Dagobert I: The Politically Ambitious 7th Century King of the Franks

Dagobert I ( 603/605-639 CE), a prominent figure in the Merovingian dynasty, ruled as the King of Austrasia (623–634) and eventually as the King of all the Franks (629–639). His reign marked a period of relative unity and administrative consolidation, though it was often marred by political intrigues, external threats, and internal dissent. Dagobert's leadership qualities, political ambitions, strengths, and weaknesses left a lasting imprint on early medieval Europe.

Terry Bailey explains.

 Treasures of Dagobert from a 19th century book.

Born into the Merovingian dynasty, Dagobert was the eldest son of King Chlothar II. The political climate of the early 7th century was dominated by internal strife within the Frankish territories, divided into Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy. To ensure stability and appease the Austrasian nobles, Chlothar appointed Dagobert as the sub-king of Austrasia in 623 CE. Despite his youth, Dagobert showed an early aptitude for governance and diplomacy, bolstered by his chief advisor, Pepin of Landen, who later became a foundational figure in the rise of the Carolingians.

Upon his father's death in 629, Dagobert sought to consolidate his power over the entire Frankish realm. He deftly neutralized his rivals, including his half-brother Charibert II, who briefly ruled over Aquitaine before being assassinated, likely on Dagobert's orders. By 632, Dagobert was the undisputed ruler of the Frankish kingdoms, a feat rarely achieved in the fragmented Merovingian era.

Dagobert's reign was characterized by his ambition to strengthen royal authority, curtailing the growing power of the Frankish nobility. He implemented significant administrative reforms, sought alliances with powerful aristocrats, and maintained a court that reflected the grandeur of his aspirations.

He was also a patron of the Church, founding several monasteries, including the famed Abbey of Saint-Denis near Paris, which became the royal necropolis of the French monarchy. His support of the Church not only solidified his legitimacy but also provided a moral counterbalance to his often ruthless political maneuvers.

Dagobert demonstrated a keen interest in diplomacy. He maintained relations with neighboring powers, including Byzantium and the Lombards, and successfully negotiated treaties to secure Frankish borders. His reign saw campaigns against the Slavs and Saxons in the east, though his success in these ventures was limited, reflecting both his strengths in negotiation and his challenges in military command.

Strengths and weaknesses

Dagobert's greatest strength lay in his political acumen. He understood the delicate balance of power required to govern a fragmented kingdom. His ability to play rival factions against each other, while maintaining a semblance of unity, showcased his diplomatic skills. His cultural patronage, particularly his support of the Church, ensured his place in the annals of medieval history.

However, Dagobert's reign was not without flaws. His centralization efforts often alienated the regional nobility, leading to sporadic revolts. His taxation policies, aimed at funding his court and military campaigns, were deeply unpopular among his subjects. Moreover, his inability to establish a robust system of succession weakened the Merovingian dynasty after his death, as his sons Clovis II and Sigebert III became pawns in the hands of powerful noble factions.

Dagobert I's reign marked a turning point for the Merovingian dynasty. While his efforts at consolidation were not entirely successful, they provided a template for future rulers. His close relationship with the Church laid the groundwork for the Carolingian dynasty's eventual alliance with religious institutions, a cornerstone of medieval European governance.

In popular memory, Dagobert is often remembered for the chansons de geste and legends that extol his virtues while glossing over his political machinations. The phrase "Le bon roi Dagobert" (The good King Dagobert), immortalized in French folklore, reflects the romanticized view of his rule, despite its complexities.

Dagobert I's life and reign encapsulate the challenges of early medieval kingship, a precarious balance of ambition, governance, and personal flaws. His legacy, though overshadowed by the eventual rise of the Carolingians, remains a testament to the enduring struggle for unity and authority in the Frankish world.

In conclusion, Dagobert I's reign was a pivotal chapter in the history of the Merovingian dynasty and early medieval Europe. His relentless pursuit of unity in a fragmented Frankish kingdom, coupled with his administrative reforms and diplomatic ventures, showcased his vision of centralized authority. Despite the political intrigues and controversies that marred his rule, Dagobert's accomplishments in governance, cultural patronage, and Church relations set significant precedents for subsequent monarchs.

Yet, Dagobert's reign also underscored the inherent difficulties of maintaining control over a vast and diverse realm. His strained relations with the nobility, unpopular fiscal policies, and failure to establish a stable succession plan highlighted the limitations of personal ambition in the face of systemic challenges. These shortcomings ultimately contributed to the gradual decline of Merovingian power, paving the way for the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.

Dagobert I's dual legacy, one of ambition and fragility, offers valuable knowledge into the complexities of leadership in early medieval Europe. As both a unifier and a flawed ruler, he stands as a reminder of the precarious nature of kingship during this turbulent era. His life and reign remain a rich source for understanding the evolution of governance, the interplay of religion and politics, and the enduring quest for unity amidst diversity.

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

Notes:

Death of Dagobert I

Some controversy exists over the death of Dagobert I, with some accounts indicating that he was assassinated, however, the truth is rather more mundane. The death of Dagobert I, occurred at Épinay-sur-Seine, near Paris, after a brief illness. Historical sources, including Frankish chronicles and hagiographies, offer limited and sometimes contradictory information about his final days. However, most agree that he died of natural causes, likely from some form of illness or disease, as was common in the early medieval period. There is no evidence of assassination or battle-related death.

Dagobert was buried at the Basilica of Saint-Denis, a royal necropolis just north of Paris. His tomb became a focal point of Frankish royal burial customs, reinforcing the sacred connection between kingship and the Church. Over time, hagiographers embellished his life and death, with legends portraying him as a sinner who was saved through the intercession of Saint-Denis. This religious narrative aimed to elevate Dagobert's status posthumously and align his legacy with Christian sanctity, even as real political control was slipping from the hands of the Merovingians.

Military campaigns and territorial control

Dagobert I's reign was not defined by sweeping military conquest but by strategic campaigns aimed at reinforcing the Frankish borders, asserting dominance over rebellious territories, and preserving internal order. His approach to warfare was largely reactive, dealing with external threats and internal instability as they arose, though not without ambition for territorial influence.

Campaign against the Slavs (Wends)

One of Dagobert's most notable military actions was his campaign against the Slavs, specifically the Wends, who had settled in regions east of the Frankish realm (in modern-day Saxony and Bohemia). These Slavic tribes had been pushing into Thuringian territory, threatening Austrasian interests.

In 631, Dagobert led a joint military expedition along with his allies, including the Lombards and the Bavarians. The campaign was initially intended to be a show of Frankish military strength and to secure the Elbe frontier. However, it turned into a significant setback. The Slavs, under their leader Samo (who had established a Slavic confederation), ambushed and defeated the Frankish forces at the Battle of Wogastisburg.

The defeat was a major embarrassment for Dagobert and highlighted his limitations as a military commander. It also marked one of the first major defeats of a Frankish army at the hands of a Slavic confederation, underlining the growing challenge posed by tribal coalitions on the empire's periphery.

Despite the failure, the campaign had lasting effects: it revealed the limitations of centralized Frankish power and the necessity of cooperation with semi-independent regional dukes, such as those in Bavaria and Alemannia. Dagobert would later rely more heavily on diplomacy and strategic alliances in these frontier areas.

Control over Aquitaine and the Death of Charibert II

Though not a campaign in the traditional sense, Dagobert's conflict with his half-brother Charibert II, who ruled over Aquitaine, had a military and political dimension. Seeking to avoid a division of the Frankish realm, Dagobert likely orchestrated Charibert's assassination in 632, along with that of Charibert's infant son. Following their deaths, Dagobert absorbed Aquitaine into his realm, reinforcing his position as the sole ruler of the Franks.

The incorporation of Aquitaine, a wealthy and semi-autonomous region, was crucial for economic and strategic reasons. However, Dagobert's control remained fragile, as local resistance simmered and future Merovingians struggled to assert direct authority in the region.

Internal revolts and repression

Dagobert faced internal challenges from noble families and semi-independent regions such as Gascony and Burgundy. Though not large-scale military engagements, these revolts required military responses. Dagobert often dispatched loyal retainers and Austrasian forces to quell disturbances and enforce royal authority. In Burgundy, he cracked down on dissent by confiscating lands and redistributing them to loyal supporters, a tactic that maintained short-term control but bred long-term resentment.

Frontier policy and alliances

Rather than launching expansionist wars, Dagobert sought to secure his borders through diplomacy backed by military threats. He maintained peaceful relations with the Visigoths of Spain and Lombards of Italy and entered into alliances with the Avars and various Germanic duchies such as Bavaria. His military prestige, bolstered by the symbolic authority of the Merovingian kingship, was often enough to deter open conflict, except where local rulers sensed weakness, as Samo did in the east.

The Roman Illyrici Rulers: Strong Soldiers to Stronger Emperors

When asked to picture Roman emperors, many may think of men dressed in glistening togas, perhaps those famous figures to which we owe the months July and August. Others may think of tyrannical figures like the emperor Nero, or the Stoic Marcus Aurelius. What these emperors have in common is the time in which they exist, all residing in a time of general prosperity for the Roman empire from roughly 27BC-180 AD. However, many often don’t hear of the figures and people in the between classical antiquity and the early Middle Ages, roughly 235-700 AD. There is a very rich history here. A history that laid the groundworks for medieval Europe. A history filled with migrations of highly impactful populations. A history where a seemingly invincible empire was changed to its very foundations. In a time of widespread chaos, known as the ‘crisis of the third century’, the Roman Empire was shaken to its core. Emperors were proclaimed left right and center (an astounding 26 recognized rulers in a 50-year period), and those left in charge were constantly in a battle to maintain control. The military remained the strongest institution in this time, and what continued to emerge were powerful generals taking the throne. Many of them called the Balkans their home, known as ‘Illyricum’, and would later be referred to as the ‘barracks emperors’, or the ‘Genius Illyrici’.

Dylan Cross explains.

A medallion of Diocletian. Source: CNG, available here.

Diocletian

After a long twenty-one-year reign, Diocletian retired to his palace in Split, Croatia, in 305 AD. He stabilized the frontiers, reformed the administration system and brought in a new era for the Roman Empire. He was the first emperor to voluntarily retire his position; one of the few to die peacefully. He had set up a system known as the Tetrarchy (rule of four), in which the empire was divided between four emperors of equal position to ensure there was a base of power in all corners of Europe. Diocletian had ruled over the eastern portion of the state. Turkey, Egypt and Syria, conveniently the richest provinces in the pot. This begs the question, why retire to the coast of Croatia rather than the rich eastern empire he had governed for so long? We know he was born here, in the ancient town of Solin (now a suburb of Split). The sources claim he was of a lowborn position, perhaps even a freed slave (Eutropius. 9.19). The town must have held importance to him, enough for him to build an extraordinary palace (although more a fortress in retrospect) and remain here until the end of his life after abdicating. Famously, when asked by his old comrades to return to the throne, he is claimed to have said:

 “If you could see at Salonae the cabbages raised by our hands, you surely would never judge that a temptation”. - Epitome de Caesaribus. 39.5

Illyria as a region was certainly held with pride by those from it. The empire was vast, and soldiers came from every corner of its territory. But Illyria is perhaps one of the most significant in the time of the third century crisis and beyond it, and many emperors owed their power to the growing power the military could grant, and the significance that hailing from Illyria could bring them.

What was the crisis of the third century?

Let’s go back in time. It’s the middle of the third century, and the frontiers of Illyria held one of the highest concentrations of soldiers. There is an estimate of seventeen legions (Southern, 2016, p.431) attested under the reign of Gallienus (253-268 AD), who reigned during one of the most troubling times of the empire. It’s important to see what the troubles were at this time and what made it a crisis. During the third century, there was intense internal conflict in Rome. Many emperors were assassinated, revolts were commonplace, and usurpations were a constant threat. Another large pressure was coming from external threats. Large numbers of tribes were pressing inwards onto the frontiers, most notably the Rhine and the Danube frontiers which encompassed the largest stretch of what the Romans had to defend. These troubles reached a critical stage between 250-270 AD, when there were 2 break-away empires, the Gallic and Palmyrene Empire.

What did this mean for the army?

This had significant consequences for the army and demonstrated that power remained with the soldiers. It was famously said by the emperor Septimius Severus on his deathbed:

“Enrich the soldiers, scorn everyone else”- 211 AD - Cassius Dio. Roman History. 77.15.2

Without the army’s support, the emperor couldn’t maintain control, which was the reason for such political insecurity and so many usurpers. Therefore, the army of the third century had to evolve. Evidently, there was a shift to recognize the talents of capable generals rather than promoting prestigious names and wealthy citizens. The senatorial order had traditionally held the role of controlling high level magistracies and military posts. For example, a Senatorial Legatus(magistrate) had traditionally commanded the legion, but this was increasingly replaced by an equestrian prefect (Goldsworthy, 2003, p.201). Emperor Gallienus (253-268 AD) had further propelled the soldiers onto the career ladder. He continued the movement to remove the power of the Senate from the military (Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus. 33), instead granting more roles to gentry classes known as the ‘Equites’. This would make it far more accessible for capable generals to attain military positions, replacing the old elite structure with those from a less elite stock. As well as this, Gallienus began recruiting soldiers for his personal entourage, known as the ‘Protectores’. This had existed before his time, but with the increased military demand due to the many threats of the century, it was advanced to new levels. Gallienus began recruiting soldiers from Illyria into his Protectores (Stoev, 2020), in turn making them a significant part of the military and their prestige. Stoev presents a detailed description of how ‘barbaric’ elements of the population of Illyria were becoming integrated with the more Romanized soldiers of the region. Therefore, Illyrian soldiers were afforded more opportunities to gain prestigious positions in the army by their experience.

How did this influence the emperorship?

In an intense time of crisis, the army of the third century often proclaimed who they thought would rule better, or more realistically, who could pay them the best. We may find some origins of the rise of the Illyrici in the reign of emperor Decius (249-251 AD). Decius was born in the province of Illyricum (Serbia), he was a senator and military commander who was appointed to crush a rebellion in the Danube. In Roman fashion, Decius’ soldiers demanded that he take the throne, and after defeating the emperor Philip, he was made emperor. His significance in this story may seem insignificant. A wealthy Senator promoted in a usurpation does not seem a candidate for a great soldier emperor. However, what shines through is reign is the official promotion of the Danube the soldiers, the ‘Genius Illyrici’. The ‘spirit of the Illyrians’ was recognized on official coinage during his reign. This holds great significance for what it meant to be a soldier from these provinces and marks the significance Illyria had for the future of becoming an emperor. Decius himself had clearly been appeasing the large body of troops stationed in the Danube; however, its recognition becomes clear when you look later into the emperors of the third century.

Claudius Gothicus

After the death of Gallienus in 268 AD, a general named Claudius Gothicus took the throne. He was likely born in the Danube and became a successful general under Gallienus (Historia Augusta. Gallieni 7) through the promotion of non-elite classes into the military. Claudius earned the title ‘Gothicus’ after defeating a large army of Goths in the Balkans. He is often associated with the term ‘barracks emperors’, the collection of emperors who rose from military backgrounds rather than from wealthy elite families. Early emperors often were contained in a lineage and part of a wealthy household, such as the Julio-Claudian dynasty, or the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty. However, in the third century there was often not a fluid succession of the throne.

Despite the lack of a peaceful transition of the throne, the Illyrian soldier emperors of the late third century often were easily picked for the throne due to their popularity and promotion by the previous emperor. Some sources suggest that Claudius played a part in the murder of Gallienus (Zosimus. New History 1.40-41), and others suggest he was not involved and was given the throne by Gallienus (Historia Augusta. Gallieni. 14, Aurelius Victor. 34). He was made emperor for being ‘a friend to his native land’, and one anecdote states that the valor of the Dalmatian (region in Illyria) horsemen was especially great, because this was Claudius’ homeland (Historia Augusta. Claudius 11.9), further claiming he had control of a significant force of Illyrian soldiers during the reign of Gallienus.

Claudius advanced the role of soldiers significantly during his reign. There are numerous dedications to generals with the name ‘Marcus Aurelius’, meaning these men were made citizens by the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, which made all free born people in the provinces Roman citizens. This represents a change in the social structure of government, the old elites were being replaced by strong soldiers only recently granted equal legal rights. One of these men, Julius Placidianus, was put in charge of defending the Italian peninsula, however not necessarily from the Danube (Potter, 2014 p.261). Holding power and respect among the influential troops was certainly significant in holding onto the throne, evident in the promotion of them into these powerful positions. This practice applies to the soldiers of Illyria, where the future emperors Aurelian and Probus would gain such dedications (Historia Augusta, Probus. 6.1; Aurelian, 16.1). One could argue that a domino effect was in place where the powerful soldier emperors promoted from recognized talent, continuing for many reigns in this century.

Aurelian ‘Restorer of the world’

Despite Claudius’ quick and powerful accession, he had only ruled for two years and succumbed to the plague in 270AD (Zosimus. 1.46). The next to take the throne is perhaps one of the most famous Roman emperors. Aurelian (270-275 AD) is often attributed to saving the Roman world. He had restored power from the two break-away empires in Gaul and the east, built the famous walls around Rome, and attempted to stabilize the frontiers by withdrawing from provinces like Dacia. His prestige, like Claudius, originates from the promotion of soldiers from unlikely backgrounds, once again Illyrian heritage is prominent. The sources acknowledge his humble background, from near the Danube River, and he rose to military command under Gallienus (Zosimus. 1.40). During Claudius’ reign, Aurelian was promoted to commander of the cavalry, which was made possible by his popularity with the army (Watson, 1999). He is enlarged in his merits by some sources, and his popularity with the army is presented as savior-like even under emperor Gallienus:

“Both we ourselves and the whole commonwealth as well are so in his debt that scarcely any rewards are worthy of him”- Historia Augusta. Aurelian. 9.3

However boastful this is, it is certain that Aurelian was popular among the army and the ruling powers. Having been a popular soldier of high esteem, would have earned him the position of Commander of the Cavalry forces later on. He had been present with Gallienus while suppressing a rival, further noted for his popularity and prestige (Aurelius Victor. 33). Internal promotion based on prestige was therefore highly prevalent, and more often than not many generals have their origin in Illyria and the promotion of the ‘Genius Illyrici’.

There is further evidence under the emperor Probus, born in Sirmium, and advanced at the same time as Claudius and Aurelian, being recognized as worthy by Aurelian (Historia Aug. Probus. 6.6). He was hailed emperor by the Danube legions (Aurelius Victor. 37). Perhaps the most interesting note in the life of Probus is that he:

“Trained most illustrious generals, Carus, Diocletian, Constantius”- Historia Augusta. Probus 22

Diocletian and the Illyrian Tetrarchy

The last two names ring significant for the course of later Roman history. As we have seen, Diocletian was born in Illyria, and from a low-born background. He had advanced to become commander of the emperor’s bodyguard (Protectores) under the reign of Carus (282-282 AD). By this time, being a member of the Protectores was significant in allowing greater prestige previously difficult (Williams, 1985). After the death of the emperor Carus, Diocletian was hailed emperor. He had to move to suppress Carus’ son Carinus, which Diocletian completed at the battle of the River Margus in 285 AD. It can be argued that the advancement and prestige of Illyrian soldiers played a large part in Diocletian’ success and stable government. Before the battle of the Margus River, a general named Flavius Constantius joined Diocletian in his conquest for sole power. Some suggest he had changed sides, originally supporting Carinus. Constantius had been the governor of Dalmatia, an Illyrian by birth, and likely served with Aurelian on his extensive campaigns.

Diocletian had created the Tetrarchy in order to increase stability. If he was to do this, he needed capable leaders he could trust. The first, and most important, was to be Maximian. Maximian is regarded as an Illyrian, unfortunately regarded as ‘uncultured’ by some sources that reflect xenophobic attitudes (Aurelius Victor. 39). The final member to complete the band was Galerius. However, the prestige of the four Tetrarchs was immense. In fact, all four members have their origins in Illyria and were propelled by the awards of the previous emperors. Ancient historians imply their prestige:

“They had been sufficiently schooled by the hardships of the countryside and of military service to be the best men for the state”- Aurelius Victor. 39

Soldier emperors became the norm for imperial governing during this period. Maximian in fact was the first soldier emperor to be mentioned in a Panegyric (a text proclaiming the greatness of the emperor), which notes the ‘Services of Maximian’s native land (Pannonia) to the state’ (Pan. Lat. 10.2.2-4).

In the aftermath of the Tetrarchy, having essentially collapsed after Diocletian abdicated to a life of cabbage farming, the veneration of Illyrian heritage and strong military figures continued to be significant. Claudius Gothicus became associated as the ancestor of Constantine the Great (Historia Augusta. Claudius. 10.7). This was likely a fabrication to associate his house with a legitimate dynasty after a troubling accession, Constantine had fought with Maximian (his father-in-Law) in the fallout of the Tetrarchy and needed a new dynasty to hold his claim. The panegyric linking the two figures says that Claudius was the first to restore discipline to the Empire (Pan. Lat. 6(7).2), which allows Constantine to claim inheritance to the prestige of his supposed Illyrian soldier ancestry. Constantine himself was born in Illyria like his father Constantius and was hard pressed on the region throughout his reign. He crossed the Danube River several times and claimed control over previously lost territory north of the river (Thompson, 1956; Eusebius. Life of Constantine. 1.8), the sources paint him as subduing ‘all of Scythia’ (a nonsensical claim that demonstrates Roman ignorance to culture and populations). Having to fight numerous campaigns against the native Goths across the frontier made his association with the very emperor with the title ‘Conqueror of the Goths’ that much sweeter to Constantine when hearing this panegyric. And so, this fabricated lineage, while being mostly political in nature, upholds the prestige of the soldier emperors and the Genius Illyrici.

Conclusion

The Illyrian trend didn’t die with the collapse of the Tetrarchy. It proved to be a staging ground for many to take the throne. The problems of the third century gave rise to a new order, where military changes meet cultural backgrounds. It is no coincidence that successful generals were made emperor, they owed their power to the recognition of the ‘Genius Illyrici’. Perhaps Diocletian, when picking his partners, felt more comfortable choosing men of similar backgrounds to his own heritage, old comrades (Williams, 1985, p.37). Emperors continued to be born in Illyria. Valentinian I (364-375 AD) continued the spirit of his Illyrian soldier heritage in lengthy campaigns to maintain order in a shifting world. His father had been an Illyrian soldier, (Ammianus Marcellinus. Res Gestae. 30.7), and this continued into a dynasty that would rule to near the end of the Western empire with the death of Valentinian III in 455 AD. Therefore, the rise of the Illyrici, that began as a desperate need for capable generals, generated a host of capable emperors that brought the Genius Illyrici from a necessity to a desired attribute.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus. Translation: H. W. Bird (1994) Liverpool University Press [archiveorg aurelius-victor-h.-w.-bird-de-caesaribus-1994-liverpool width=560 height=384 frameborder=0 webkitallowfullscreen=true mozallowfullscreen=true]

Ammianus Marcellinus. Res Gestae. Translation: J. C. Rolfe (1950) Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press https://www.loebclassics.com/view/amminanus_marcellinus-history/1939/pb_LCL300.3.xml?rskey=MNu6x8&result=1

Cassius Dio. Roman History. Translation: Earnest Cary (1914) Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press

Eusebius. The Life of Constantine. Trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. (1999). http://archive.eclass.uth.gr/eclass/modules/document/file.php/SEAD260/%CE%95%CF%85%CF%83%CE%AD%CE%B2%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82%2C%20Life%20of%20Constantine%20(trans.%20Averil%20Cameron%20-%20Stuart%20Hall).pdf

Eutropius. Short History. Livius.org https://www.livius.org/sources/content/eutropius-short-history/

Pseudo-Aurelius Victor. Epitome De Caesaribus. Translation: Thomas M. Banchich (2009) https://topostext.org/work/745

Trebellius Pollio. Historia Augusta. Translation: David Maggie (2022) Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press

Zosimus. New History. Translation: Ronald T. Ridley (1982). Australian Association for Byzantine Studies https://www.scribd.com/doc/300818235/Zosimus-HISTORY-1982

Panegyric 10. Translation R.A.B Mynors / C.E.V Mynors and Barbara Saylor Rodgers. In ‘In praise of later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini’ (1994) University of California Press. Oxford

Panegyric 6. Translation Nixon/Rodgers (1994). In ‘Contested Monarchy: integrating the Roman Empire in the fourth century AD’ (2015) Oxford University Press. New York

Goldsworthy, Adrian. 2013. The Complete Roman Army. London. Thames & Hudson Ltd

Potter, D. S., 2014. The Roman Empire at bay, AD 180-395. Abingdon. Routledge

Southern, P., 2016. The Roman Army: A history 753 BC - AD 476. Stroud: Amberley Publishing

Stoev, K., 2020. Protectores on the Balkans, 3rd Century. [Online] Available at: https://labalkans.org/en/labedia/history/political-history/protectores

Thompson, E., 1956. Constantine, Constantius II, and the lower Danube frontier. Hermes, 84(3), pp. 372-381.

Watson, Alaric, 1999. Aurelian and the third century. London. Routledge

Williams, S., 1985. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London: B T Batsford Ltd

Phalaris of Acragas: Tyrant, Innovator, and the Legend of the Brazen Bull

In the sun-scorched landscape of ancient Sicily, where Greek city-states flourished along the coastlines, one ruler's name echoed through time with a mix of awe and horror: Phalaris of Acragas (c. 570–554 BCE). Remembered by posterity as a brutal tyrant and the alleged sponsor of the inventor of one of antiquity's most diabolical execution devices, the Brazen Bull, Phalaris remains a figure of historical fascination and moral caution.

However, beyond the terrifying legends lies a ruler whose story is more nuanced than mere cruelty. A statesman, city-builder, and patron of the arts, Phalaris embodied the complex duality of many early tyrants: ruthless in power, yet vital to the progress of the cities they ruled.

Terry Bailey explains.

Phalaris condemning the sculptor Perillus to the Bronze Bull. By Pierre Woeiriot.

Rise to power

Phalaris rose to prominence in Acragas (modern-day Agrigento), one of the most powerful and prosperous cities in ancient Sicily. Originally from Astypalaia, an island in the Aegean Sea, Phalaris settled in Acragas and quickly ascended the ranks of civic life. According to later tradition, he was entrusted with building a temple to Zeus Atabyrios, but instead used the opportunity to take control of the city's military and seize power for himself.

In doing so, he became part of a broader Sicilian phenomenon, the rise of Greek tyrants. Unlike the modern sense of the word, a tyrannos in archaic Greece was often a populist strongman who seized power outside traditional aristocratic channels. Some, like Phalaris, were known for oppressive rule, while others gained support by curbing elite privilege.

Architect of a New Acragas

Despite his fearsome reputation, Phalaris was also a capable administrator. He fortified the city's defenses, improved its infrastructure, and helped elevate Acragas into a regional power. According to later writers, he was especially focused on agricultural reform and encouraged the cultivation of the rich Sicilian soil. His rule brought both political stability and economic growth.

Some ancient sources even suggest he was a patron of the arts and letters. A curious collection of epistolary forgeries, letters once attributed to Phalaris presents him as a philosophical and moral thinker. Though these letters are almost certainly fabricated, later (notably debunked by Richard Bentley in the 17th century), they testify to Phalaris's long-lasting reputation and the effort by some to recast him in a more flattering light.

The Brazen Bull

What truly cemented Phalaris in historical infamy, however, was the terrifying story of the Brazen Bull, a hollow bronze sculpture in the shape of a bull, into which victims were locked and roasted alive over a fire. Ingeniously cruel, the bull's design reportedly converted the screams of the victim into the sound of a bellowing beast through an intricate system of pipes.

According to legend, the device was invented by a sculptor named Perillos of Athens, who offered it to Phalaris as a tool of punishment. In a gruesome twist of poetic justice, Phalaris allegedly ordered Perillos to be the bull's first occupant, testing the invention on its designer.

Was the Brazen Bull real? While vivid in the writings of ancient historians like Diodorus Siculus and Pindar, many modern scholars believe the tale is likely exaggerated, or even fabricated entirely, to demonize Phalaris. Stories of tyrants from antiquity were often shaped by moral agendas and political biases, with later democratic writers eager to portray tyranny in the blackest terms.

Downfall and death

Phalaris's reign came to a violent end after about sixteen years. Around 554 BCE, he was overthrown in a popular uprising, led by the people of Acragas and supported by Telemachus, a descendant of the city's founder. In a final twist of irony befitting his legend, Phalaris himself is said to have perished inside the Brazen Bull, consumed by the very instrument of terror he wielded against others. This story, too, may be apocryphal, but it perfectly encapsulates the moral, tale and nature of his myth: live by cruelty, die by cruelty.

Phalaris occupies an ambiguous space in history. To ancient moralists, he was the quintessential tyrant, proof of what happens when absolute power corrupts absolutely. To others, he was a cunning statesman who laid the foundations for Acragas's later prosperity. Interestingly, in the second century CE, the satirist Lucian of Samosata revisited the story of Phalaris and the Brazen Bull in his dialogue Phalaris, inviting readers to question the veracity of the gruesome tales and explore the complexities of tyranny and justice.

Phalaris's life may remain obscured by legend, but his name endures, a potent reminder of how power, when unchecked by ethics, can lead to both monumental achievement and monstrous cruelty.

Was Phalaris a brutal tyrant or a misunderstood ruler tarnished by propaganda? Perhaps he was both. In the end, his story serves not only as a reflection on the ancient world's fascination with cruelty and spectacle but also as a timeless meditation on leadership, justice, and the shadow side of human ambition. Whatever the truth behind the Brazen Bull, Phalaris of Acragas has secured his place in the eternal forge of history, where myth, morality, and memory melt together into legend.

In conclusion, Phalaris of Acragas stands at the crossroads of myth and history, his legacy forged as much by the imaginations of ancient writers as by the realities of his rule. Whether he truly commissioned the gruesome Brazen Bull or not, his name became synonymous with tyranny and cruelty, yet this image, sharpened by centuries of moral storytelling, obscures a more intricate portrait. Here was a man who, despite, or perhaps because of his ruthless ascent, ushered in a period of growth and stability for Acragas, leaving behind not only chilling legends but also civic advancements that would shape the city's future.

In many ways, Phalaris embodies the paradox of power in the ancient world: a figure both feared and respected, condemned and celebrated. His life invites a questioning of where the line lies between historical truth and narrative convenience, between leadership and despotism. That his story continues to provoke reflection nearly two and a half millennia later speaks to its enduring relevance.

Phalaris's legacy, then, is not merely a tale of horror, but a mirror held up to humanity's eternal struggle with authority, ambition, and the morality of rule. In the flickering heat of Sicily's past, his legend still burns, a bronze echo of the enduring tension between greatness and cruelty.

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

Notes

Brazen Bull, real or false

Arguments for the Brazen Bull being real:

Multiple ancient sources:

Ancient writers Diodorus Siculus, Lucian, and Pindar mention the Brazen Bull. While the stories differ in details, the consistent appearance of this legend across sources suggests a kernel of truth or a long-standing oral tradition.

Consistency in ancient descriptions: The way the device is described, complete with acoustic pipes and a smoke vent through the nostrils, suggests a relatively advanced understanding of sound manipulation and metallurgy. That kind of detail implies some grounding in real craftsmanship.

Historical context of cruelty: The ancient world was no stranger to brutality, crucifixion, impalement, and flaying are well-documented. Phalaris was historically portrayed as a cruel despot, and tyrants often used symbolic executions to instill fear. A bronze bull may have served as both torture and terrifying propaganda.

Execution as spectacle: Public executions often had performative elements. A metal bull that turned screams into animalistic bellows could have been designed for theatrical effect to intimidate enemies and subdue dissent.

Arguments for the Brazen Bull being false or exaggerated

Lack of archaeological evidence

No physical remains of a Brazen Bull have ever been found at Akragas or elsewhere. If such an elaborate device were real and widely used, one might expect some physical trace or copy, especially in regions known for elaborate executions.

Mythical tone and moral storytelling: The story of Perillos being tricked into entering the device he invented is suspiciously allegorical, it fits the mold of poetic justice tales in Greek literature. The narrative may have been invented to criticize hubris or tyranny rather than to recount an actual historical event.

Propaganda against Phalaris: Much of what we know about Phalaris comes from his enemies and later authors. Tyrants were often vilified after their deaths with exaggerated tales. The Brazen Bull may be part of a literary character assassination campaign to make Phalaris appear monstrously inhuman.

Unrealistic engineering: While possible in theory, creating a device that transforms screams into convincing bull-like sounds is not trivial. The idea that acoustics could be fine-tuned to this degree with ancient metallurgy might be more fantasy than fact.

Roman and later embellishments: Writers like Lucian and later Christian authors retold and amplified the Brazen Bull story to emphasize the cruelty of pagans. Some tales link it to Christian martyrdom, further suggesting that the story evolved with dramatic additions over time.

Verdict: A real device or a literary monster?

There's no definitive answer. The Brazen Bull could have existed, as a one-off device, a terrifying symbol of Phalaris's rule. However, it's also quite likely that the story was exaggerated or fabricated by moralists, poets, or political enemies to make a tyrant's cruelty seem grotesque.

If real, it shows the dark ingenuity of ancient execution methods.

If false, it demonstrates how myth and propaganda shaped reputations across history.

Needless to say, without physical evidence, the answer will probably never be known, what is more likely, is that the truth falls somewhere between the two diametrically opposed points of view.

Tyrant

The word "tyrant, (týrannos, (ancient Greek, τύραννος)), was originally defined as an absolute ruler, not necessarily a cruel one. Only later did the word take on the negative meaning of a harsh or oppressive ruler.

The Wartime SAS Legend in the Postwar Period: David Stirling

The story of David Stirling is well known. He was one of the founders of the SAS, and he owned a wartime reputation as the Phantom Major which has been written about at length. To this day this legendary status persists although some writers now doubt the authenticity of some of those wartime claims. Stirling’s wartime experience was cut short when he was captured by the Germans in 1943 and endured an extended period of incarceration in Navi Prison Camp and in the infamous Colditz Castle. After the war he left the Army in 1947 but retrained to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the reserves until 1965. This article is primarily about Stirling’s life and career after the Second World War.

Steve Prout explains.

David Stirling during World War 2.

Liberation and return to England

Following liberation from his wartime captivity, Striling returned to England. He played no further part in the SAS or indeed any other active service. His tried numerous attempts to rejoin his regiment but he was unsuccessful, meeting subtle rejection from senor military command. He tried unsuccessfully to use some of his more influential contacts such as Randolph and Winston Churchill to argue his case, but again this was without success. His political connections had lost their value because Churchill had now lost the 1945 election to Clement Atlee and now no longer held power.

None of this prevented Stirling from trying to get back into his old fold but times had moved on. Whilst the war with Japan was continuing he presented plans to create a new branch of the SAS trained specifically to fight in Asia where the war with Japan continued. Without doubt he viewed that theatre of war as his last chance of action and to prove himself.

The proposal was to create and train a specific unit comprising of US personnel to operate inside China using tactics he adopted during his time on SAS operations. This plan however was not enthusiastically received by his superiors. Mountbatten, the Supreme Allied Commander, of British forces in East Asia did not see the value in Stirling’s proposal and his opinions held the most weight. Although there was some marginal support from a Major General Richard Gale of the US 1st Airbourne Corps, the idea never progressed. Stirling’s military career and his part in the war was now finished. It was time to redefine himself.

Creating a Legend

David Stirling was to become more widely known as the Phantom Major. It was not until the late 1950s that the legend of David Stirling, The Phantom Major was created and firmly established in the public’s eye and imagination. Up until now his wartime exploits were limited to a scattering of wartime newspaper articles and little more but he would now recycle those stories and with the help of an author create that legend. After the death of fellow SAS member and legend Paddy Mayne, there was an opportune moment to create this new image without any serious challenge to the authenticity of those accounts.

It was American writer and journalist Virginia Cowles, an American who published the book “The Phantom Major” in May 1958, who created Stirling’s reinvention. Several critics were not convinced about Stirling’s claims, which some would later point out contained various deliberate omissions in his accounts and elaborations. Many close to Stirling, like his brother Bill and his mother, chose to remain silent on the topic. The controversies of David Stirling’s SAS career are covered in some depth in “The Phoney Major” and is not the focus here.

Although the book received some criticism by eminent military historians such as Liddell-Hart, none of this mattered as the book captured the imagination and approval of its intended audience, the British public. Either way a legend was created and Stirling’s career in the following decades then took some quite different twists and turns, none stranger that Capricorn Africa and GB75.

Capricorn Africa

Stirling first went into business by establishing two fish and chip shops that allegedly employed former service men, and both ventures were short lived and unsuccessful. Stirling then emigrated to Rhodesia where he chased a variety of business opportunities. He also needed to find his own success story and make a name for himself because he always felt overshadowed by his brother Bill Stirling. To exacerbate matters he initially needed the financial support of his more successful brother. This need for support would persist quietly.

Once he arrived in Africa 1949 Stirling co-founded the Capricorn Africa Society. Its aim was to fight racial discrimination in Africa. This goal and the organizations other goals were overly ambitious. The organization did not get any support from the government at the time and Britain was still clinging to its last colonial possessions and an empire that which was fast becoming untenable. External matters would continually challenge the organization. However, there were internal issues too.

The mission of Capricorn Africa was too grandiose to ever expect success. The organization’s manifesto in 1952 stated that the prime objective was to abolish racial discrimination on all levels. Secondly, to preserve what is best in the culture of all races. Thirdly, establish common patriotism for all races. Fourthly, secure the adoption of a written constitution. These nebulous goals were backed by a claim that “all men whatever race are born equal in dignity.”  These were all commendable, but the organization had no plan or support to achieve this.

There were also doubts on Stirling’s ability to carry this scheme through. Furthermore, there existed a general suspicion by Africans that this was an elaborate plan for the British to maintain its colonial hold in Africa. By 1954 Stirling, once a media wartime favorite, was faced with numerous unfavorable criticisms that his “head was in the clouds” and he was “not the right man for freedom in Africa”. Various newspapers such as The Times published the opinion that the aims of this society were simply a veneer for an “Empire Building Project” which “did not have the best of intentions for Africa.” The plan was big in so much as it wanted to incorporate twenty-five million Africans of Rhodesia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika into one national state. It was incredulous. It was grandiose. It was unwelcome by the Africans, and it was too overly complex. It was above all impossible.

Within the organization the members had different ideas on what defined equality and what qualified the ordinary African for enfranchisement. Some in the organization declared quite arrogantly that the African had to be “deemed civilized” before any semblance of equality or the entitlement to vote could even be considered or granted. Obviously, this offensive statement evoked old imperial condescension and immediately derailed any genuine attempts to change Africa’s future not least win any support, if indeed the plans had any genuine buy in from the onset. Whether Stirling truly was on board with the concept, or it was to serve his own vanity we will never know but the whole project quickly failed with Stirling’s resignation as Chairman in 1959. The Organization soon disbanded to no surprise. Stirling would later admit to journalist Gavin Young that his decade that he spent in Rhodesia achieved nothing. In his own words “Capricorn was Utopia. Almost Walter Mitty.” He concluded by admitting, “We were a total failure.” Stirling turned his attention to something else with which he was familiar.

Military Contracting (PMC) and Watchguard International Ltd

Stirling next entered the world of private military contracting or to be more precise he developed the concept itself. He was credited by Christian Baghai as the founder of Private Military Contracting, an industry that that has grown in recent years and is now a billion-dollar business used by all military organizations and governments alike. Ukraine’s current war gives us a recent example with the questionable use of the Russian Wagner Group and the USA has Acadami (formerly Blackwater). Currently this industry is worth now $224 billion with expansion set to double. This industry all started with David Stirling.

Stirling formed other organizations such as KAS International and KAS Enterprises, all of which took advantage and profited from the political upheaval of the post-colonial situation in Africa and the knock-on effect of the Cold War. Military services were now about to become privatized. Africa and the Middle East would be Stirling’s primary focus for his organizations.

His most renowned creation was the company called Watchguard International Ltd. This was formed in 1965 along with fellow director John Woodhouse (also an SAS veteran) and was based out of Sloane Square, London. Watchguard lasted until 1972 when Woodhouse resigned following a disagreement with Stirling. The companies first assignment was in Yemen. At the time Yemen was in the throes of civil war. The task for Watchguard was not so much combative but to observe, report and advise on the condition of the Yemen’s Royalist forces. John Woodhouse was sent by Stirling to tend to this task. Simultaneously, Stirling was also secretly networking with Iranian officials for assignments, as the country was also in a state of turmoil. However, such is the secrecy of this industry the exact details are not known but the salient point is the genus of a new industry that grew far beyond no doubt even David Stirling’s expectations.

Over time Stirling would become involved in all kinds of activities such as brokering arms deals in the Gulf states and training forces in Zambia and Sierra Leone. The specific details behind these operations will never be known with any certainty. Of course, PMC activity attracts various opinions concerning ethical matters and Stirling did not escape that as we will see later.

At one point Stirling’s activities in Yemen 1966 irked members of the British Royal family and earned him the disdain of the SAS who did not welcome the publicity from his activities. This incident took place during a flight from Yemen where Stirling created a furor over the Sultan receiving a second-class seat on a flight to Britain whilst on the same flight Princess Maragaret was present in first class. He termed it a snub without properly establishing the facts and caused an embarrassment in high social circles. It was one of many faux pas he would be notorious for.

.

The Libyan Affair

In 1970 Stirling became involved with a plot to destabilize and remove Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011) who had just taken power. At the time, the West was not certain if Libya’s leader remaining in power would serve the interests of the Western world. According to later sources, the CIA and MI6 had requested that a group of mercenaries set about the task of removing the Libyan dictator. By using mercenaries, the CIA and MI6 could typically deny all culpability and involvement, at least at a certain level.

According to an account by a Peter McAleese who served in the SAS in the 1960s, twenty mercenaries gathered in a Knightsbridge flat in summer 1970. The plans were presented by Stirling to his chosen men. They were to land on Libyan shores by boat from Italy and make their way to Tripoli. They were then then to carry out an assault on a specific location which was at a prison called “the Hilton.” The objective was the liberation of one hundred and fifty imprisoned political prisoners who, once liberated, would set in motion a chain of events to oust the new leader.

The US subsequently changed its mind after they realized that Gaddafi was just as hostile to the USSR as he was the West, at least that was the “lie of the land” in 1970 - the situation would dramatically change in the 1980s. Rather than risk further instability and potential Soviet influence the USA decided the Libyan dictator should be left alone and the regime should be left to its own devices and ordered the mission be abandoned. The British and MI6 decided otherwise and proceeded with developing the plan with the French. The whole matter was kept quietly concealed.

Stirling allegedly was not so discreet and at Whites gentlemen’s club in London was openly sharing the details of this operation. In December 1970, the British, following Stirling’s indiscretions, were forced to call off the operation, but Stirling proceeded nonetheless. The whole affair was halted by Italian authorities in January 1971. The boat was seized and the men detained. By now Stirling had irked the combined patience of MI6, the CIA and Mossad. Three years later, in May 1973, this debacle was exposed in the Observer newspaper. Stirling did not cover himself in glory, but worse reputational damage was still to come.

His activities in his Private Military enterprises did not attract the approval of the very organization he founded, the SAS. In the 1970s the reputation of that organization reached a low point. Incidents in Northern Ireland had given certain newspapers and the left wing of British politics ample material to accuse the SAS of being government assassins and accusing them of being above accountability, an accusation that was naturally denied. However, Stirling’s preference for hiring ex-SAS personnel and in some cases and sometimes serving officers for his PMC assignments did not help. It merely put his own coveted regiment on a par with hired mercenaries in the public mind much to the chagrin of his former regiment. The regiment was tarnished with a mockery of its own motto “Who Pays, Wins.”

GB75

GB75 was another proposal of David Stirling devised in the summer of 1974. It was a proposal to counter suspected left wing insurrectionist organizations or at least certain sections who genuinely believed that they existed. Britain was becoming subjected to regular trade union strikes and the disruption that ensued was causing alarm. Those with political right-wing tendencies believed that the country was on the brink of insurrection and the Labour Government under Wilson had lost all control. Trade Unions, it seemed, had the country in a vulnerable position.

Stirling was one those who believed that this was the case and GB75 was his response. It caused a stir. Stirling’s plan was simple, the organization was to recruit handpicked likeminded individuals that would be ready to stand by to ensure the continuation of essential services by seizing (in an unspecified manner) and maintain sections of the country’s infrastructure such as the power stations. In some minds the country was on the brink of a form of anarchy. It was truly a bizarre time in British modern history. Of course, nothing of the sort transpired.

The public perception of this organization blew out of all proportion. It was inaccurately reported that the aim of Stirling’s GB75 was to remove the Labour government, which was viewed as a destabilizing presence to the status quo, replace it with a provisional ruling body (unspecified) and undermine the growing power of the Trade Unions. This view, which was leaked to the British newspapers, was a combination of fear and overactive imaginations. Striling was forced to go the press and clarify his position. This can still be found and listened to today. The interview went as follows (word for word):

"Our plan is limited....and this has always been stated to provide Government, to make available to government, whatever type of Government it is... Socialist, or Liberal, or Conservative, or coalition.... with volunteers, trained and capable of running the minimum power required out of the generating stations to keep certain essential basic services going. They would, of course, act under police escort. And we would not, or course, make a move...and some of the papers have deliberately ignored this... until we had been invited to do so by the Government of the day. Now what we propose to do, as I say, is to have enough trained volunteers to cope with sewage disposal...nobody wants that on the streets while they are negotiating with the trade unions…to keep the water supply going...being pumped. And we would hope to help maintain the refrigeration at the major food depots in the country. I do not expect to be able to cope effectively until toward the end of December. I believe that the crunch is expected to come some time in February or March."

This emergency never happened and so GB75 never came to be nor had it any chance of becoming mobilized. The British Conservative Party did not welcome Stirling’s proposals, and this was simply another example of his established track record of embarrassing the British Government. Only a small minority of Conservatives, who happened to be friends of Stirling’s, supported him. Fearing political isolation and further fading of his albeit diminished political currency, Stirling resigned. The organization continued without him until the following year in 1975.

Stirling would involve himself further in other organizations along a similar theme such as TRUEMID (Movement for True Industrial Democracy) and the Better Britain Society that promoted ambitious but nebulous aims such as Trade Union Control and Constitutional changes. All of this was above Stirling’s head and his competency. None of these originations gained any momentum or traction. This cemented Gavin Young’s opinion that Stirling’s ideas “seem a bit dotty” echoing Field Marshall Montgomery’s wartime assessment of Stirling being “mad, quite mad.” Nevertheless, his legend in the common man’s eye still lay intact.

Into retirement

In the final decade before his death in the 1980s David Stirling penned a few forewords in various publications. It was a last effort to keep his legend alive on the back of the successes his former regiment earned in the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 and the Falklands War two years later. His authority on the subjects began to be questioned and doubted but his legendary status was now fully entrenched and solid in the public eye. Such books included Parachute Padre and Rogue Warrior: The Blair Mayne Legend (to which Stirling’s wording was restrained for fear of diminishing his own precariously shining light).

There were further failed operations with one of his other enterprises, KAS Enterprises. He was tasked in 1987 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, also president of the World Wildlife Fund, to investigate and tackle the illegal hunting of rhinoceros horns. It required the skills of such experienced SAS men. After being funded half a million pounds the whole operation failed dismally, leaving various questions on missing funds, equipment and of course the fate of the rhino horns. In 1989 after its sponsor, Prince Bernhard, withdrew support the company folded with a report citing these dubious circumstances. Allegedly Stirling himself lost significant amounts of his own money, closing off yet again another unsuccessful adventure to his career.

Conclusion

The post war era did little to David Stirling’s career or reputation. His failures clearly hurt his ego, and his one compensation was to create himself as a legend. The authenticity of this legendary status has since been challenged, especially in the publication of the book “The Phantom Major.”

He was a complex man. He has been labelled as a hero, legend, narcissist, failure, success, dangerous, mad, and dotty. Anyone can and everyone does have a perspective. Certainly, he was not shy to publicity in conflict with the values of the SAS, his very organization. This clearly irked them as it does today, when former serving soldiers make public revelations.

Success eluded Stirling as the post war decades rolled on. His attempts to re-enter his regiment failed and subsequent socio-political ventures were unsuccessful such as Capricorn Africa. His greatest success in the post war world was the establishment of Watchguard International Ltd. It marked the beginning of Private Military Contracting. Despite the ethical and moral criticisms, he once again pioneered a new way of miliary thinking – The Private Military Contractor Industry. That industry would proceed to grow beyond all expectations long after Stirling’s death and participate in modern warfare. Stirling only witnesses his failures - he did not live long enough to see this industry grow.

Stirling was awarded the Knights Bachelor in 1990 that he could add to his OBE from 1946. He was a complex man whom history holds a bloated version and his achievements. Some hold negative views of him and question the veracity of his accomplishments. None the less his contribution to SAS history prevails.

In the 1980s he struggled to maintain his relevancy by relying on his well-worn self-created legend, a legend that either some doubt or temper according to new revelations. No matter the view or how much or little the role he played, he was part of the genesis of the SAS. Shortly after he was awarded the Knights Bachelor, he sadly passed away with his place in history be it controversial, questionable, or otherwise assured. His life after the war was an interesting one.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

The Phantom Major

David Stirling and the Genesis of Private Military Companies – Christian Baghai May 2023 _ Medium Website Blog

Terry Aspinall Remembers – www.mercenary wars.co.uk

The Black Market for Force - War History Website

Endangered Archives Programme – Capricorn Africa (1952-57) – eap.bl.uk

Capricorn-David Stirling’s Second African Campaign – Richard Hughes – Radcliffe Pres 2003

Major General James Wilson – An Indispensable Man in the U.S. Civil War

Major General James Harrison Wilson served as a Union officer whose impact was felt in various capacities, particularly as an engineer, staff officer, and later as a skilled cavalry leader during the latter stages of the Civil War. His contributions often go unnoticed, despite his involvement in several pivotal roles that exemplify the capabilities of high-ranking Union officers.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Major General James Wilson.

Born on September 2, 1837, in Illinois, Wilson graduated sixth in his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1860. He began his military career as a second lieutenant in the Topographical Engineers, receiving his initial assignment in the Department of Oregon.

Corps of Topographical Engineers

To fully appreciate Wilson's career shifts and achievements across seemingly unrelated positions, it is crucial to understand the role of topographical engineers. Upon graduating from West Point, he joined a prestigious and select army service. Being chosen for this Corps indicated a high level of skill and promise. Topographical engineers were tasked with producing intricate maps of battlefields and terrain, providing vital information for troop movements and strategic planning. Their responsibilities included surveying land to pinpoint advantageous locations for artillery and defensive structures, as well as overseeing the construction of fortifications and military roads. The maps they generated were essential for organizing supply routes and transportation, significantly influencing the strategies and outcomes of numerous battles by guiding commanders' decisions.

In times of peace, this specialized group was engaged in various critical infrastructure projects, such as building bridges, supervising lighthouse construction, maintaining harbors, and managing fortifications. With the onset of the Civil War, many members transitioned into combat roles, focusing on the development of entrenchments and fortifications while also creating essential maps. Their extensive experience in construction provided them with a solid foundation for making strategic decisions in the heat of battle. Notable Army Engineers from this era included figures such as George Meade, George McClellan, Andrew Humphreys, Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard, and Gouverneur Warren.

The expertise of topographical engineers was not only vital during peacetime but became even more pronounced during wartime, as their skills directly contributed to military effectiveness. Their ability to assess and manipulate the landscape for military advantage played a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of engagements. As they adapted to the demands of combat, their contributions to both engineering and military strategy underscored the importance of their work in the broader context of the war. This unique blend of skills and experiences allowed individuals like Wilson to navigate diverse roles throughout their careers successfully.

Civil War 1861-Early 1864

As the Civil War began, he advanced to the rank of first lieutenant and took on the role of topographical engineer for the Port Royal Expeditionary Force. His involvement in the Battle of Fort Pulaski led to his promotion to major. Subsequently, he was assigned to the Army of the Potomac, where he served as aide de camp to Major General George McClellan while also fulfilling engineering duties. In this capacity, he participated in significant battles, including South Mountain and Antietam.

 Following McClellan's dismissal, he was reassigned to the Western Theater, joining Grant's Army of the Tennessee as a lieutenant colonel and engineer. During the Vicksburg Campaign, he held the crucial position of inspector general, overseeing the army's inventory and supplies. Given Grant's limited logistical expertise, he relied heavily on officers like Wilson to ensure that the campaign was well-supplied with food, ammunition, and equipment. The extensive supply line stretching from Jackson across the Mississippi River to St. Louis underscored the significant responsibilities entrusted to Wilson.

After the successful siege of Vicksburg, he was elevated to the rank of brigadier general of volunteers and continued to serve in staff roles during the Battle of Chattanooga. He was later appointed as the chief engineer for the forces dispatched to support Knoxville under Major General William T. Sherman. Throughout these various non-combat roles, it is evident that he was entrusted with substantial administrative responsibilities that were vital to military command and strategic planning. In 1864, he became the chief of the Cavalry Bureau, demonstrating his exceptional skills as an administrator.

In mid-January 1864, Wilson was appointed as the head of the newly established Cavalry Bureau, following a recommendation from Grant. He took on the challenge of transforming this previously ineffective and disorganized administrative office, which had been burdened by bureaucratic inefficiencies and outdated practices, into a well-functioning, resourceful, and reputable agency. Wilson dedicated himself fully to this role, maintaining a rigorous schedule from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. daily, and often utilized his free time to ride along the capital’s defensive lines, engaging in discussions about enhancing cavalry administration with Assistant Secretary Dana, who was residing in the same boarding house.

Promotion to Combat Duty

Perhaps unexpectedly, General Grant elevated Wilson to command a cavalry division under Sheridan. This promotion was particularly remarkable given that Wilson had no prior experience in combat or in leading troops. However, Grant's decision proved to be astute, as it allowed Wilson to apply his administrative skills in a new and challenging context.

He played a significant role in both the Overland Campaign and the Valley Campaign of 1864.  Although Wilson encountered significant challenges in his early combat assignments, such as at the Wilderness and Third Winchester, his enthusiasm, determination, and innovative ideas shone through. Despite making notable mistakes, his energetic approach and confidence played a crucial role in his development as a leader in the field.

The Chickahominy River Crossing

His cavalry division did not accompany Sheridan during the raid on Trevilian Station. Instead, he took the lead in crossing the Chickahominy River as part of the march towards the James River, aiming to create a diversion within the broader Union strategy. This maneuver was designed to facilitate a crossing of the James River and allow Union forces to position themselves south of Lee’s army. By coordinating with the V Corps, he launched an offensive towards Richmond, targeting areas north of the James River near McClellan's previous battlefields. This tactic misled Lee into believing that Grant's primary assault would occur there, ultimately granting Grant additional time to finalize the crossing and initiate the offensive on Petersburg.

Wilson’s cavalry division was assigned the critical role of probing the Confederate defenses, collecting intelligence, and disrupting their supply chains. This mission involved securing vital crossings along the Chickahominy River and providing support for Union infantry movements. Wilson’s troops played a significant role in securing essential fords and river crossings, which was crucial for the Union's ability to navigate the difficult terrain. The Chickahominy was notorious for its flooding and marshy surroundings, presenting unique challenges for cavalry operations.

The Wilson-Kautz Raid

The Wilson-Kautz Raid was a Union cavalry operation conducted during the Civil War from June 22 to July 1, 1864, as part of the Petersburg Campaign. The raid was led by Brigadier General James H. Wilson and Brigadier General August V. Kautz. Its primary goal was to disrupt Confederate supply lines by targeting key railroads supplying Petersburg and Richmond.

The Union army, under General Ulysses S. Grant, was besieging Petersburg, Virginia. The railroads supplying Confederate forces in Petersburg and Richmond were vital for their survival. The raid aimed to destroy sections of these railroads to sever supply routes and weaken Confederate resistance. The primary targets were the:

·      South Side Railroad

·      Richmond and Danville Railroad

·      Weldon Railroad

.These raids were integral to the overarching Union strategy, designed to undermine the logistical capabilities of the Confederacy. By disrupting these supply lines, Wilson's actions contributed to the Union's efforts to weaken the Confederate war effort significantly. Initially the raid was successful: They successfully destroyed large sections of the South Side Railroad and Richmond and Danville Railroad, burning bridges, tearing up tracks, and destroying supplies.:

The chief action in this raid was a pivotal confrontation near the Staunton River. This engagement was marked by strategic maneuvers and the involvement of various forces, highlighting the intensity of the conflict during that period. On June 22, 1864, Wilson initiated a cavalry raid aimed at crippling the South Side and Richmond & Danville railroads, with a particular focus on destroying the vital railroad bridge spanning the Staunton River. Over the course of the first three days, his cavalry successfully dismantled 60 miles of track, set fire to two trains, and destroyed several railroad stations. Despite the efforts of Confederate General W. H. F. "Rooney" Lee to pursue the Union forces, he was unable to effectively counter their actions.

The battle saw Captain Benjamin Farinholt rallying nearly 1,000 local volunteers, including older men and boys, to confront Wilson's 5,000 well-equipped troops. Although Wilson's cavalry engaged in the fight dismounted, they ultimately faced defeat as "Rooney" Lee's cavalry arrived towards the end of the skirmish, forcing Wilson's troops to retreat.

On their return, Wilson and Kautz’s forces were intercepted by Confederate forces at the Battle of Sappony Church (June 28) and the Battle of Ream’s Station (June 29). At Ream’s Station, the Union cavalry suffered heavy losses as they were cut off and forced to abandon many of their men, horses, and artillery.

The outcome of the raid overall must be considered a tactical loss. While the raid inflicted significant damage on Confederate railroads, much of it was quickly repaired. The Union cavalry suffered heavy casualties, with over 1,500 men killed, wounded, or captured. The raid temporarily disrupted Confederate supply lines and forced them to divert troops to defend railroads. However, it did not achieve its ultimate goal of crippling Confederate logistics.

Transfer to the Western Theater

Sherman had no good choices when it came time to select a cavalry leader for the campaign that would go into legend as the March to the Sea. He had decided on a top-to-bottom reorganization of the various mounted corps reporting to him and, characteristically, brought in an outsider, Major General James H. Wilson, for the job. He needed to keep Wilson in Tennessee accomplishing that task, so to command the mounted force that would accompany his foot soldiers, Sherman had to choose from the roster of officers who had already failed him one or more times. He settled on a candidate that most observers would have rated a long shot at best: Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick.

Battle of Franklin

At the Battle of Franklin (November 30, 1864), Wilson commanded the Union cavalry, playing a key role in protecting the Union army’s flanks and contributing to the Union victory during this pivotal engagement of the Civil War. Securing the Union flanks during the battle was critical in preventing Confederate cavalry under Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest from outflanking or cutting off the Union forces.

Wilson’s cavalry actively skirmished with Forrest’s forces, keeping them occupied and preventing them from effectively supporting the Confederate infantry assault. Although Forrest was a formidable opponent, Wilson’s well-equipped and disciplined cavalry successfully countered his maneuvers, limiting Confederate mobility. After the Union forces repelled the Confederate frontal assault, Wilson’s cavalry played a crucial role in covering the Union army’s retreat to Nashville, ensuring an orderly withdrawal without significant Confederate interference.

Wilson’s effective cavalry operations helped secure the Union position and contributed to the overall Confederate failure. By neutralizing Forrest’s cavalry, Wilson ensured that the Union army could focus on repelling Hood’s infantry assault without the added threat of encirclement or disruption of supply lines. Wilson’s leadership and the performance of his cavalry at Franklin showcased the increasing effectiveness of Union cavalry forces late in the war, particularly in countering Confederate cavalry operations. Wilson is one of the few Union officers to beat Forrest in battle, and he would do so again near the end of the war.

A Different Conception of Cavalry

Brigadier General Emory Upton was elevated to the position of division commander under General Sheridan and tasked with leading the Valley Campaign against General Early. During the course of battle, he sustained a severe injury that nearly resulted in the loss of his leg. Although he received another promotion, he ultimately had to relinquish command of his division. Subsequently, he was reassigned to Nashville, where he collaborated with Major General James Wilson to create a fundamentally different type of military unit. Both Upton and Wilson were innovative and ambitious officers who significantly contributed to the evolution of the Union cavalry into a more formidable fighting force, each recognized for their progressive strategies in warfare. 2. The concept they developed centered around a mobile strike force, consisting of 12,000 infantry equipped with Spencer breech-loading rifles. The strategy involved mounting the infantry on horses to advance into battle, then dismounting to engage in combat as traditional infantry. Upton's approach was to extend his idea of rapid assaults on fortified positions to broader military operations, while Wilson possessed the tactical expertise to implement these strategies effectively. This innovative thinking marked a pivotal transformation in cavalry operations.

Wilson's forces were equipped with breech-loading repeating rifles and employed combined arms tactics effectively. They expanded from a brigade-sized cavalry unit, as utilized by Sheridan at the Battle of Booneville, to a full cavalry corps. This strategy involved a significant number of troops dismounting to engage the enemy while mounted forces executed flanking maneuvers or direct assaults. Sheridan had previously implemented similar tactics, combining infantry and cavalry, at key battles such as the 3rd Winchester, Fisher's Hill, and Five Forks. The essence of this approach lay in the integration of horse-mounted soldiers with repeating rifles or carbines, creating an unprecedented combination of mobility and firepower.

In conflicts where cavalry units were often underutilized, combined with infantry, or assigned to logistical roles, Wilson's tactics represented a significant departure from the norm.

Wilson believed that the seven-shot repeater would transform mounted combat, and he anticipated achieving remarkable success in the field with his thousands of Spencer-equipped troopers.

It's worth noting that Thomas' cavalry commander James Wilson started the war as a Grant protégé but after working under Thomas during those last few months of the war became a big advocate for Thomas.

Wilson’s Raid

Wilson mobilized his 13,480 cavalrymen independently, launching rapid raids against the economic hubs of the Deep South. Notably, regions from central Mississippi to central Georgia remained largely untouched even as the Civil War progressed. As a result, cities such as Selma and Montgomery in Alabama, along with Columbus in Georgia, continued to function as crucial shipping centers and significant sources of Confederate supplies.

Wilson's strategic objectives were twofold: to dismantle this essential supply chain and to thwart any potential Confederate efforts to establish a final stronghold in the region. He bolstered the Cavalry Corps with a substantial influx of remounts—35,000 since early March—alongside necessary equipment, ammunition, and hundreds of Spencer carbines. Wilson believed that the seven-shot repeater would transform mounted combat, and he anticipated achieving remarkable success in the field with his thousands of Spencer-equipped troopers.

He significantly enhanced the Cavalry Corps by introducing a considerable number of remounts—35,000 since early March—along with essential equipment, ammunition, and hundreds of Spencer carbines. On March 22, 1865, Wilson's forces departed from Tennessee and swiftly advanced through Alabama, systematically dismantling railroads, bridges, and factories along their path. By April 2, they had successfully captured Selma, a crucial industrial hub for the Confederacy, after overcoming Forrest’s troops in a fierce confrontation. This victory against Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the Confederacy's most adept cavalry leaders, effectively diminished Confederate cavalry strength in the area.

The destruction of Selma's foundries, arsenals, and military supplies marked a significant blow to the Confederate war effort. On April 12, Wilson's troops entered Montgomery, Alabama, the former Confederate capital, encountering little resistance. Following this, on April 16, they launched an assault on Columbus, Georgia, seizing the city and obliterating the naval shipyard along with other war-related industries. They also took control of West Point, Georgia, another vital supply center for the Confederacy. Wilson's forces maintained their aggressive campaign until the Confederate surrender in April 1865, capturing Macon, Georgia, on April 20, shortly after the war's official conclusion.

Wilson's Raid emerged as a crucial military initiative towards the end of the Civil War, designed to undermine Confederate resources significantly. This strategic operation dealt a severe blow to the South's remaining military capabilities by targeting and destroying key factories, railroads, and supplies essential to the Confederate effort. The raid hastened the collapse of the Confederacy in the Western Theater and was instrumental in achieving an overall Union victory. It is recognized as one of the most successful cavalry operations executed by Union forces during the war, highlighting their ability to penetrate deep into enemy territory and demonstrating the effectiveness of well-equipped, mobile cavalry units in dismantling Confederate infrastructure and resistance.

Wilson’s relentless cavalry pursuit was by far the longest pursuit of a defeated enemy of a defeated adversary during the Civil War, both in duration and distance. For twelve days, his forces engaged the Confederate rear guard, including encounters with Forrest's cavalry, as they advanced into Alabama. The pursuit was marked by continuous rear guard skirmishes, often occurring in challenging weather conditions and difficult terrain. It was only when the pursuit became untenable that Wilson's cavalry made the decision to return to Nashville.

By the conclusion of the war, the cavalry units under Wilson's command successfully apprehended key figures, including President Davis during his escape attempt and Captain Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville prison. Additionally, Upton played a significant role in capturing Alexander Stephens, further highlighting the effectiveness of their operations. These actions underscored the strategic importance of cavalry in the final stages of the conflict.

Implications

Wilson's Corps emerged as a precursor to the highly mobile armored warfare tactics that would define the Twentieth Century. Troops utilized their horses for mobility but typically engaged in combat dismounted, leveraging the advantages of their repeating carbines to enhance their combat effectiveness. Both Wilson and Upton enjoyed distinguished careers after the war, with Upton becoming a military reformer and theorist, while Wilson transitioned into a general, diplomat, and historian. Their innovative concepts laid the groundwork for modern military strategies, influencing the use of combined arms and mobile strike forces that would be pivotal in future conflicts, including those in Europe, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

After the war, Wilson returned to a career in engineering and railroads. His later career as a division and Corps Commander in the Spanish-American War and the Peking expedition during the Boxer rebellion adds to his very remarkable career.

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

Polycrates of Samos: The Tyrant who Courted Fortune and Tempted Fate

In the swirling mists of early 6th century BCE Greek history, few figures shine brightly and fall as dramatically as Polycrates of Samos. His life reads like a tragic play, a meteoric rise to power, an era of unprecedented maritime dominance, cultural patronage that rivalled Athens, and ultimately, betrayal and death. Charismatic and cunning, ruthless yet visionary, Polycrates embodied the paradoxes of tyranny in ancient Greece. His story not only reveals the ambitions and anxieties of a Hellenic tyrant but also the fragile balance between power and hubris in the ancient world.

Terry Bailey explains.

Polycrates' Crucifixion by Salvator Rosa, circa 1664.

The Maritime Tyrant

Born around 538 BCE into the ruling elite of Samos, an island in the eastern Aegean Sea, Polycrates seized power during a time of political unrest. By 538 BCE, he had taken control of the island alongside his two brothers, Pantagnotus and Syloson, however, Polycrates was never one to share. Within a few years, he had orchestrated the exile and death of his siblings and became the sole ruler, a classic tyrant in the mold of his contemporaries, but more daring than most.

What set Polycrates apart was his bold vision of turning Samos from a minor island power into a dominant naval and commercial force in the Aegean. In a world where most tyrannies were land-based, Polycrates built his power upon the sea.

Naval Supremacy

Polycrates is best known for assembling one of the most powerful navies in the Greek world. According to Herodotus, he commanded 100 pentekonters (50-oared ships), a formidable force that allowed him to dominate the eastern Mediterranean. His fleet brought Samos wealth through trade and piracy, extending his influence beyond the island's shores.

This wealth allowed Polycrates to pour resources into cultural and architectural projects. The most famous is the Heraion, a grand sanctuary dedicated to the goddess Hera. The temple, with its massive columns and intricate sculptures, was considered a marvel of the ancient Greek world. It symbolized not only devotion to the gods but the reach and sophistication of Samian society under his reign.

Additionally, it was one most important ancient sanctuaries dedicated to the goddess Hera, the queen of the Olympian gods in Greek mythology. It was located near the ancient mouth of the Imbrasos River, where legend claimed Hera was born under a lygos tree. The sanctuary became a major center of worship from the early Iron Age, growing in prestige and architectural grandeur throughout the Archaic and Classical periods.

The centerpiece of the sanctuary was the great Temple of Hera, an ambitious structure that went through multiple phases of construction. The most famous version, built around 570 BCE by the architects Rhoikos and Theodoros was among the first of the colossal Ionic temples in the Greek world. This temple featured 155 columns, some of which stood over 20 meters tall, making it one of the earliest and largest dipteral temples, (with two rows of columns surrounding the cella). Although it was destroyed by an earthquake and fire before completion, its scale and technical innovation demonstrated the wealth and ambition of Samos at the time.

Excavations at the Heraion have revealed rich offerings made to the goddess, including jeweler, statues, weapons, and even imported artefacts from Egypt and the Near East. These finds reflect not only religious devotion but also Samos's status as a significant player in Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean trade networks. The sanctuary's importance continued through the Classical and Hellenistic periods, although its influence waned under Roman rule. Today, the site is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, offering insight into ancient Greek religion, architecture, and the cultural connections of early Greece.

In addition to, the marvel of Heraion, Polycrates was instrumental in ordering the construction of the aqueduct known as the Tunnel of Eupalinos an engineering marvel of the ancient world, a tunnel over 1,000 meters long which was dug through Mount Kastro to supply water to the city. Designed by the engineer Eupalinos of Megara, the tunnel was dug from both ends simultaneously and met in the middle with astonishing accuracy. It remains one of the most extraordinary feats of pre-modern engineering and is considered one of the most remarkable engineering feats of the ancient world. Its primary purpose was to serve as an aqueduct, bringing fresh water from a spring on Mount Kastro to the city of Samos, which faced threats of siege and needed a secure and hidden water supply. As indicated what made this engineering feat especially noteworthy is that it was excavated simultaneously from both ends, an extraordinary achievement in ancient engineering.

The engineer Eupalinos of Megara, had workers carve through solid limestone using basic hand tools such as hammers and chisels under his supervision. Eupalinos employed a clever geometric approach and advanced surveying techniques to ensure that the two teams of workers starting from opposite sides of the mountain would meet successfully in the middle. While they did not align perfectly in height or direction, the final connection was close enough to allow the project to succeed, with only a minor correction needed near the meeting point.

The tunnel functioned for centuries and stands today as proof of the ingenuity of ancient Greek engineering and mathematics. It is considered one of the earliest examples of applied geometry in large-scale civil construction and was described by Herodotus, who called it a marvel of its time. Today, the Tunnel of Eupalinos is not only a significant archaeological site but also a symbol of how ancient civilizations overcame complex technical challenges with creativity and precision.

Polycrates was also known as a patron of poets and intellectuals. His court hosted Anacreon, the lyric poet famed for his verses on love, wine and revelry, with the tradition of Anacreontic poetry endured in later Greek literature and beyond. Although the original corpus attributed to Anacreon was relatively small, his influence was significant, giving rise to a distinct poetic style characterized by light-hearted themes, charming simplicity, and musical cadence.

This style was imitated by many poets in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, reflecting a cultural appreciation for the refined pleasures of life and the human experience of love and aging.

In the post-Anacreontic period of Ancient Greece, poets increasingly turned toward the personal and the intimate, a shift that continued into the Hellenistic age. One notable development was the emergence of the so-called Anacreontea, a collection of short poems written in Anacreontic style by later, anonymous authors.

These were not written by Anacreon himself but maintained the tone, meter, and themes associated with his work. They often dealt with themes of erotic longing, the fleeting nature of youth, and indulgence in the joys of wine and song. These poems became popular in both the Greek and Roman worlds, and later even saw revival in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe.

Poets such as Callimachus and Theocritus, though more refined and intellectual in tone, drew upon the lyrical tradition that Anacreon had helped to shape. They contributed to a broader cultural movement that emphasized polished, crafted poetry over epic grandeur.

In this context, Anacreon's legacy lived on as part of a broader aesthetic turn toward the personal, the playful, and the urbane. His spirit found a new voice in subsequent generations. In this sense, Polycrates by fostering a vibrant cultural atmosphere of poets including Anacreon's work can indirectly be attributed to the love of poetry not only across the Greek world but also to the continued inspiration that the poetry of Anacreon had through time.

Needless to say, the patronage of the arts by Polycrates elevated Samos to an intellectual and artistic center, rivalling other great Greek cities.

Vision, charisma and maritime strategy

Polycrates' strengths lay in his strategic acumen, boldness, and persuasive charisma. His control of the sea allowed him to maintain dominance not just militarily but economically. By turning piracy into a state enterprise, he filled the Samian coffers and extended his influence over key Aegean trade routes. His magnetism attracted allies, scholars, and artists to his court. Politically, he was a master manipulator, able to eliminate rivals and maintain internal control despite the inherently unstable nature of Greek tyranny.

However, like many Greek tales, Polycrates' story turned with the wheel of fortune. His downfall began with a pattern of arrogance that alarmed even his allies.

The Ring of Fate

In a tale recounted by Herodotus, Polycrates' friend and ally, Pharaoh Amasis II of Egypt, warned him of his unbroken streak of good fortune. Fearing the jealousy of the gods, Amasis urged him to sacrifice his most prized possession to avoid divine retribution. Polycrates threw a bejeweled ring into the sea, only for it to be returned days later inside a fish. Amasis, interpreting this as a sign of impending doom, severed ties with him. The story symbolized the Greek belief in nemesis, the inevitable divine punishment for hubris.

Diplomatic isolation and Persian tensions

Additionally, Polycrates had made powerful enemies. His dominance angered neighboring Greek city-states and drew the attention of the Persian Empire. Around 522 BCE, he aligned himself briefly with Cambyses II of Persia during the invasion of Egypt, further eroding trust among his Greek peers and former allies.

His end came at the hands of Oroetes, the Persian satrap of Sardis. Pretending to offer sanctuary and riches, Oroetes lured Polycrates to Asia Minor under false pretenses. When he arrived, Polycrates was captured, tortured, and crucified a humiliating death for a man who had defied fate for so long. His mutilated body was displayed as a warning, a final punishment for his unchecked ambition.

Polycrates' failures were not merely strategic but moral and political. His rule, while culturally rich, was deeply autocratic. He ruled through fear, eliminated rivals, and sustained his state with piracy and extortion. His aggressive expansion and volatile diplomacy left Samos politically isolated after his death. The infrastructure he created endured, but the geopolitical power of Samos crumbled swiftly in the wake of his absence.

His greatest misstep, perhaps, was failing to recognize the limits of fortune. In a culture that revered moderation and feared hubris, Polycrates stood too tall for too long.

Despite his fall, Polycrates' legacy endured for centuries. He was both admired and feared. Ancient writers used his life as a cautionary tale about the dangers of overreaching success and the wrath of the gods. Yet, he was also seen as a man of vision who brought prosperity and grandeur to Samos, turning it into a center of culture and innovation.

His reign is emblematic of early Greek tyranny, capable of great things when guided by ambition and vision, but always at risk of collapsing under its weight. Polycrates may have died alone and betrayed, but he remains one of antiquity's most fascinating and complex rulers, a man who grasped greatness with both hands and paid the price for holding on too tightly.

Needless to say, the story of Polycrates of Samos is a study of both brilliance and tragedy, a vivid encapsulation of the highs and lows that defined the ancient Greek world. At his zenith, he turned a modest island into a naval powerhouse, a cultural beacon, and a symbol of daring ambition. His patronage of the arts in Samos rivalled Athens in artistic output; the engineering projects he supported astonished the ancient world; and through his control of the seas, he commanded fear and respect.

Yet the same traits that propelled him to greatness, his audacity, his confidence, and his relentless pursuit of dominance, also laid the seeds of his undoing. His legacy, preserved by poets, chroniclers, and ruins alike, is one of stark contrasts, a tyrant who fostered beauty, a ruler whose vision reached beyond his time, but whose ambition knew no boundaries.

Polycrates' life reminds us that power in the ancient world was a fleeting and fragile thing, often balanced precariously on the whims of fortune and the caprice of the gods. He lived as a man blessed with extraordinary success, only to fall victim to the very forces he once seemed to command, a warning for the future.

In the end, Polycrates remains a timeless figure, an enduring paradox of ancient history. He is remembered not only for the tyranny he wielded but also for the cultural and technological brilliance he inspired. His life and death stretch across the centuries, offering a poignant reflection on the nature of power, the allure of greatness, and the inexorable price of hubris.

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

Notes:

The legend of Polycrates' ring

The legend of Polycrates' ring, as preserved by Herodotus, became a foundational tale about the peril of excessive fortune and the inescapable designs of fate. In the story, the tyrant of Samos is warned by Pharaoh Amasis that such uninterrupted success is unnatural and will provoke divine retribution. To avert misfortune, Polycrates casts his most prized possession a richly jeweled ring into the sea. When the ring is miraculously returned to him inside a fish, it is taken as a sign not of protection, but of doom, confirming that even his attempts at humility cannot escape the orbit of fate. This tale resonated far beyond its Greek origins and found new life in later traditions.

In Christian parables and early medieval Christian teaching, this motif of divine will asserting itself despite human intervention became a central theme. The ring-in-the-fish narrative bears a striking resemblance to the biblical story of the coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:27), where Jesus instructs Peter to find a coin for the temple tax inside a fish, symbolizing God's mysterious provision. Both tales involve an object of value retrieved from the sea within a fish, highlighting the divine's subtle but powerful role in controlling worldly fortunes. Unlike Polycrates' story, however, the Christian version is affirming rather than ominous, suggesting divine benevolence over divine punishment.

Medieval literature further transformed the motif of the returned treasure as a symbol of inescapable destiny. Writers like Boethius, in The Consolation of Philosophy, grappled with fortune's fickle nature and the limits of human control, echoing the cautionary tale of Polycrates. The legend was refracted into courtly romances and moralistic tales, where characters often attempted to defy fate, only to be swept back into its course.

The ring thus became more than a jewel, it symbolized the tension between earthly power and perceived higher judgment. Thus by the High Middle Ages, the idea that relentless good fortune could signal imminent doom was deeply ingrained in the European moral imagination, and Polycrates' tale remained a prototype for storytelling about hubris, divine justice, and the wheel of fortune. Therefore, showing that tales from the ancient have made the long journey transcending from ancient times to the modern world where under various makeovers the tales continue to resonate with the populous and are used by governing authorities.

Pentekonter

The pentekonter (πεντηκόντορος) was an ancient Greek galley, a long and narrow warship propelled primarily by oars and used during the Archaic and early Classical periods of Greek history. The name "pentekonter" comes from the Greek pentēkonta meaning "fifty," referring to the ship's fifty oarsmen, twenty-five on each side.

These vessels were among the earliest organized warships used by the Greeks and played a key role in the development of naval warfare in the Mediterranean.

Pentekonters were characterized by their speed, maneuverability, and relatively light construction. Their narrow beam and shallow draft made them ideal for coastal raids, reconnaissance, and quick troop transport. Although primarily driven by rowers, they often carried a single square sail mounted on a central mast to take advantage of favorable winds during longer voyages.

Despite their agility, they had limited cargo capacity and offered little protection to the crew, which made them less suitable for extended naval engagements or stormy open-sea travel.

The design of the pentekonter laid the foundation for the development of more advanced Greek warships, such as the trireme, which featured multiple rows of oars and greater offensive capabilities.

Nevertheless, pentekonters were instrumental in early Greek colonization, trade expansion, and the projection of naval power. They were versatile and could be used in battle and for exploration or communication between city-states. Over time, their military role diminished in favor of more complex vessels, but their influence on ancient naval engineering remained significant.

Trireme

The Greek word for trireme is τριήρης (triērēs), which is derived from: τρι- (tri-), meaning three, and-ήρης (-ērēs), which comes from ἐρέσσω (eréssō), meaning to row.

So, τριήρης means "three-rower" or "three-banked", referring to the ship's three tiers of oars on each side, manned by oarsmen.

This design was a hallmark of ancient Greek naval engineering, especially during the 5th century BCE when Athens used fleets of triremes in naval battles like Salamis, these vessels found their pedigree in the earlier pentekonter.

It’s Not the Flag that Matters. Betsy Ross However, Does

Michael Leibrandt has studied Philadelphia history nearly all of my life. Like many historians — some of the most intriguing storylines to research are the ones that we know the least about. When it comes to the very beginnings of America - much of that history is lost to us now  and  replaced only by educated speculation.

A depiction of Betsy Ross presenting the flag to George Washington.

Can we prove definitively that General George Washington didn’t walk down the streets of Philadelphia and ask some the city’s finest seamstresses — of which Betsy was one — to make a flag for our nation in 1776? Of course we can’t. And should we say others that were equally as qualified to produce a banner for our new nation like Francis Hopkinson? Only educated speculation remains.

Here is why it simply doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because the overwhelming likelihood is that right up until the Continental Congress Resolution of 1777 — the citizens under those thirteen colonies lived, worked, and fought under a number of different banners. And it doesn’t matter because no matter what standard they fought under — Americans did the unthinkable. They forced the British Empire into frustration, defeat, and finally surrender when Lord Cornwallis was pushed to the sea near a place called Yorktown.

What we do know is that with no federal government for the United States governing these 13 colonies during the Revolution — it’s almost certain that Americans lived, worked, and fought under a variety of banners. Dr. Benjamin Franklin had even suggested at one point during an oration that the East India Company Flag should be America’s banner. It was December of 1775 when John Paul Jones famously raised a variant of the “Stars and Stripes” in the Delaware River aboard the ship Alfred.

On January 1st, 1776 near General George Washington’s headquarters on Prospect Hill — the Continental Army had a flag raising ceremony. The controversy is over what flag was actually raised. And then we have the “Appeal to Heaven” flag that made headlines last summer. Designed by a member of General George Washington’s Staff — Colonel Joseph Reed in 1775 — and flown after the capture of a British ship by Commodore Samuel Tucker and was also utilized by the Massachusetts State Navy. Reed’s six schooner’s where America’s first Navy.

And when the resolution was finally adopted by the Continental Congress in June of 1777 — does it really matter who was the creator of the flag that they designated for our nation? Or whether the story of Ross being asked by Washington to sew America’s first official standard — told by her grandson starting around 1870 — is actually fact? No, it does not. 

As the decades rolled on and a bridge was named in her honor and her house became a tourist attraction — it didn’t matter so much how historians waffled on the accuracy of the Betsy Ross story. But her importance as a fine colonial woman — at the height of her craft — willing to do all that she could for America in the midst of it’s Revolutionary period is all that matters. This March — do yourself a favor. Suppress the need for definitive evidence that has been almost certainly lost to the ages. 

Honor Betsy Ross anyway.

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

The Last Days of King Louis XVI and the French Revolution

The sun had barely risen over Paris on August 10, 1792, when the bells of revolution tolled once again. The Tuileries Palace, once a regal symbol of monarchical presence, was transformed into a battleground. Armed revolutionaries from the National Guard and radical fédérés stormed the palace, driven by rumors of betrayal, foreign plots, and the king's perceived duplicity.

Here, Preston Knowles looks at the final days of King Louis XVI of France during the French Revolution.

A portrait of King Louis XVI by Joseph-Siffred Duplessis.

Louis XVI, clad in plain attire, made a fateful decision: rather than resist the mob, he sought refuge with the Legislative Assembly. "I come to place myself under the protection of your laws," he declared, standing before a shocked assembly with Queen Marie Antoinette and their children in tow. But the gesture was too little, too late. The crowd's rage would not be placated. That same day, the monarchy was effectively suspended, and Louis and his family were taken into custody. Their new home? The ancient medieval fortress known as the temple, originally built by the Knights Templar. now repurposed as a prison for the king. The revolutionary press on September 21st, 1792 declared "The monarchy is abolished", The first French Republic had been declared.

By late 1792, the Temple had become the final royal residence, a prison stripped of comfort and ceremony. Surveillance was constant, and guards recorded even the most mundane details of the royal family's life. The man who once ruled by divine right now found himself counting his days, not in royal chambers but in cold stone walls lit by a single lamp.

The Temple prison was not built for royalty. Its stone walls were cold, its corridors narrow, and its air thick with the silence of humiliation. Here, the last King of France would live not as Louis XVI, but as Louis Capet, a dethroned monarch turned prisoner of the people he once served.

The royal family: Louis, Marie Antoinette, their children Louis-Charles and Marie-Thérèse, and the king's sister Madame Élisabeth were initially lodged together in cramped quarters. The first few weeks held onto a faint echo of domestic life. They dined together, read, prayed, and even tried to maintain lessons for the young dauphin. But as revolutionary suspicion deepened, their freedoms shrank. "He bore the deprivation with gentleness," one guard reportedly wrote, "and never once did he rage or complain."

 

A King's Routine, Reduced

Louis rose early, often before dawn. He read religious texts and from the few history books permitted to him. When allowed, he took brief walks in the small enclosed courtyard, pacing in silence or whispering lessons to his son. The king had long valued knowledge and order and in prison, this became his anchor. He taught geography and Latin to the young Louis-Charles, while Marie Antoinette helped with arithmetic. They created makeshift lessons using scraps of paper and whispered exercises.

Breakfast was modest: coffee, milk, and bread. Dinners, while still multiple courses at first, slowly became more austere. Champagne was replaced with table wine. Meat became scarce. And the guard's initially deferential grew colder. Marie-Thérèse later recalled in her memoir: "We were watched night and day. Every word, every sigh was noted down."

Over time, the measures imposed became increasingly petty and cruel. Louis was denied razors, allegedly for fear of suicide or assassination attempts by others. His once-meticulous grooming gave way to a growing beard and unkempt hair, physical symbols of his eroding dignity.

The family's contact with the outside world was severed. Even embroidery, once permitted as a quiet pastime, was forbidden when officials feared they might stitch hidden messages. The king, who once addressed ministers and monarchs, now whispered bedtime stories to his son through a wooden wall.

One particularly painful moment came in December 1792, during his trial, when Louis was forcibly separated from his family. Marie-Thérèse turned 14 that month and instead of a celebration she received only a silent token: a calendar for 1793 from her father, smuggled in with trembling hands.

The longer Louis remained in the Temple, the more time seemed to lose its meaning. The world outside raged on.  Mobs, pamphlets, speeches in the National Convention  but inside, the days blurred into quiet suffering. The walls were thick, but not enough to keep out the muffled sound of distant chants: "La République ou la mort!"

Louis spent his time clinging to ritual and religion. When allowed, he heard Mass and prayed from the breviary. His confessor was not always permitted to visit, so he turned inward, journaling his thoughts and quietly preparing his soul. One jailer observed, "He read the Psalms more than anything. Often he would rest his hand on the page, eyes closed, lips moving." Despite the growing surveillance, he made an effort to be a father and teacher. He called the dauphin "my son" and tried to preserve the boy's innocence. But behind closed doors, even a father's strength began to crack. Marie Antoinette confided that Louis would sometimes sit in silence for hours, gazing at nothing.

By late November 1792, the question of the king's fate reached a boiling point. The monarchy had been abolished. Now, Louis wasn't just a prisoner. He was a defendant in the eyes of the Republic. The National Convention summoned him on December 11, 1792, to answer for a long list of charges: colluding with foreign enemies, conspiring against the liberty of the French people, and betraying the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.

In a chilling moment during the trial, a deputy asked Louis:

 "You knew of the massacres and the bloodshed. Why did you not denounce them?"

Louis, composed, replied:

 "I did not think it proper to interfere in the decisions of the Assembly."

Innocence

He maintained his innocence, calm, polite, and deliberate.  But the verdict was already sealed in the hearts of many. His fate became a moral test for the Revolution itself.

Back in the Temple, after each session, he returned not to applause or royal favor, but to a narrow cot in a room guarded by men with muskets. His son asked what it all meant. Louis simply said, "There are men who believe I have done wrong. I must answer them."

The verdict was delivered on January 20, 1793: Louis Capet was to be executed by guillotine the following morning. He received the news with remarkable calm. His only request? To see his family one last time. After hours of negotiation, the Convention relented.

That evening, the door to the king's chamber creaked open, and in stepped Marie Antoinette, Madame Élisabeth, Marie-Thérèse, and the young dauphin. The guards recorded the time: 8:15 p.m. What followed was nearly two hours of raw, unfiltered sorrow. A private agony unfolding in the dim light of a prison room.

Marie-Thérèse would later write: "My father took each of us in his arms… he held my brother a long time, pressing his face to the child's hair. He said little. He wept. We all did."

Louis tried to maintain composure, speaking softly to each of them. He encouraged Marie Antoinette to be strong, to protect the children. He kissed Élisabeth's hands and whispered prayers to her. To his daughter, he gave a few final words of love and courage  and to the dauphin, perhaps the most devastating of all, he gave instruction.

"Never seek revenge for my death, my son," he told the child. They talked quietly of faith, of forgiveness, of the life to come. He assured them he would die a Christian, faithful to the end. And then, the moment arrived. A knock on the door. Time was up.

The family clung to each other, unwilling to let go. Marie Antoinette, once queen of France, was described by one guard as "bent and pale, with no voice left to cry." The dauphin sobbed uncontrollably. Marie-Thérèse fainted. And Louis stood quietly, having already absorbed the pain of each goodbye.

A witness later wrote: "It was not the dignity of a king, but the strength of a father, that filled the room that night."

Never again

His family would never see him again.

It was still dark when the knock came. Louis Capet, once Louis XVI, rose from his prison bed for the last time. Paris was hushed, cloaked in winter's gray breath and revolutionary tension. Snow had fallen the night before. His valet, Jean-Baptiste Cléry, lit the fire and helped dress him. Louis wore a plain white vest, gray breeches, and a black coat. No finery, no royal insignia. The quiet was broken only by the murmur of prayers and the soft rustle of fabric. When offered a pair of scissors to trim his hair, he simply nodded. It would be easier for the blade.

He heard Mass in a whisper, assisted by Abbé Edgeworth, the Irish priest who had come to offer last rites. As he took communion, Louis bowed his head and whispered "May this sacrifice be pleasing to God". By 8 a.m., the sound of drums loudly filled the streets. Thousands of National Guards lined the path from the former Place Louis XV, now known as the Temple to the Place de la Révolution,  the square that now awaited his execution.

The ride in the carriage was long and silent. Soldiers flanked the wheels. The streets were packed with a hushed crowd. Louis, holding a prayer book, gazed steadily ahead. Some said he mouthed psalms. Others noticed that he appeared calm. "more like a man going to face judgment than to death," one witness remarked.

The carriage reached the scaffold. Louis stepped down without assistance. The crowd watched, frozen. The executioner moved to bind his hands. Louis recoiled slightly, then, after a brief struggle,  He relented and turned to the people calling out, with a strong voice:  "I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge. I forgive those who have caused my death and pray to God that the blood you are about to shed may never fall upon France!" The drums began to roll. He knelt, placing his neck in the guillotine. Abbé Edgeworth stood nearby and cried out: "Son of Saint Louis, ascend to Heaven!"

The blade fell. A single thud. Then silence. Then a roar.

The executioner held the severed head aloft for the crowd to see. Some cheered. Others stood in stunned silence. Blood pooled on the planks. Spectators in the crowd raced forward and dipped their handkerchiefs in the blood to keep as souvenirs. The former king had become a symbol to some as a martyr and to others a tyrant but undeniably his death would shake Europe for centuries to come.

 

Echoes of the Guillotine

The execution of Louis XVI sent tremors through every royal court in Europe. Monarchs recoiled in horror; revolutionaries doubled down with fervor. In France, the king's death did not bring peace. It marked the beginning of something far bloodier: the Reign of Terror.

Yet in the quiet corners of history, beyond the proclamations and pamphlets, one truth endures: Louis was not just a monarch undone by revolution, but a man who met death with surprising grace. a father, a husband, a flawed human being who walked steadily to the scaffold and vanished into the turning tide of a new age.

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

The Battle of the Allia and the Sacking of Rome

The Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sacking of Rome in 390 BCE (or 387 BCE, according to some sources) remain among the most traumatic events in early Roman history. Rome's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Gallic Senones, led by Brennus, exposed its military weaknesses and left a lasting psychological and strategic imprint on the Republic. The aftermath forced Rome to reassess its military doctrines and city defenses, setting in motion changes that would ultimately contribute to its rise as a dominant power in the Mediterranean world.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of the Allia by Gustave Surand.

The road to battle

In the early 4th century BCE, Rome was a rising power in central Italy, exerting influence over neighboring Latin and Etruscan states. However, the peninsula was not isolated from broader European movements. Around this time, waves of Celtic tribes, collectively referred to as Gauls, began moving southward, seeking fertile lands and opportunities for plunder.

The Senones, a Gallic tribe from modern-day France, moved into northern Italy and established themselves in the Po Valley. Their leader, Brennus, led them further south, eventually arriving at Clusium, an Etruscan city that sought Roman assistance against the invaders. Rome's intervention, however, escalated the situation. Roman envoys, instead of merely negotiating, participated in a skirmish against the Gauls, violating diplomatic protocols. Enraged, Brennus redirected his forces toward Rome itself, seeing it as a direct challenge.

The Battle of the Allia

The Romans, alarmed by the swift approach of the Gauls, hastily assembled a force to meet them at the River Allia, approximately 18 kilometers north of Rome. Though the exact size of the Roman force is unclear, contemporary accounts suggest it was poorly organized and inadequately prepared for the encounter. The Gallic army, on the other hand, was highly mobile, aggressive, and battle-hardened from their campaigns in northern regions.

The battle was a disaster for Rome. The Roman army, composed largely of levied citizen-soldiers, was unfamiliar with the Gauls' style of warfare. When the Gallic warriors charged, their sheer ferocity overwhelmed the Roman lines. The Roman left flank, where inexperienced troops were positioned, collapsed almost immediately. Panic spread through the ranks, leading to a chaotic retreat. Some Romans fled to Veii, while others scattered across the countryside. Those who sought refuge in Rome had little time to organize a meaningful defense before Brennus and his warriors arrived at the city's gates.

The sacking of Rome

With no standing army to oppose them, the Gauls entered Rome unchallenged. Most of the population had already fled, while the Senate and a small garrison took refuge atop the Capitoline Hill. The Gauls looted the city, slaughtering those who remained. Fire and destruction followed as buildings were razed and sacred sites desecrated.

For months, the defenders on the Capitoline resisted the siege. According to legend, the sacred geese of Juno warned them of a surprise Gaulic attack, allowing them to repel an attempted night assault. However, the Romans were in dire straits, suffering from starvation and dwindling morale. Eventually, a ransom was negotiated: Rome would be spared in exchange for 1,000 pounds of gold. When Romans protested the unfair weight of the scales used in the transaction, Brennus is said to have thrown his sword onto the scales, uttering the infamous words, "Vae victis"—"Woe to the vanquished."

The aftermath and long-term consequences

Though Rome survived the catastrophe, the scars of the sack lingered for generations, the event left several enduring impacts. The vulnerability of Rome during the Gallic invasion underscored the need for better defenses. This led to the construction of the Servian Wall, a massive fortification that protected the city from future incursions.

Rome learned hard lessons from the battle. The traditional levy-based military system proved inadequate against highly mobile and aggressive foes. Over time, Rome restructured its legions, improving discipline, training, and organization, changes that would eventually make it one of the most formidable military powers in history.

Roman psychology and national identity

The humiliation of the sacking became ingrained in Roman consciousness. It fostered a deep-seated fear and hatred of the Gauls, influencing Rome's later military campaigns against Celtic tribes. This trauma also strengthened Roman unity and determination, reinforcing the idea that Rome must never again allow itself to be so vulnerable.

Expansionist policies

Some historians argue that the sack of Rome instilled a more aggressive expansionist mindset in Roman leadership. Over the following centuries, Rome sought to secure its borders and assert dominance over the region and beyond, ensuring that it would never again be subjected to foreign invasion.

The aggressive expansionist policy transformed Rome into a dominant power and eventually into the undisputed master of the Mediterranean world. This period saw Rome engage in a series of wars that systematically dismantled its rivals and expanded its territorial control across Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. The expansion was driven by a combination of strategic necessity, economic interests, military ambition, and the Roman Republic's political structure, which incentivized conquest through personal and national prestige, especially as Rome began to recover from the sacking of Rome.

One of the key aspects of this expansionist period was the series of wars against major Hellenistic kingdoms. The Second Macedonian War (200–197 BCE) marked Rome's direct intervention in Greek affairs, ending with the defeat of Philip V of Macedon at the Battle of Cynoscephalae.

Rome then positioned itself as the liberator of Greece, but this claim was soon undermined when it fought and defeated the Seleucid Empire in the Roman–Seleucid War (192–188 BCE), forcing King Antiochus III to withdraw from Asia Minor. Further wars followed, culminating in the destruction of Macedonian independence after the Third (171–168 BCE) and Fourth Macedonian Wars (150–148 BCE), and the eventual annexation of Greece following the sack of Corinth in 146 BCE.

Simultaneously, Rome expanded westward through its conflicts with Carthage. The Third Punic War (149–146 BCE) ended with the destruction of Carthage, securing Roman dominance in North Africa. In Spain, Rome waged prolonged campaigns against the Celtiberians, culminating in the conquest of Numantia in 133 BCE.

This relentless push for expansion continued in the late Republic with the annexation of Gaul under Julius Caesar (58–50 BCE) and further incursions into the eastern Mediterranean, including the absorption of Ptolemaic Egypt following Cleopatra's defeat in 31 BCE. By the time Augustus established the Principate, Rome had transformed from a republic controlling what is now Italy into a vast empire stretching from Britain to Mesopotamia, an expansion largely fueled by military prowess and a relentless pursuit of hegemony, in addition to fear of the defeat at the battle of Allia

A cautionary tale for the Ancient World

The sack of Rome was not just a Roman tragedy; it sent ripples throughout the known world. Other states and city-states took note of Rome's recovery, and as Rome grew stronger, it eventually turned the tables on those who had once threatened it. When Julius Caesar later campaigned against the Gauls in the 1st century BCE, he did so with an understanding of Rome's historical grievances.

In conclusion, the Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sack of Rome were among the darkest moments in early Roman history, yet they played a crucial role in shaping the Republic's destiny. Rather than breaking Rome, the trauma reinforced its resilience, prompting military, political, and psychological transformations that laid the foundation for its future supremacy. The lessons Rome learned from this defeat would ultimately propel it toward becoming one of the ancient world's greatest empires, ensuring that never again would the phrase "Vae victis" apply to the Eternal City.

The Battle of the Allia and the subsequent sack of Rome marked a profound turning point in the city's early history. What initially appeared to be a devastating and humiliating defeat ultimately became a catalyst for Rome's transformation into a formidable power. The shock of the Gallic invasion instilled in Rome a lasting fear of foreign incursions, driving fundamental changes in military organization, urban defense, and political strategy. The construction of the Servian Wall, the restructuring of Rome's military, and the psychological scars left by the sacking all contributed to a more disciplined and expansionist Republic.

Far from being a fatal blow, the Gallic sack reinforced the Roman ethos of perseverance and adaptability. The Republic's relentless drive to secure its borders and extend its influence stemmed in part from the trauma of 390 BCE, ensuring that Rome would never again be so vulnerable. Over the next centuries, this expansionist policy led Rome to dominate first the peninsula and then much of the Mediterranean world, systematically eliminating rival powers.

In retrospect, the sack of Rome was not just a crisis but a defining moment that shaped the Republic's destiny. It forged a national memory that inspired future generations of Romans, fueling their ambitions for conquest and solidifying their belief in Rome's manifest destiny. The phrase "Vae victis" may have once been a bitter reminder of defeat, but Rome's ultimate triumph ensured that it would never again be uttered at its expense. Instead, Rome would rise from the ashes of its sacking to build an empire that would stand as one of history's most enduring civilizations.

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

Notes:

The Senones

The Senones were one of the prominent Celtic tribes in ancient Gaul, inhabiting the region that roughly corresponds to modern-day northeastern France, particularly around the area of the Champagne and Burgundy regions. Their name, Senones, was used by the Romans, who encountered them during their expansion into Gaul. The Senones were part of a larger group of tribes known as the Gallic Senones and were renowned for their participation in major historical events, most notably their invasion of what is now known as Italy in the 4th century BCE.

In the early stages of their history, the Senones were a powerful and well-organized tribe, known for their martial prowess and distinct cultural practices. They were a part of the broader Celtic tradition, sharing similar customs and beliefs with other Gallic tribes. Their society was structured around a warrior elite, with chieftains and leaders who commanded respect through both martial skill and tribal allegiance. The Senones also maintained strong relationships with other Gallic tribes, particularly those in central Gaul, and participated in various alliances and conflicts.

The Senones' most notable historical moment came in 390 BCE, when they, along with other Gaulish tribes, famously sacked the city of Rome, as indicated in the main text. This event is often referred to as the Gallic Sack of Rome, during which the Senones, led by their chieftain Brennus, invaded the Peninsula and laid siege to Rome. The event marked a significant moment in Roman history, and while it did not result in long-term Gaulish dominance over Rome, it left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche, which would influence their later military strategies.

In terms of material culture, the Senones were skilled metalworkers, known for their intricately crafted weapons, armor, and jewelry. Archaeological evidence suggests that they lived in fortified hilltop settlements, known as oppida, which were typical of many Celtic tribes of the time. These settlements offered defense against both external enemies and internal conflicts. The Senones' religious practices involved a pantheon of Celtic gods and a strong reverence for the natural world, with sacred groves and ritual sites playing a central role in their spiritual life. Despite the eventual conquest of Gaul by the Romans, the cultural imprint of the Senones and their role in Gallic history remain an important part of ancient Celtic heritage.

The Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936 – Was it a Disappointment for Japan?

In 1936, Germany and Japan created the Anti-Comintern Pact agreement. This was an alliance that promised that the two countries would commit themselves to contain the threat of communist expansion presented by the USSR, a country perceived by dictatorships and democracies alike as a major threat. The ensuing propaganda presented Germany and Japan in a flamboyant fashion as a “sword-wielding, winged champion” ready to take on this challenge and step up to the task. It looked formidable, and for Britain and France in particular, at least someone else was providing that bulwark against the USSR rather than themselves.

However, this Pact proved to be all fanfare and nothing more than an empty statement. This fact would become all too apparent by August 1939 when, within three short years, Japan distanced herself from Germany and had agreed to a separate non-aggression alliance with the Soviet Union in April 1941.

What was the story behind this pact to have caused this reversal from these two Axis partners? To explain this from the Japanese perspective, it is necessary to start at the beginning of the twentieth century and consider the events that took place between the Soviet Union and Japan.

Steve Prout explains.

Germany’s Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact in November,ber 1936.

The Japanese–Soviet Relations 1900–1939

The Russo-Japanese War

Japan and the USSR shared a troubled relationship ever since the beginning of the 1900s. They both were competing for their own spheres of influence in East Asia. Japan sought Russian recognition for control over the Korean Peninsula, and in return, Japan would recognise Russian influence in Manchuria. The Russians refused Japan’s request, and therefore the two sides could not reach any agreement. The result led to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5. The Japanese emerged victorious, leaving Russia decisively beaten and humiliated, thus affecting the balance of power in the Far East. This outcome had ramifications in Europe as well for Russia’s prestige. The imperial powers now viewed Russia’s strength in a weaker light due to her defeat by what the Great Powers viewed as an inferior Asian nation.

Japan fought on the Allied side during the First World War. Her participation in the war was limited to East Asia and not the European theatre, where she swiftly annexed the German overseas territories in the region, such as the Marshall Islands. Comparatively, this was a sideshow compared to the main fighting in Europe and had an insignificant effect on the German war effort. It did, however, give an early indication of Japanese plans to expand their empire into East Asia, but few noticed or cared from the Allied camp at the time as their priority was to defeat Germany and her allies.

After the end of the First World War, whilst Russia was in the grip of revolution, the Japanese then contributed heavily to the Allied intervention forces. They saw this intervention as a chance, and Russia’s vulnerability as an opportunity to permanently occupy and add Siberia to their growing empire.

The Russian War of Intervention 1919–1922

In 1918, Russia arranged a separate peace with the Central Powers at Brest-Litovsk, which meant that her part in the war was over. Peace, however, eluded her troubled nation because she now faced civil war fuelled by the emergence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Communism now was the new enemy, now that Germany and her allies were defeated. The Allies swiftly deployed military detachments into Russia to counter and suppress the Bolshevik threat.

At first, Japan sent just a small marine battalion in the spring of 1918 to Vladivostok. The pretext was retaliation for the death of three Japanese civilians caught up in the civil war violence. It was the perfect opportunity to begin control of the area, and they already had additional troops ready for action in neighbouring Korea. The Japanese commitment would increase; at its highest, they provided over seventy thousand soldiers. These troops supported the Russian White Armies under the command of Kerensky, who were also fighting the Bolsheviks. Other troops also aided the Czech Legion led by Kolchak by helping them escape Siberian captivity. The Japanese would then enlist their assistance around Vladivostok to augment their own dominance in the region. Within Allied circles, US Ambassador Roland Morris suspected Japan’s true intentions, but Japan was not making their intentions hard to notice.

Morris noted that “the Japanese presence in the area was excessive compared to other nations”; however, the British alone had over fifty thousand personnel deployed in Russia, so it did not spark widespread concern. The British, on the other hand, unlike Japan, had no other interest than removing communism. Morris also noted that the Japanese “seemed generally to be pursuing a policy to prevent the establishment of any kind of united orderly government in Siberia.” The USA appeared to express the most concern within the Allied alliance. Britain and Japan still had a formal alliance between them, and for Britain and France, Japanese strength was a bonus in the region because it selfishly and indirectly served imperial interests by containing communist influence locally and indirectly serving their own imperial interests in Asia.

US Colonel William B. Donovan in December 1919 also commented that the Japanese had “dreams of militaristic authority” and were “erecting economic barriers in Manchuria and Siberia.” The Japanese did not make any attempt to conceal these ambitions. They declared openly in their own Vladivostok-based newspaper Vladvivo-Nippo that in extending their military involvement further east to the Urals, it would not only help bring the civil war to an end, but in doing so they would “secure their exceptional rights in Siberia and the Far East.” The phrase “exceptional rights” caused concern not just to the Americans but also the Chinese and, of course, the Russians. The latter could not accept the prospect of a long occupation or potential loss of Siberia to Japan. Russia had previously suffered huge territorial losses to her western territories at Brest-Litovsk in 1918 to the former Central Powers and shortly after in the war against Poland.

A certain Captain Yamamoto in 1919 said during the Russian War of Intervention that “the world would be speaking Japanese within ten or fifteen years.” At the time, this was more than likely seen by the Great Powers as an empty boast and was not taken seriously. The Japanese were deadly serious, maybe not about world domination but certainly about domination of East Asia and the Pacific theatre. After the victory of the 1904–5 war, their part in the Great War, and their sizeable participation in the Russian War of Intervention, Japan had without a doubt been left with the impression that she was now a great world power on an equal footing with Great Britain, France, and the USA. They were becoming not only a force to be reckoned with internationally but also a worry for Russia.

In 1922, after a four-year occupation, Japan withdrew from Siberia. The uneasy co-existence between the two powers continued and escalated in the following decade. The Japanese had not given up their intentions of expanding into the East Asian mainland because it was essential to their nation’s survival. It had few natural resources and an expanding population; much like Germany, she sought her own version of lebensraum, or living space. This is supported by a quote recorded early in 1919 where the Japanese openly stated in the Yamato Shimbum newspaper that “Japan has no way out, save that of sending her surplus population to Manchuria and Siberia.” The opportunity that Siberia presented to Japan was now lost, and so they turned their attention to China. However, the Soviet Union also would soon be expressing interest and establishing herself in that region, and the two sides would clash.

The 1930s – Manchuria, the League and fighting in East Asia

Between 1931 and 1939, the Japanese and Soviet forces frequently clashed along the Mongolian border. The tensions were not helped because the remote frontier with Manchuria was uncharted and ambiguous to both sides. The USSR and Japan had their own commercial and political agendas in China. They both intended to exploit the raw materials that were plentiful in the region, and the USSR were acting as advisors to the Chinese Army with their own control over the Chinese Eastern Railway.

Trouble in the region began in 1931 during the Mukden Incident. The Japanese claimed that Chinese nationalists were committing acts of sabotage on the South Manchurian Railway, which Japan controlled. It was discovered to be a spurious claim perpetrated by the Japanese to exert further control of the area as they moved more troops inland and seized further territory to secure their rights.

An investigation was ordered by the League of Nations into the matter in 1932, and the publication of the Lytton Report followed. The report concluded that the Japanese orchestrated the entire affair themselves. It damningly exposed the Japanese motives and the deceitful attempts to frame the Chinese nationalists as the aggressors. It did not make any difference to the Japanese, who were now entrenched in Manchuria and had no plans to leave, but it also placed Japanese forces closer to Soviet forces on the Mongolian border. This is when the instability in the region intensified.

Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in protest after a failed attempt to deflect the truthful findings of the Lytton Report. This action had numerous ramifications, not least for world peace, when Italy and Germany realised that the League was powerless against the more powerful states like themselves. They realised that they could further their own ambitions with relative impunity as they watched the Japanese, now unchecked by the other great powers, pursue an expansionist policy in China. However, in doing so, these actions would soon bring her into conflict with the Soviet Union and further instability to the region arose.

At first, the Soviet Union was eager to avoid war with Japan. In 1929, they did not possess the military capability to conduct any form of protracted war. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and occupied the Soviet sphere of influence, the Soviet Union was still not strong enough in the East to oppose the Japanese. In order to avoid war, Stalin went so far as to adopt a policy of neutrality as far as Japanese actions in the region were concerned. In addition, the Soviet Union sold its rights to the Chinese Eastern Railway to the Manchukuo government on 23 March 1935, removing any interests they possessed in China. It would all be in vain; meanwhile, Japanese forces were now moving closer to the Mongolian border.

The first reported incident between the Soviet and Japanese forces occurred during January and February 1935. It was, by comparison, a small affair called the Halhamiao Incident, which broke out on the Manchurian-Mongolian border. This would not be the last, as similar events of varying severity erupted on a regular basis. The situation was not helped by the geographical problems, where ownership of frontier boundaries was ambiguous. Consequently, with no resolution or sensible dialogue, the two sides engaged in over one hundred intentional and unintentional territorial clashes.

This first incident was small and involved a small group comprising eleven Manchukuoan soldiers led by a Japanese officer clashing with a similarly sized Mongolian cavalry force. The Manchukuo Army suffered six casualties and two dead, including the Japanese officer, but the Mongolian opposing side incurred no casualties. Although this affray started on a small scale, it quickly escalated, and in retaliation, the Japanese sent a larger force. This comprised two motorized companies supported by a machine gun company that quickly overran the area and occupied it for three weeks.

The Halhamiao Incident would be the start of many confrontations and skirmishes of varying size. According to Japanese claims, from 1935 to 1939, when the last encounter with the USSR ended, there were over one hundred and fifty border engagements that took place fighting the Soviet Union on the Manchurian-Mongolian border. While it is not possible to discuss all of them, two later incidents at Gol Khashan and Khalkin Gol were particularly significant and stand out. More importantly, they are key events in evaluating the effectiveness of Japan’s future alliance with Germany.

The Anti-Comintern Pact – Germany and Japan Align

Hostilities with the Soviet Union became more frequent; being internationally isolated made Japan recognize that she needed an ally. There was, however, an absence of potential suitors. Her relations with Britain and the USA were already strained, not helped by the way Britain and the USA treated Japan as an inferior and unequal Asian power. The USA and Great Britain had previously placed restrictions on the size of the Japanese Navy. One example that irked the Japanese was the fact that they were restricted in how they were allowed to operate in the Pacific by the Washington Conference in 1922. This gave the USA and Great Britain naval dominance on “Japan’s very doorstep.” This was seen as disrespectful when considering that Japan was still technically, at the time, an ally of these two powers. She had been on the Allied side in the First World War and had assisted heavily in a common cause, fighting in Russia during the War of Intervention. Of course, Japan sought to gain from these engagements, but no more so than any of her wartime allies like Britain and France, who ensured that they would receive their territorial gains from the likes of Turkey and Germany.

After leaving the League of Nations, Japan had become an international pariah. She had only one potential suitor for an ally, and that was the newly emerged Nazi Germany. These ties she sought from Germany were borne out of expediency and, to some extent, a common ground. Germany was also falling out of favour with the international community and therefore became the candidate for Japan’s ally. Furthermore, Germany, like Japan, also had no love for the Soviet Union; therefore, there was common ground on this matter too.

Statistics demonstrate that these battles with the USSR were by no means insignificant. By the time of the final engagement in 1939, these combined clashes between the Soviet Union and Japan amounted to over thirty-three thousand Soviet and Mongolian casualties, three hundred and fifty Soviet tanks, and over two hundred Soviet aircraft destroyed. The Japanese would also suffer casualties of over thirty thousand losses, but fewer in tanks and aircraft, numbering forty-three and one hundred and sixty-two, respectively. Japan’s need for an ally against the Soviets was becoming more urgent. An opportunity presented itself. A resurrected, militaristic, anti-communist Germany was the perfect partner—at least the Japanese thought at the time.

In November 1936 in Berlin, following a month of negotiations and discussions, the two countries announced the arrival of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Its rhetoric made no attempt to disguise the fact that this was aimed purposefully at containing the Soviet Union. The propaganda was presented in true grandiose totalitarian style. It represented the alliance as a solitary sword-wielding, winged champion that would save Europe from the ravages of Bolshevism. Examples of the scare-mongering tactics and justification the pact used included communist involvement in the Civil War in Spain and the political unrest attributed to left-wing destabilising tactics in France. There was, interestingly, no reference to the Soviet action against Japan in East Asia. In 1937, Italy joined; Spain in 1939 (more likely as revenge for Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War) followed, along with Hungary. Although membership grew, it would prove a disappointment to the Japanese. The pact was never properly put into practice (although some could convincingly argue Operation Barbarossa was that very act), and time would prove what little substance it contained.

Soviet Victory in East Asia and the Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union

In the two years following the signing of the pact, the Japanese no doubt saw the alliance with Germany as a major disappointment. The Germans took no active part in coming to the aid of the Japanese during their altercations with the Soviet Union after 1936. In fact, within three years of the formal signing of the pact, the Germans forged the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The implications of that enabled the Soviets to expand westward into Poland in 1939 and the Baltic States in 1940—a clear contradiction of the pact’s intentions. The Japanese would endure two final and decisive defeats before making peace with the USSR again without any German support.

The Battle of Khasan in July 1938 was the first of these confrontations, where seven thousand Japanese troops clashed against over twenty thousand Soviet troops. The Japanese viewed the Soviet reinforcement of this area as an incursion into territory they perceived as demarcated to themselves, as agreed in the Treaty of Peking with the USSR. The fact that the area was unclearly charted and ambiguous made it difficult to ascertain which side controlled which area, thus exacerbating the situation and causing most of the border disputes and misunderstandings. The Soviets suffered four thousand killed and injured, and the Japanese fifteen hundred from their Kwantung Army from Manchukuo. Japanese forces were defeated, and the Soviet Union re-occupied the area. Germany looked on as her ally continued to engage Soviet forces.

In 1939, at Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese were defeated once again. The two sides were at war for two months, from July to August 1939. Interestingly, in those two months, a Soviet officer named Zhukov (who would later gain prominence) led numerically superior Soviet forces who overcame the Japanese after suffering initial losses themselves. The Japanese would suffer a combination of seventeen thousand dead and wounded compared to ten thousand dead Soviet soldiers. In September, an armistice was declared. This would be the last of the Japanese and Soviet engagements until 1945.

In August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was announced to a surprised international community, aligning Germany and the Soviet Union. This invalidated the pact they shared with Japan by choosing to sign a deal with the USSR that enabled their expansion westwards, which began with their occupation of Poland and the Baltic states. Both Germany and the USSR (for now at least) had conveniently set aside their differences, forgotten the venomous invectives they had previously exchanged, and made no reference to the Anti-Comintern Pact. Japan, realizing that her ally’s position had changed, now began to distance herself from Germany and signed the Neutrality Pact of 1941 with the USSR. Both members of the pact had made peace, at separate times, with the very state they originally sought to contain. Germany and Japan would soon both set upon starting their own separate wars.

The pact was inoperable by Germany due to the geographical distance between Germany and Japan, exacerbated by her reduced naval capacity to support her ally. The Germans had no interest in East Asia other than the Japanese military being available to drain British, French, and later American forces during the war. Germany’s aims were clearly expressed early in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, and that was Lebensraum, or living space, at the expense of the USSR.

Another Unlikely Potential Ally

There are other interesting, and little-known, aspects to this story. Hitler's first choice of an anti-Soviet ally was not Japan; it was Great Britain, who also had little love for communism. Earlier in 1935, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was the first attempt for the Germans to reach out to the British. The Japanese, at this point, viewed this with suspicion, as this would endorse British naval supremacy imposed by the Treaty of Washington, thus threatening her aspirations of dominance in the Pacific.

Conclusion

The pact revealed itself to be no more than a paper treaty as far as Japan was concerned. German resources were used to assist General Franco in battling communist forces backed by the USSR during the civil war in Spain. Japan no doubt was irked by this as she struggled alone in East Asia, but then equally, Japan did not intervene in Spain.

There appeared to be very little substance and only rhetoric, and if no other evidence were available to present, then this can be proved where both parties reversed their anti-Soviet attitudes (at least on the surface) to the Anti-Comintern Pact by arranging separate departures from the pact in 1939 by Germany and Japan in 1941. Japan was the only German ally not to participate in Operation Barbarossa.

What served the Germans also equally served the Japanese. As Germany was secretly using the Japanese in East Asia to distract and contain the USSR, Japan was doing likewise to Germany in Europe. That was not just a tactic used by the totalitarian powers either because their democratic rivals, Britain and France, were in turn also tacitly allowing Germany to serve as the bulwark against communist plans in Europe and, no doubt, in a similar fashion with Japan in East Asia.

As clouds of war approached, Germany and Japan took their own approaches in their relationship with the USSR, which were complete policy reversals. The Japanese Neutrality Pact and the Nazi-Soviet Pact allowed time to form a temporary alliance, which, in that time, enabled the USSR to not only expand her borders westward but also bring peace to the East Asian theatre. The Japanese could now turn to the Pacific and realize her ambitions. This had a devastating effect for the Allies, as the Japanese were now free to attack the European colonies and then challenge the USA. However, the pact would soon be put to deadly effect because, in June 1941, Operation Barbarossa commenced but without the support of Japan.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

William Shirer - Rise and Fall of The Third Reich

AJP Taylor - Origins of the Second World War

Goldman, Stuart (2012). Nomonhan, 1939: The Red Army's Victory that Shaped World War II. Naval Institute Press

A Shared Enmity: Germany, Japan, and the Creation of the Tripartite Pact - Jason Dawsey, PhD

Frank, Richard B. Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War, July 1937-May 1942. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020