you got in his way, then you were fair game. Caesar rose to power as a shady character through his dark-room dealings with two of the most politically influential men in Rome at the time: Crassus and Pompey in 60 BC. This pact is labelled today as ―The First Triumvirate‖ and it stated that Caesar would support Pompey and Crassus as long as they helped him
become elected to the consulship, a powerful position in Rome. Caesar supported their proposals, and sure enough, he got his treat: in 59 BC, Caesar was elected as Consul of Rome. This was his first real taste of power and some say that it made him thirsty for more which is reflected through his complete intimidation of the other Consul, Bibulus, who Caesar dominated. This seems to parallel quite closely Stalin‘s rise to power, which consisted of a series of pacts, each removing an opponent until he had finally cemented himself alongside Trotsky and a few others, who he then turned against Trotsky before promoting himself ahead of them. In this instance, Caesar can be compared closely to Stalin and so already the seeds of madness were being sown in Caesar‘s head. Perhaps we are being too hasty though, because surely all politicians make dodgy deals to get power and so is Caesar merely demonstrating his motivation here, or his madness? Caesar‘s next move was by no means by chance or through fear though. He recognised that the military was the key to everything, for with their support you could control Rome and the Empire. So, in 58 BC, Caesar took leave from Rome to go to the Gallic borders and lead the Roman campaigns against the Gauls to try and win the support of the military. He succeeded in the 8 years that he spent as governor of Roman Gaul, taking all of modern day France and Belgium in doing so. Caesar was now seen as a great force back in Rome and back he came, with the army in full tow. Like a child brandishing a new toy, Caesar brought the army back into Italy with him, an act forbidden by the senate as this was seen as a declaration of war on Rome. A bloody civil war followed, Caesar and his legions against Pompey and the senate, and Caesar won. Pompey fled to Egypt and was there assassinated. Rome was waiting and Caesar‘s answered. Here‘s where Caesar really starts looking very much like Gaddafi and other dictators. He had no opposition after killing them all, the Triumvirate was finished since both Pompey and Crassus were dead and Caesar had the support of the military, he was going nowhere. So what next for the mighty Caesar? Well he made himself both consul and dictator of Rome. The senate still existed, but it might as well not have, as Caesar forced through any reforms that he wanted to, actually improving aspects of Roman life. He brought in reforms that relieved debt for Rome, enlarged the senate and even revised the
calendar. Rather unsurprisingly, however, Caesar‘s temporary position as dictator turned into a permanent one, but still he wanted more power. He didn‘t just want the support of the Roman people, he wanted their devotion. In February 44 BC, Caesar brought himself before the people of Rome and tried to have himself crowned as King of Rome by having Antony offer him a diadem. This was massive for the people of Rome as they hadn‘t had a king since the Etruscan times, centuries ago. A loud jeer went up and Caesar‘s coronation had failed, so he pushed away the crown and won the crowds‘ support by making it appear that it was Antony who wanted him crowned, rather than himself. This was Caesar‘s downfall. The senators heard about Caesar‘s failed coronation and realised that if they were to ever have the senate as the power in Rome again, then Caesar would have to be killed, for he could not be trusted. So, on March 15th, 44 BC, around forty Roman senators murdered him in the Theatre of Pompey in Rome.. Caesar, however, was essentially still young to power by the time of his death and so we must consider the idea that he had not actually had enough time to experience the ―fall‖ that we have seen in most modern dictators such as Idi Amin or Gaddafi. Therefore, the idea that he was mad, but that it had only just begun to show by 44 BC, is a valid suggestion to the question of Caesar‘s madness. What sets Caesar apart from other dictators, however, is his acknowledgement of being a dictator. Perhaps this was because in Roman times there were no negative connotations with the word ―dictator‖ and maybe Caesar even brought a gradual movement towards this with his brutal foreign policy and treatment of anyone who stood in his way to power. Perhaps Caesar was more learned than today‘s Gaddafi or Stalin and recognised that what he was doing was wrong. This is Unlikely. We are in fact being anachronistic here by applying a modern term, with modern connotations, to an ancient period. So while Caesar was unaware of his cruelty and ―slyness‖, perhaps it is too far to say that he was power-crazed. Morals didn‘t figure much in Roman politics. In conclusion, Caesar‘s every move was calculated and his career was like a game of chess, manipulating his opponents into making a decision that he wanted them to make, therefore whilst Caesar was definitely motivated, he wasn‘t mad, merely more cunning, clever and cruel than the rest.
Interview Section
Why are you so interested history? [He laughs] That‘s the question. I‘m interested in… human beings in the past. In the forces that shape society, the tensions that shape and divide society and how individuals respond to situations of crisis, opportunity or advancement. Men and Women in extremis, in difficult situations, using resources very different to our own, moved by ideals and aspirations very different to our own. All that seems very interesting to me. Why do you think the study of history is important? Well there is a very humane reason; that we all die. The past is quickly forgotten and the actions of human beings, their ideals, are quickly forgotten. There is a very good Auden poem, which says that the courage and the innocent disappear but words survive. The study of history, a commitment to the past, breathes life into those who have died. It makes them live again. And I think that is a deeply egalitarian aspiration and experience, to examine the fortunes, the lives of those who have gone before us. After all, 90% of human experience is in the past. I avoid any view that history provides us with a road map for the future, far from it. But it does allow us to track the human animal in certain contexts that can parallel our own. So do you think we can learn anything at all from history? Or are you of the view that the only thing we can learn from history is that we can’t learn from history? I think the lessons we can learn from history are pretty…evident. But we always need to be reminded of them. I think Napoleon said something to the effect that the lessons of war are simple, but the simple is always very easy to forget. The lessons of history are pretty simple but they are not easy to remember! The human animal…will always look to itself. In a way it‘s a negative viewpoint, that the human animal will always be selfish, will always look to its own. There are important exceptions to that, and it‘s good to b reminded of them. The two things that last, the beauty of the green grass and the courage of men, I think that‘s true. In some ways the past can give us a misleading map to the future. A striking instance of that is the fight against communism in the 60s. Those fighting communism were haunted by the failure of politicians of the 30s to confront fascism and militarism. The second world war frightened the subsequent generation into thinking that if they didn‘t stand up to communism with a degree of toughness then they would face another all out war, and that led them down the wrong road in a way, led them to misread the situation. A lot of our understanding of the past, public understanding of the past, is one shaped as much by myth as by fact. Myth is so important in shaping ideals. The myth of the ‘66 world cup, for example, continues to haunt the country, the England football team and every England manager. It‘s a millstone around the neck.
So you might say that in some ways history is important because it’s stops us from learning the wrong lessons from the past? Absolutely. It‘s a reminder of the complexity of human experience. That‘s not to say there aren‘t important decisions to be made, important moral decisions. I think a historian who lets go of their moral judgement looses the point, and isn‘t going to be the historian he or she wants to be. History reminds us of the complexity of the human past and that‘s what leads us to keep reading about the past, to remind ourselves about the practical effects of chaos theory. And then the range of responses that can be made in reply to the practical effects of chaos theory… Understanding one human being is a very difficult thing. What makes you work? I can‘t possibly know, and I‘m your contemporary. How are we meant to work out how someone felt in the Roman republic or in the court of Charlemagne? These are difficult issues and that‘s just studying individuals. When we are studying macroforces, well, how do you establish the evidence for the effect of a macroforce? You need very detailed and clear evidence. Usually these things are deeply contentious because our views are shaped by our evidence. Let’s talk about your specialist subject. What is it that fascinates you about medieval kingship? Well it‘s such a long period. A thousand years divide the Roman emperors and the Renaissance rulers. It‘s a remarkable period in the formation of the modern west, and indeed North Africa and the Middle East. The events in the Middle East at the moment, for example, are directly forged by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I think it‘s a formative period, and it covers a huge range of societies, from the empire of Justinian to the medieval kingdom of Hungary, and that alone has its own interests. And, I can‘t lie, I‘ve always been interested in knights. The very nature of this society, one shaped by chivalry, honour, a militarist ethos, we can see expressed in churches and cathedrals across the modern west. We see effigies of knights everywhere; this is a military aristocracy. I heard a very good lecture recently about the fall of Rome, and how things changed dramatically in different parts of the empire. To some extent, those who conquered the empire in the west took up some of the apparel and imagery of Roman rule, but though they may do that, below it they retain a warrior ethos. These men do not believe in the wearing of togas. They are not seeking to create a civic society. They live by the code of the warband and the warrior, and this remains true throughout, though it is shaped in different ways across the millennium. The warriors who fight for the Viking kings, or in King Alfred the Great‘s retinue, have a lot in common who fight for Henry V at Agincourt. There is a gulf between them, but they would have identified with certain key values; loyalty, honour, courage. That strikes me as intriguing and interesting. It was a value system that shaped society. That is what matters in this period. It mattered in the early modern and roman periods but it is that more prevalent in the 1000 years that divide ancient Rome from renaissance Rome. It is the capacity to exert powerful leadership in the locality. That leadership is sustained by networks of friends, clients and family, networks which are constructed, articulated and maintained through violence. That remains a core dynamic of the period. It is difficult for us to understand, we who in a way are far more like the Romans in our appreciation of civic society. We believe that the way in which a society should work is a non-militarist one. We, like the Romans, believe that when soldiers enter the city, they should put aside their military apparel and put on civic garb. That is an essential feature of a democracy, and the case in our modern post-enlightenment democracy. You’ve emphasised the vast gulf between civic society, such as our modern western society and Roman society, and medieval society. Would you say there was any element of continuity in the Germanic successor states, in terms of say values or culture? Yes, there was lots of continuity. People tend to think that the middle ages were populated by dour
people who feared the sinking of the sun. The fact is that they were so much like us, because we‘re the same species. They‘re funny, they like jokes, they fall in love. They define love in different ways of course, but these are important issues. You only have to read the letters of Eloise and Abelard to realise the power of sexual emotion and romantic desire, or the life of Christine of Markyate, a twelfth century saint. She is tempted in all sorts of ways, and some of the ways she is tempted we would see as remarkably modern. So at a very human level we can identify the same sort of emotions that drive us. Your question is more profound, asking about the continuity between the Rome and the medieval west… Presentation counts for a lot, and the way these rulers think of themselves. You read Bede and the way various kings act, or rather how Bede makes them act, come across as having a ―Roman Imperial‖ edge. The way that Edwin moved about his kingdom for example is not unlike a Roman governor. Bede describes how an object is lead before him like a Roman eagle. So to some degree they take on the apparel of Rome. Of course, the language of the Romans remains the language of intellectual discourse for at least 800 years after the sack of Rome. The Vernacular appears too of course. Many important historical works are written in the vernacular, and let‘s not forget that the romance languages are simply degraded Latin. If you read Gregory of Tours, a Merovingian author, his Latin has striking relationship with early French; you can see the formation of the language So there is continuity, and to some extent in the west it is found in the centres of authority. Some Roman cities continue to thrive in these roles. In North Africa and the Middle East there is some striking continuity, in the scale and type of building, in lifestyle, in a lifestyle that continues to be that of a civic and urban civilization, just like Rome. Can you tell us a little about the new book you’re writing, The War of Magna Carta? The anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015 is just around the corner, so there‘s going to be a lot of interest in it. Working on the period reveals a striking amount of evidence on the war. This was a war, a very complex war, it‘s not simply two sides slugging it out. It isn‘t like the campaigns of Edward III in France, nor is it like the wars fought between Edward IV and Henry VI. Rather it‘s a 2 year conflict in which the sides are constantly changing. Just the idea of sides is a misleading one. Yes, you have King John against the rebel barons as traditionally described by historians, but that doesn‘t capture the reality. There are many barons who fought with the king, there are many who fought against him. There are many knights who fought for the king, there were many who fought against him. The kingdom is very much divided, and then the nature of the war is transformed, partly by the arrival of Louis prince of France, partly by the death of John, who leaves a small boy as king. That changes the dynamic. It‘s much easier to side with a small boy who doesn‘t bear the sins of his father and at the same time fight an invading French king. There is a remarkable amount of evidence for the prosecution of the war in the locality. Yes, there is the march of armies and mercenary commanders, but there is also a lot of evidence that shows the extent to which various members of the local elite pursued vendettas against local rivals in the name of one side or the other. That strikes me as an interesting aspect to all this, that you have a very vivid record of the violence, intimidation, the changing kaleidoscope of local loyalties. This is true across the kingdom, and it spills over into Ireland, Wales and Scotland. There is a major sea battle, a major battle in the streets of Lincoln, and, ultimately, the war comes down to expectations of how a king should manage a kingdom, and that king‘s relationship with English community. That community suddenly found expression and a very, very powerful tool in Magna Carta. While there have been some excellent books on the rebellion, and excellent books on Magna Carta itself, there is a degree to which what I have just mentioned, and what I‘m interested in writing about have not been discussed and deserve to be discussed. These are dramatic events, events that effect large sections of the country, and if history really is breathing life into those who have gone before us, then there is very good justification in looking at these two years.
A Divided America ―We are sailing to Philadelphia/A world away from the coaly Tyne/Sailing to Philadelphia/To draw the line/ The MasonDixon Line‖. These are lyrics to the song ―Sailing to Philadelphia‖ by Mark Knopfler, and it is a fairly unusual song in its own right. The song is about two men, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, and their travels to America in order to draw the ‗Mason-Dixon Line‘. When I first heard this song, I had little idea of the significance of the Line, thinking that it was some sort of railway line across America. So to combat my ignorance I researched the ‗Mason-Dixon Line‘ and found out why Mark Knopfler devoted a whole five minutes and thirty-one seconds to singing about it. The origins of the Mason-Dixon Line can be traced back to the early 17th Century, to a devoted British Catholic by the name of George Calvert. Calvert had worked for James I as a Member of Parliament and a Secretary of State, where he enjoyed political success right up to James‘ death, when he retired. As a reward he was given the title of 1st Baron Baltimore and land in America. Yet Calvert remained active, and showed a great interest in British colonies abroad, particularly America. Originally, his interest was merely for his own economic gain, but a conversion to Catholicism meant that he became concerned about the spiritual wellbeing of English immigrants, threatened by the spread of ‗heretics‘ in the new colonies inhabited by Catholics. Therefore, he approached Charles I for a royal charter to establish a settlement in America. He managed to establish the state of Maryland, which he believed would be a safe haven for Catholics. Thus, in 1635, the Charter of Maryland was signed. Yet tragically Calvert died before the agreement was reached, meaning that his son, Cecil Calvert, became the ‗founder‘ of Maryland. Part of the agreement was that Maryland‘s northern boundary would be the 40th Parallel. So far then, there was little cause for disagreement, and Maryland started to become a prosperous, religious state. Move on another fifty years however a potentially catastrophic development occurs. In 1682, Charles II was in a spot of bother. He
had racked up enormous debts, and needed to pay them back to various Lords and men of high ranking. One such man was William Penn. Penn was a real estate entrepreneur who like Calvert, was interested in the potential for American colonies to grow and become successful. He too was deeply religious, being a Quaker. Charles II owed Penn‘s father, Admiral Penn, a lot of money: £16,000 (The estimate equivalent is two million pounds in today‘s money ). To repay him, Charles gave Penn land in America. This was just what Penn wanted; a chance to expand his beliefs that colonies should be democratic, and joined together in a peaceful coalition. He therefore travelled to America, founded the state of Pennsylvania and established a colony there. Penn further increased his land ownership when he was given the Delmarva Peninsula, an area of land to the right of Pennsylvania and the modern day state Delaware. Little did Charles or Penn know that they were about to enter into an argument that would literally split America into half. It was agreed that Pennsylvania‘s southern boundary would be the 40th Parallel, establishing a clear line border between itself and Maryland. But each state had a different view as to where the line actually was. To keep the geography simple, Penn and Charles assumed that the 40th Parallel was further south than Calvert stated. Calvert believed that the boundary was further north than Penn dictated. This was a serious problem, particularly for Pennsylvania. Penn had decided that the city of Philadelphia would be
the capital of Pennsylvania, yet it lay in the south. Under Calvert‘s boundary, it was be part of Maryland, and if this stood, Pennsylvania would lose its capital city. The
location of the Delmarva Peninsula was also a problem, for the two states did not know where exactly it lay. Naturally the two sides fought over the land, each claiming that it was theirs by right. The two sides were locked in disagreement for nearly eighty years. There were some outbreaks of fighting between the two states, and it seemed that neither could resolve the issue. The two families approached the British court, and a compromise was made. The judge ruled that the boundary for the two states would lie fifteen miles south of Philadelphia, meaning that the Penn family would keep Philadelphia as their capital city. In return, the Delmarva Peninsula would be shared between Maryland and Delaware. The families agreed and surveyors were sent for to draw out the boundary accurately. Yet they were inadequate for the job, as the boundary required many different complex calculations to establish it. Therefore two surveyors were summoned to complete the boundary and restore peace to the states: Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon. The two men were both equally talented in their fields. Mason was an astronomer who worked at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, while Dixon was a mathematician. Little is known about the two men, particularly Dixon who has to some extent been forgotten by history. Regardless, they were hailed as two
of the most talented surveyors in Britain and were dispatched to America to settle the dispute. Their first job was to sort out the boundary in the Delmarva Peninsula. This involved a lot of complex equations, calculations and measurements which quite frankly is far too boring to mention. To cut a long story short, Mason and Dixon managed to draw up the border, while the rest of the scientific world was impressed at the success they had found, for many thought the boundary to be impossible to finish. After the Delaware Peninsula was sorted out, Mason and Dixon then had the larger task of dividing Maryland and Pennsylvania. They began fifteen miles south of Philadelphia and travelled west from there across the entire country. Their system of marking the boundary may seem to be a little basic to us; they used stones. A limestone benchmark was placed at the beginning of the journey, and stones were placed every mile along the line. Each one was brought over from Britain, and each had a P on the north face and an M on the south face. Every fifth mile had the Penn coat of arms on the Pennsylvania side, and the Calvert coat of arms on the other. Yet this wasn‘t just a simple task of laying stones down and walking in a straight line. The two men had to deal with nature, encountering streams, marshes, and even mountains. Yet without a doubt the most challenging obstacle was the various encounters with Native Americans. There were various groups of Native Americans along the way, who threatened the surveyors and their team. Eventually, in 1767, the men had to stop at Dunkard Creek near Mount Morris, Pennsylvania, when their Native American guide told them that it was too dangerous to continue. Thus, the line that the two men drew up was half-finished, and it would be another twenty years before surveyors finished what they had started. This historic line dividing the two states became known as the Mason-Dixon Line. So, was the line successful? Was it really Knopfler mentioning it? The answer to both of these questions is yes. The line did end the dispute between the two states and prevented further unnecessary fighting. There was still the odd border disagreement, but none on the previous scale. While it is true that the line itself did not represent any major groundbreaking scientific achievement, it is a feat still impressive to modern day scientists.
Dilwyn Knott, one of a team of surveyors evaluating the line, stated that it was "a logistical achievement and represented hard core science done under harsh conditions". Mason and Dixon were incredibly accurate in their surveying. Using GPS measurements, Knott and Todd Babcock concluded that the line was off the mark by as little as one inch in some places, and never more than 8oo feet. Considering the lack of specialised equipment the two men had, using only their minds and measurements taken from the sky, this was quite remarkable.
messages about the mistake of taking part in the Iraq War. The ending of ―Sailing to Philadelphia‖ involves Charles Mason (voiced by James Taylor) accosting Dixon about the foolishness of his actions. He states, ―You talk of liberty/ How can America be free?‖ In reply Dixon tells Mason to ―hold your head up‖. He tells Mason to trust him, saying that ―Another day will make it clear/ Why your stars would guide us here...‖ I believe that Mark Knopfler too was trying to capture the importance of the line in American history. It was not just a simple boundary, it was the separation of America, and changed how both the North and South viewed one other.
Historical Wit & Wisdom
Yet this was not just a geographical achievement. The line had its own part to play in American history. Move forward to 1820, and you would encounter the beginnings of the American Civil War. Tensions had started to run high between the North and the South over the issue of slavery. The Missouri Compromise took place in 1820, and it was agreed that the ‗slave states‘ and the ‗free states‘ should be divided along a clear boundary and be separated. Part of this boundary was the Mason-Dixon Line. So in a way, the line was essential in separating the North and South and starting a conflict that was greater than the Penn/Calvert dispute. It could also be argued that the line was responsible for establishing the terms ‗North‘ and ‗South‘ that is widely accepted across America. Anything south of the line is the ‗South‘. So while the line was originally designed for only two states, it ended up dividing an entire country. On a more trivial note, the American term ‗Dixie‘ referring to the South United States, originated from Jeremiah Dixon. So not only did the line split America in half, it was also responsible for the emergence of a popular American country band, comprised of women, and preaching
Purely historical thought is nihilistic. It wholeheartedly accepts the evil of history Camus Study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft Winston Churchill The past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes - Mark Twain The study of history is a personal matter in which the activity is generally more valuable than the result Galbraith Write a wise saying and your name will live forever Anonymous
World War III ?
The Middle East is currently in turmoil, with President Mubarak of Egypt and President Ben Ali of Tunisia already having been overthrown and Colonel Gaddafi of Libya seeming as if he will be ousted from power in the not so distant future. The future of Arab world remains uncertain. Do the links with the causes of the First and Second World War suggest more trouble is ahead? Nationalism was a key cause of both wars, and is evident today in the Middle East. This is a strong identification of a group of individuals, bound by cultural and ethnic links, to a country. It was the main reason why Germany was able to occupy Austria, a country with strong links to its German neighbours. The Anschluss that occurred in 1938 was the beginning of German expansion that was followed with Hitler moving into the Sudetenland later in the year and further expansion that would see WWII begin. The same Nationalism was seen in 1914 at the start of WWI, with resentment building against foreign occupation and increasing sense of national identity, as shown in AustriaHungary‘s control of Bosnia. The amalgamation of many different nationalities under Austria-Hungary was a main factor in the beginning of WWI as countries sought for independence, and a similar feature could be seen if the uprisings in the Arab world led to a breakdown in national borders with new political powers coming to the fore. Perhaps more likely would be actions such as Germany undertook in occupying neighbouring countries, with perhaps Egypt helping out its fellow protestors in Libya who remain under Gaddafi‘s control. However this alone would not cause a world war, as the UK, USA and other leading countries would be reluctant to get involved. Yet this was a similar factor in both WWI and WWII, although eventually they did enter into conflict after international alliances, as well as the fear of expanding foreign countries, became too strong for them to remain passive. In 1914 and 1940 the fear was expansion of
foreign and aggressive powers, especially in 1914 when the British had developed a large wealthy Empire that was being threatened by German expansion. The fear now is that control of the oil-rich Middle East, a commodity that is becoming increasingly important, would fall out of British and American hands and into the new and potentially hostile governments of the latest regimes (it is also important to remember that WWII was also fought over resources in the East with Japan creating an empire based on raw materials in the Pacific). Just as Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy formed an alliance against Russia and France, and just as the Axis powers teamed up in WWII against the American and British, a new alliance of Arab states could form against the western Superpowers. The Treaty of Versailles crushed Germany after WWI resulting in a backlash when Hitler came to power and the fact the USA has constantly attempted to interfere and manipulate Arab politics over oil and nuclear weapons could
result in a similar phenomenon as they come together in a stand of nationalism. However it must be recognised that WWII was started by a fascist state in Germany and this bears direct contrast to the overthrowing of fascist dictators in the Middle East. Although the affiliations of the successors of Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gaddafi and others are uncertain it would be imagined that they would aim for a period of consolidation when the turmoil ends. This would suggest another power not involved in the uprisings, perhaps Iran (who have sent two warships through the Suez Canal and into the Mediterranean) would have to try and fill the political void sure to be left through invasion, for there to be any conflict, as this would surely antagonise USA and UK. However this seems very unlikely and other causes of the World Wars such as militarism and an arms races have not materialised. The causes of the World Wars were, in the main, long term. The causes of WW1 can be traced to 100 years before it began, after the uprisings in Turkey where the Balkan nations achieved autonomy after many years under Turkish rule. In fact WWI occurred so many years later that this incident is arguably not a cause, and so if another World War does break out in the future (most likely due to oil shortages) and fingers are pointed at the 2011 Arab uprisings as a cause, their claim will most likely be debatable. Of course we are still in the middle of the uprisings and it is hard to be sure what will happen. There may still be the short term flashpoints that resulted in WWI when Archduke Ferdinand was shot, or that resulted in the real beginning of WWII with the Pearl Harbour attack by the Japanese that brought the USA into the war. These unexpected events could still occur but remain uncertain. One interesting theory is that these uprisings are not as closely linked to the World Wars but to the European 1848 revolutions. The sclerotic monarchies and one party systems of the Middle East had parallels with the ruling classes and Empires that ruled over Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century. The voting restrictions that apply there were shown by only 4% of people being able to vote in Britain and 1% in France, which again is the case at the moment in the Middle East. Another comparison that can be made is the speed of the revolutions. It took only 29 days to remove Ben Ali in Tunisia, 18 to remove
Mubarak and now this has spread to Libya, Bahrain, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco and Yemen, just as in 1848 (remember means of communication were far slower) it took 6 months for 16 different groups to rebel against imperial governments right across Europe. However in 1848 the apparent success of the revolutions soon turned sour with French revolutionaries soon giving in to Dictator Louis Napoleon and French and Austrian armies crushing new Italian states. These rebellions made no ground in improving political sway for the working class and it will be interesting to see if this occurs in the Arab world of today. That is the key point for whether these uprisings will begin a World War. Will the next generation of rulers give in to a new Hitler character as the Weimar Republic of Germany did that will spark confrontation or will settled and peaceful governments set up and ensure reconciliation for the region? The links from 1914 and 1940 are there but a sequence of unexpected and almost freakish occurrences (assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) would have to take place for these uprisings to cause a world war.
Want to know more ?
Ernle Bradford ‘The Great Siege of Malta’ The classic account of the siege was written almost 50 years ago by Bradford, who had firsthand experience of Malta from his wartime experience as a Royal Navy Officer. He used this to inform his writing, which is a classic read, even if some of his interpretations are now inevitably outdated. The importance of the siege and the bravery of the local Maltese can be exaggerated, but if you like reading history as a rip-roaring story full of danger and excitement you will find this book hard to beat. Jason Goodwin ‘Lords of the Horizon’ This book has its critics. It doesn‘t give you a straightforward narrative of the Ottoman Turks, from their emergence in Anatolia in the 14th century to their apogee in the 16th century under Suleiman the Magnificent via the capture of Constantinople in 1453. What it does do is look at the Ottomans and their Empire through a variety of different angles which captures the spirit of the Ottoman period. It is a challenging book to read, but is also a beautifully written study in the art of writing history. Gavin Menzies ‘1421: the Year China Discovered the World’ This is a highly controversial book as most scholars would argue that Menzies is completely wrong in his assertion that the Chinese had explored the Americas 70 years before Christopher Columbus‘ famous voyage in
1492. However, you can decide for yourself. Is the evidence Menzies puts forward false, or have we been so conditioned into a sense of European superiority that we cannot accept the truth, even when it is presented to us? Tristram Hunt ‘The Frock-Coated Communist: the revolutionary life of Friedrich Engels’ Before he realised his bourgeoisie socialist ambitions and became MP for working class Stoke, Tristram Hunt (from Cambridge and Harringey, London) was one of the more high-profile public historians, notable for his research on Victorian England. His latest work was this biography of the more neglected half of the double act with Karl Marx that laid the foundations for the creation of modern Communist thought. Given that most of his ideas were formed through his experience running a factory in Manchester, it highlights how 19th century Britain contributed more to world intellectual history than Gilbert and Sullivan. Adrian Goldsworthy ‘Caesar: the life of a Colossus’ Caesar is in some ways too big a character to fit into a conventional biography. The scale of his achievements and the lack of clarity about he wanted to do with them, resulting from his premature end, provokes more heat than light. Goldsworthy does a good job in covering the range of Caesar‘s career and discussing the problems and controversies that arise from a man who left such sparely written models of how to present your actions to the wider public in his Commentaries.
Edwin Danson ‘Drawing the Line: How Mason and Dixon Surveyed the Most Famous Border in America’ I‘ve not read this, so I will take my opinions on another‘s authority. There is a complex level of geometry and astronomy involved in understanding this fascinating example how a modern frontier was shaped when it was not clearly delineated by topography or tradition. However the tale of two intelligent and learned 18th century Englishmen carrying out such a venture is well worth telling, which is why Tom Nash has done it so well in this volume of the Shoardian! David Reynolds ‘America: Empire of Liberty: A New History’ Unlike the previous work, I have actually read this . There is so much rubbish written about the USA, informed by superficial engagement with polemical writings by authors who should know better, but can‘t as they prefer the freedom of ignorance. To understand a country‘s actions, as Marx would have said, one has to understand the internal contradictions that shape it. America possesses more than its fair share of these, but they are more interesting than most. Reynolds argues that all American history can be understood by the attempts to reconcile the ideals of the Declaration of Independence with changing political, social and economic realities over time. Essential reading for anyone trying to get a handle on what America means. Anthony Beevor ‘Stalingrad’ Anthony Beevor has a marmite quality in that you either find his books accessible and enlightening, or clumsy and morbid. This is certainly better than his book on the Battle of Berlin (Cornelius Ryan‘s earlier book on that topic is much better written). There is a winning mixture of anecdote and analysis, and some of his
conclusions (for example over the historical accuracy of the famous sniper duel) are well researched. This is such an important battle, and poorly understood in the west thanks to clumsy films like ―Enemy at the Gates,‖ so this is well worth a read. David Glantz and Jonathan House ‘When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler’ This is one of the best single volume accounts of the Eastern Front. It is free from the strange obsession with the German perspective that often taints general accounts of the war that argue for German operational and technical superiority at all levels, and explain the Russian victory by weight of numbers, harsh weather and Hitlerian idiocy. This line was pushed in the memoirs of German generals after the war, and the Cold War probably explains why it was accepted by many in the West. The survival and eventual victory of the Red Army is an utterly remarkable achievement, though its human cost was incalculable. Guy Sajer ‘The Forgotten Soldier’ This German war memoir from the Eastern Front is more interesting than most as it involves a native from Alsace who joined the German Army in 1942 and apparently fought in Russia through the terrible battles that raged during last 2 years of the war as the Germans were forced back by the Red Army. Rather than being a list of events, the experiences are recounted with a visceral quality that gives the book a novelistic quality. This has led some critics to deny its authenticity. It certainly deploys a degree of imaginative reconstruction. Despite the arcane arguments over the accuracy of uniform reconstruction, this does make for a compulsive read. It may perpetuate the myth of the ‗innocent German soldier‘ but it is interesting nevertheless.
Adam Tooze ‘The Wages of Destruction’ One of the best books that I have read written in the last 10 years on any period of history. Tooze‘s masterful study turns much previous thought on Nazi Germany on its head. In the 1960s AJP Taylor argued controversially that Hitler was just another German statesman, whose actions fitted into pre-ordained patterns. This was rejected by most scholars, who argued the warped irrationality of Nazi ideology plunged Germany into inevitable destruction. Tooze shows that if examined from an economic perspective, Hitler‘s actions make some sort of sense. He was obsessed with the danger presented by America, not the USSR. It was to solve the strategic conundrum of 1940, when he had conquered Europe, but not materially strengthened his economic position, that lead to the invasion of the USSR, as a way of seizing sufficient raw materials to build the weapons needed to fight America. In some ways Barbarossa was the only true Blitzkrieg: aiming for a decisive victory that expended relatively few resources. The enterprise was doomed from the start, as Tooze masterfully demonstrates as German resources were insufficient to fight the USSR‘s developmental economic dictatorship. The snows of Moscow were just the playing out of an inevitable conclusion rather than a decisive turning point in themselves. The rest of the war saw the Germany economy concoct a variety of desperate expedients to mobilise its resources, of which the Final Solution was the most hideous of many immoral projects. in a sense the most depressing aspect of the Third Reich is that educated humans can organise bestial acts when driven by ambition and economic logic. Eugene Rogan ‘The Arabs: a History’ There are several general books written on Arab history such as Philip Hitti‘s A History of the Arabs and Albert Hourani‘s A History of the Arab Peoples are deeply learned works, but cover too much ground and the reader loses why the Middle
East is so important. While understanding of the early centuries of the Arabs has been revolutionised over the last few decades, this account shows that the more recent past is also better understood than ever. Rogan starts with the destruction of the medieval Mameluke army of Egypt by the gunpowder weapons of the Ottoman Sultan Selim the Grim in 1516. From there he illustrates how the internal diversity and weaknesses of the Arab world allowed outsiders to increasingly dominate the economic and political life of the region. The fabric of Arab society has been undermined in the attempts of Arab rulers to catch up with the western Imperial powers who had for so long been in their shadow, the consequence being political instability, division and resentment. The contradictions that have drive the Middle East, and the optimism for the future revealed in the recent Arab Spring, have rarely been better explained to western audiences than through this book. Francis Spufford ‘Red Plenty’ This is one of the oddest books you will ever read being both literature and history. It‘s a nonfiction novel written about Soviet macro-economic policy. While that hardly sounds riveting, this highly original book examines the period under Khrushchev when it was believed that the combination of Soviet scientists, with the aid of the planned economy, could surpass the USA as the leading world economy in the production of goods. It didn‘t quite work that way, and the system essentially ran on self-delusion, but remarkable achievements were still made, not only in the Space Race. Spufford uses a series of vignettes, pitching fictional characters with real people to explain what life was like during this period. The research is exhaustive, and so this arguably gives you a better sense of what life was like in the USSR than any straight historical account could. So if you want to understand why Khrushchev felt he could take on the USA, or why Communism eventually failed, you could do worse than read this account.
When you mention the Cuban Missile Crisis to most people they will be able to tell you a very general yet fairly accurate outline of the crisis, but if you asked them why Khrushchev put nuclear missiles on Cuba, the standard answer would probably be ―because he was a nutter‖ or something along those lines. But was Khrushchev really a ―nutter‖ or did he have genuine reasons to put nuclear missiles so extraordinarily close to mainland America? Khrushchev himself said, ―Our purpose was only the defence of Cuba. Everybody saw how American imperialists were sharpening their knives and threatening Cuba‖. Surprisingly this was actually true. The USSR saw from the Bay of Pigs that Kennedy was willing to use
military force to remove Castro from power, and so Khrushchev reasoned that if they had intervened militarily once, there was nothing to stop them doing it again. This wasn‘t helped by the fact that the US military were performing manoeuvres in the Caribbean that one could safely say were seen by the USSR as dry runs for a genuine attack. There is also evidence that Khrushchev knew about Operation Mongoose, a CIA secret operation to remove Castro from power including the many attempts to assassinate him. All of this wasn‘t helped by American diplomatic hostility towards Cuba e.g. the removal of Cuba from OAS (Organization of American States) and neither did the economic hostility help e.g. a
total trade embargo. All these American actions, when viewed from the USSR‘s perspective did make it seem as though the US would invade. This argument, however, begs the question; why nuclear rather than conventional weapons? This is answered by the fact that Khrushchev thought conventional weapons would not be a sufficient deterrent , whereas, in his opinion nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent. However, no one is calling Khrushchev altruistic and one only needs to look at the crushing of various uprisings in the Eastern Bloc to see that Khrushchev had many more self-interested reasons to put nuclear missiles on Cuba. First there is the issue of the politics of World Communism. China, the second biggest and second most powerful Communist nation felt that Khrushchev was ―soft‖ with regards to his policy of peaceful coexistence with the West. China also felt that Khrushchev wasn‘t doing enough for the development and spread of Communism. By putting nuclear missiles on Cuba and therefore defending the Cuban revolution he could dismiss the Chinese, who also posed the threat of trying to replace the USSR as the leader in World Communism and replacing it with an alternative Chinese form. A sometimes overlooked reason why Khrushchev put nuclear missiles on Cuba is strangely, spending cuts, although I don‘t think David Cameron will be following his example. Khrushchev wanted to make budget cuts in the areas of military and defence and put the money into increasing the living standards of the average Soviet citizen. He started to implement his ideas and within the four years from 1955 to 1959 Khrushchev had reduced the Soviet army by around 2.1 million troops. These cuts however had to stop, firstly because when Kennedy came into power he started a large military build up and secondly due to opposition to cuts within his own military. By putting nuclear missiles on Cuba i.e. having more missiles that could hit USA, it would allow Khrushchev to cut military spending on arsenal production and funnel the money through to raising living standards. There is also the issue of Berlin that one needs to consider. Khrushchev had been trying to get USA, Britain and France out of East Germany, a Soviet satellite state. He tried on several occasions but he failed to do so. For this reason he built the Berlin wall to stop
East Berliners fleeing to West Berlin, which had a much higher standard of living. He believed that if he had nuclear missiles within close range of the USA, Kennedy would have to make concessions over this issue. A final convincing and very simple reason is that the USA themselves had nuclear missiles extraordinarily close to the USSR. The USA had Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey (only 150km from USSR border). Khrushchev therefore viewed the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba as perfectly fair and justified as it was merely resetting a strategic balance. There are many more minor reasons why the ―nutter‖ put nuclear missiles on Cuba and although to this day he and other USSR ministers (that are still around), will stick to the reason of the defence of Cuba, I believe the insecurity that the USSR felt with Jupiter missiles right across the border is a far stronger reason. Indeed, it was whilst Khrushchev and his Defence Minister, Rodion Malinovsky were at the Black Sea in the Crimea looking towards Turkey, (where the US had their nuclear missiles), that Khrushchev said ―'Why don't we install our rockets in Cuba and point them at the Americans?‖
The Battle of Stalingrad - Victory at all Costs To most people, Stalingrad brings up the idea of a city in flames. It conjures an image of a desperate struggle between two vast states using a city bearing Stalin‘s name as a proxy for a duel, of men being thrown into the fray to die in their thousands: suffering in dreadful conditions under the steady gaze of snipers. There has been, however, an enduring image that it was a predestined Soviet victory, and all part of a master plan to lure the Germans into the city, bog them down there for Operation Uranus, the encirclement of the German forces around Stalingrad, and to wipe out substantial portions of Army Group South. This is simply not true - the battle was exceedingly close, and for several months it looked as if the city was about to fall despite the valiant efforts of the 62nd army there. One undoubtedly magnificent thing that Stalin did tactically was to delegate to his best leaders. Marshal Zhukov was given overall command, while Lieutenant-General Chuikov commanded the 62nd army in Stalingrad itself. Chuikov, in order to prevent being pushed back into the river Volga, which was often only a matter of metres from the front line, developed the tactic of ―hugging‖ the Germans. This was where his under-equipped men stayed close to the Germans at all times, making them feel, as he himself said, ―like they are always living under a gun‖. This, coupled with the devastating use of both snipers and artillery, which was massed on the other bank, meant that Field Marshal Paulus‘ men were beset by tens of thousands of cases of shellshock and battle stress. The snipers were particularly effective. The most famous of these, Vasily Zaytsev, who was the main character in the film ―The Enemy at the Gates‖, was credited with 32 kills with a standard Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, before being awarded with a sniper. He later went on to kill another 242 Germans in Stalingrad alone. He also trained other snipers in Stalingrad, developing a tactic called the ―sixes‖ (3 snipers paired with 3 spotters covering a large area of ground between them) which is still used today. The men he trained are estimated to have killed over 6000
men between them: the majority would have been in Stalingrad. This and the artillery strikes, that were often called in by the spotters, broke up German attacks before they could start. If they managed to advance under the shrieks of the ―Stalin organs‖, the Katyusha Missle launchers, and the hail of sniper fire taking out officers and flame units, then they found no respite against the standard infantry. There are many examples of the Russian bravery, however I shall only touch upon two here. The first is known as Pavlov‘s House, and is where Sergeant Pavlov held a normal 4 story house for 2 months against what were often multiple assaults a day. Pavlov placed machine guns at each window, anti-tank rifles on the roof and minefields around it, while his men dug trenches and knocked down walls for easy communication. Pavlov himself is credited with over a dozen tank kills using the rifle on the roof, while his men sometimes had to run in front of their base to kick piles of German corpses out of the way, to prevent them being used as cover. This was held so strongly it was marked as a fortress on German maps. What is incredible though is that Pavlov originally took the house losing 25 out of 30 of his men, then held on after being reinforced only once with 20 men. A similarly amazing story is that of the Tractor Works. The Germans managed to establish a foothold there, but the Siberians fighting against them held out for months. Their radio transmissions were intercepted by the Germans, and they were found to be repeatedly requesting to either be reinforced or to retreat. When these
were denied, they asked for more ammo, since they were almost out. When this was again denied, they simply said that they were out of ammunition and supplies and so they would do one last charge. At this they attacked using bayonets until every one of them were killed. The Germans won the factory, however were so damaged by this defence they were pushed back by counter attacks shortly after. These show how the Russians held till the last drop of blood and cost von Paulus dearly. Despite the effectiveness of the Russian defence the battle was not all one sided. The Russians often only had metres of ground behind them, and often suffered massive casualties. Chuikov‘s headquarters, which were on the east bank, was nearly taken several times, once with the Germans coming within 200m of it before being pushed back by a counter attack led by his staff officers using their revolvers. This highlighted the desperate nature of the war the Germans knew as ―Rattenkrieg‖- the war of the rats. Both sides were tenuously hanging on, with the Germans slowly but surely pushing the Russians back into the Volga, despite the Russian mindset, which was summed up by Chuikov‘s statement that ―for the men of the 62nd Army there is no land west of the Volga‖. Eventually, it was the Russian numbers that counted in this war of attrition. Zhukov was able to feed just enough men into Stalingrad to keep the Germans pinned down, while he massed men either side of the city. In Operation Uranus the Russians counter attacked using German tactics, crushing the weak flanks that had been drained by the fighting in Stalingrad, and encircling over 200,000 Germans in the ―Kessel‖, as it was known. Out of these men less then forty thousand would ever see Germany again. Overall, the casualties of the campaign of Stalingrad speak for themselves as to how close it really was. The Germans lost an estimated 850,000 men, along with hundreds of tanks and aeroplanes, while the Russians had over 1.1 million casualties, with around 40,000 of those being civilians. These figures show that the battle was hard-fought and only just a victory for the Russians- if Stalingrad had been lost, then it could have opened up the entirety of the Caucasus region to Hitler, possibly altering the entire outcome of the war.
Historical Wit & Wisdom 'Nothing endures but change'. Heraclitus 'Nothing capable of being memorized is history'. - R. G. Collingwood 'Life must be lived forward, but it can only be understood backward'. Søren Kierkegaard 'Imagination plays too important a role in the writing of history, and what is imagination but the projection of the author's personality?'. - Pieter Geyl 'If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development'. - Aristotle If you do not like the past, change it - William L. Burton
The Battle for Moscow– What might have been
On Friday the seventeenth of October, Stalin was faced with a momentous decision, on which may have depended the eventual victory or defeat of Soviet Russia. His choice may have been the decisive factor in the Nazi‘s failure to capture Moscow and subsequently destroy the USSR. Hitler had placed Operation Typhoon into action, seen by many as his last attempt to seize the Russian capital before the disaster which befell his troops during the winter. The operation, which involved two pincer offensives from the north and south of Moscow, was going seemingly to plan. General Heinz Guderian‘s forces had smashed through the barriers to the South of Moscow, and taken Orel, a city 125 miles south. On the 10th of October, Kalinin fell, a town to the north of Moscow and meanwhile reports were coming through of German panzers approaching the city. Panic and chaos spread over the capital as any form of law and order collapsed, riots occurred at the train stations in an attempt to flee the city. This was the situation in which Josef Stalin, the leader of the USSR found himself in on the seventeenth of October 1941. His politburo suggested leaving the city via train the next day, in the expectancy of Moscow falling, so that they may regroup and counterstrike. This looked like a very realistic possibility at the time, as reports were flooding in of German parachutists landing in the centre of Moscow. So confident were the Germans that they publically announced on radio that the war had ended and that Russia had been defeated. Stalin stayed in Moscow, a decision which eventually led to the Nazis failing in their efforts to defeat the Russian capital. Andrew Roberts however, a leading historian and writer of ―What Might Have Been‖ suggests that had Stalin left the city, the USSR would still have prevailed against the German forces. Moscow‘s fall would have lead to Sta-
lin‘s removal from power by the Politburo, with Generals Zhukov and Molotov leading the war effort, and going on to retake Moscow and eventually defeat the Nazis. I disagree. All of this depended on holding Leningrad, modern day St. Petersburg, which after losing Moscow, I believe would be an unattainable target. As we can see from the map opposite, if Moscow fell, units would be diverted north towards Leningrad. Hitler‘s priority had always been Leningrad. He stated in August 1941 that the German forces should attack "Leningrad first, Donetsk Basin second, Moscow third." The German soldiers had already surrounded the city. It is possible to argue that the sight of Hitler at the Kremlin, in a similar nature to his appearance at the Eiffel Tower, would have destroyed Soviet morale and caused for surrender. The fall of another major Russian city, I believe would have been too much for the Russian politburo to take, and lead to the eventual surrender of the Red army, leading to the Nazi occupation of Russia.
Re-Evaluating Communism
Communism is a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. Based on the socialist ideology put forth by German political theorist, Karl Marx, the USSR was subject to a strict Communist regime for the majority of the 20th Century, therein creating an ideological schism between themselves and their Western, capitalist counterparts. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, perhaps the most renowned advocate of what we know today as Communism, founded the Bolshevik Party in 1905 and came to power at the head of the Russian empire in 1917 which he soon moulded into the USSR. Before coming into power Lenin had been strongly allied with the Russian proletariat and actively supported the proletariat led revolutions, such as the 1905 revolution. Once in power however, he moved away from them and in many ways became their dictator along with his select "vanguard party" government. Becoming a dictator, according to Karl Marx's works, is a necessary advancement in implementing Communism because this would allow the dictator to remove any opposition to Communist rule. Thus soon after Lenin's success in becoming the leader of the new USSR, all political parties were banned, the press was hugely censored and the Cheka (Lenin's newly formed secret police) became very active in silencing, usually forcefully, any form of opposition. Therefore at the beginning of Lenin's reign the society in place in the USSR was closer to totalitarianism than Communism. What was Lenin's ultimate dream of society? Lenin ultimately wanted to create a utopian society (an ideally perfect state, in all social, political and moral aspects) in which all individuals are content and there were no inequalities or flaws. Communism was in Lenin‘s mind a transitional phase between where Russia was in the early 18th century, as a capitalist state, and the utopian state it would later become. Lenin believed that through
Communism an abundance of wealth could be achieved allowing for ‗distribution through need‘ which would ensure the state would reach a point of equilibrium and hopefully in the future give birth to a Utopian society. Lenin died in January 1924 allowing him less than 7 years in power at the head of Russia. This fact ensured that Lenin was not able to oversee the communist state‘s transition to the utopian dream he had hoped to create. In actual fact Lenin was not even able to see Russia as truly communist because even up until 1924 Russia was a largely totalitarian state, with much of the power in the hands of the few. The most obvious reasons behind this are the constant drawbacks he encountered such as the civil war in the USSR between 1917-1923, which lasted most of the time Lenin was in office and consumed a great deal of his resources. Indulging frequently in diplomatic chicanery, and often denigrating his political opposition, (the likes of Trotsky and Zinoviev), Joseph Stalin was a man intent upon imposing his own stamp on the soviet state, but was he a successful proponent of communist ideals? Many would argue that Stalin acted not as a Communist head of state, but rather (by way of his own imposition) as a dictator, in the most tyrannical sense of the word. Part of the reason why Communism is so popular conceptually, is its ability to exalt the notion of freedom within a society. From Stalin‘s rise to leadership in 1929 to the end of his reign in 1953 however, the state was seen by its people an oppressive and harsh regime. This notion of a ―liberated‖ society under Communist rule was greatly undermined by Stalin, and in that sense, was unsuccessful in achieving its aims. The NKVD (Russian secret police) at this time were involved in domestic invasions and the ruthless execution of enemies to Stalin, dispiriting the public and destroying all sense of community. Despite Communism presenting an obvious ideological divide between the USSR and countries such
as America (therein inhibiting healthy foreign relations), there were great advancements made in agricultural and industrial efficiency. The USSR was transformed from an incompetent commercial body into the newly industrialized and collectivized economic powerhouse of the 1930s and 40s. This may be seen as Stalin‘s greatest success, if only attained through acts seen as deeply unethical. Stalin‘s Machiavellian style of rule, alongside his exacting ―five year plans‖ gave rise to an increase in oil production from 12 -26 million tons from 1927-1940, and an increase of 3 million tons in steel production within the same timeframe. We mustn‘t forget however, that morally his exploitation of his people and primarily workers was abhorrent, and should be seen as a great failure of a supposedly Communist state. The worst example of this mistreatment was ―the purges‖, whereby Stalin accused those in opposition to him of false crimes, and subsequently had these people executed. Victims included the Kulaks (rich peasant farmers), the proletariat, and more specifically, the leader of his Red Army – Marshall Tuckachevsky. This can only be seen as a great Communist failure, with all sense of justice and equality being eradicated arbitrarily by an egocentric dictatorial figure. Therefore we can see that Communism, in its purest form, was never achieved in the USSR neither under the reign of Lenin nor Stalin. Although Lenin may have worked towards creating a purely Communist state he never achieved it and when he died in 1924, the USSR was still a totalitarian state. As discussed earlier it was Joseph Stalin who succeeded Lenin and maintained Russia as a totalitarian state, under a rule that can only be described as autocratic. From the disparate nature of both of these leaderships we can understand that Communism neither succeeded nor failed in Russia because it never truly existed. The concept of Communism therefore, remains to be explored and could ultimately prove to be the transitional phase between capitalism and a state of utopia.
Editor - Jake Dyble Sub-Editor - Max Hudson Many thanks to Mr Hern and all contributors