When Hitler Fought for the Allies in World War 2

This the story of William Hitler, the nephew of Adolf Hitler. William enlisted and served in the U.S. Navy in 1944 after personally imploring the President, Roosevelt to admit him into the Allied armed forces. After some understandable hesitation, the U.S. authorities relented, and William proceeded to join the fight against the Axis regime in the Pacific. This is his story.

Steve Prout explains.

William Hitler receiving his honorable discharge from Navy Commander Louis A. Fey.

The early life of William Hitler

William was born in March 1911 in Liverpool, England to Alois Hitler and Bridget Dowling. Alois, William’s father was the half-brother of Adolf Hitler, therefore making Adolf William’s half uncle. William’s parents met in 1909 in Dublin when Alois was working as a waiter. Alois met Bridget Dowling there and they quickly eloped to London in 1910 and married. It was not an auspicious start to married life because Alois was accused of “kidnapping” Bridget by her father. The reality was that Alois did not obtain the customary yet old-fashioned blessing for the marriage from Bridget’s father. Eventually Bridget’s family become resigned to the fact that the marriage was now a fait accompli. The couple then moved and settled in Toxteth, Liverpool where William was born a year later.

The marriage did not last, and Alois returned to Germany in 1914 where he entered a bigamous marriage with Hedwig Mickley. They would both produce a son whom them named Heinz. Unlike William, Heinz became an ardent Nazi, who later perished in Soviet captivity in 1942. Alois became a restaurant owner which continued to run throughout the war’s duration. His wife, Bridget, was left to raise William alone in England now with the aid of her Irish family. Meanwhile, in Germany Adolf Hitler was about to make the family name a terrible part of history.

At the age of eighteen, while his half-uncle Adolf was making his presence known in German politics, William took on a more sober profession and trained to be an accountant in Highgate, London with Benham and Sons. When his connection to Adolf Hitler was discovered, his position was allegedly terminated, and many subsequent opportunities became closed to him.

Visting Germany and meeting Adolf Hitler

In 1929, after turning eighteen, William visited in Germany at the request of his estranged father. While in Germany he met his uncle Adolf Hitler for the first time, who was beginning to make an impact on German political life. After a brief stay William returned England. The first meeting with his uncle did not go well. Shortly after his return to England William was ordered to return to Berlin by Adolf, who subsequently admonished his nephew for his public revelations about him. William had on his return authored several articles that were published which irked the Nazi leader and he forced William to withdraw them. The incident appeared to have blown over, or it was more likely that Adolf Hitler’s wider ambitions in German politics consumed his full attention. William would try unsuccessfully to make a life in England and Adolf would seize control of Germany. It would be another four years before William would visit again and that also  did not go well for William.

In 1933 William returned to Germany, this time on the advice of his mother with the plan to use Adolf Hitler’s influence to improve William’s career opportunities. Britain at the time was still recovering from the Great Depression and had little to offer William. To make matters worse, being related to the Hitler family was very limiting for William; however, Germany’s economy was showing signs of prosperity and being related to Adolf Hitler carried some currency for William.

The plan seemed to work at first. Adolf’s influence first found William work in the Reich Credit Bank. This did not seem to favor William who then took on the role as a car salesperson in the Opel Car Factory. William did not last in any of  these jobs and his constant demands for alternative ones exasperated his uncle. He would soon label William, “My loathsome nephew” and stated, “I didn’t become Chancellor for the benefit of my family…No one is going to climb on my back.” In 1939, after refusing to give up his British citizenship and fearing being trapped in In Germany while it was in a war, he fled back to England and then onto the USA. William had spent six years in Germany.

Willam also had little good to say about his uncle and of his time in Germany. On a tour of the USA in 1939 he officially announced that he “had no time for Hitler” and he (Adolf) was “of no benefit to the human race”.

He was projecting as an avid anti-Nazi doing “the right thing” but let us for a moment analyze that stance. Was the extent of his antipathy toward his uncle or the regime. Also was it more owing to failure to prosper in Germany than a dislike of Nazism?

William spent six years in Germany, and this was long enough to not fail to see the loathsome direction the Nazi Party and his uncle were taking the country and its people. However, we do not know how well acquainted he was with Adolf Hitler and how often he met his uncle. It is worth considering that in 1939 the true face and brutality of Nazism and Hitler were now becoming clearer to the world . Public events such as Kristallnacht, the antisemitism in the streets, the growing totalitarianism, the secret police, the rallies, and the growing militarism did not seem to deter William who still persisted in trying to carve out a career when all this was going on. He still could have easily slipped back to England. We will never know, and this is doing him a disservice.

William, the USA, and the war

After William left Germany, he visited the United States with his mother and began an anti-Nazi themed lecture tour that focused on his time with Adolf Hitler. This was encouraged by publisher William Randolph Hearst who, like William, saw this as very lucrative. William immediately went on a nationwide lecture tour of the USA. It was simply titled “My Uncle Adolf.”  The content was of course focused on his experiences with Hitler and the Nazis to the various audiences. This would be the only theatre where William would challenge his uncle’s regime. His combat experience would be confined to the Pacific theatre.

When World War II broke out William was still in the United States, but he still tried to join the British forces. For obvious reasons he was rejected and for a short while he sat as a bystander as the German army subjugated Europe. When the U.S. later entered the war William send a letter dated March 3, 1942, to President Roosevelt appealing for him to be allowed to join the U.S. forces and stating why he felt he was not allowed to serve in the British forces. The letter read:

“I am the nephew and only descendant of the ill-famed Chancellor and Leader of Germany who today so despotically seeks to enslave the free and Christian peoples of the globe. Under your masterful leadership men of all creeds and nationalities are waging desperate war to determine, in the last analysis, whether they shall finally serve and live an ethical society under God or become enslaved by a devilish and pagan regime.”

It continues:

"All my relatives and friends soon will be marching for freedom and decency under the Stars and Stripes … I am respectfully submitting this petition to you to enquire as to whether I may be allowed to join them in their struggle against tyranny and oppression. As a fugitive from the Gestapo, I warned France through the press that Hitler would invade her that year. The people of England I warned by the same means that the so-called ‘solution’ of Munich was a myth that would bring terrible consequences….The British are an insular people and while they are kind and courteous, it is my impression, rightly or wrongly, that they could not in the long term feel overly cordial or sympathetic towards an individual bearing the name I do.”

His application was passed to the FBI who eventually seemed satisfied with his background and his intentions. William was drafted into the US Navy in March 1944. He served as a pharmacist’s mate (aka hospitals corpsman), earning himself the purple heart medal after receiving a shrapnel wound to the heart. He remained in service until 1947. Whether his uncle knew about his enlistment or not we cannot be certain. It is more likely Adolf Hitler showed no interest in his nephew’s affairs after washing his hands of him before the war. Also, Adolf Hitler’s mental state deteriorated as the tide of the war was turning against Germany, therefore his “loathsome nephew”  would have been of little interest to him amid his more pressing concerns.

Post War Life

After the war, William changed his name to William Stuart-Houston and became an entrepreneur. He married Phyllis Jean Jaques in 1947 shortly after leaving the navy. Unlike his father before him he remained married and stayed with Phyliss until his death in 1987. It was a marriage that was certainly more successful than that of his parents. They had four sons born between 1949 and 1965, Alexander, Louis, Howard, and Brian (the latter being the youngest). None of William’s children sired any offspring. His wife, Phyllis, died in 2004.

It is of little surprise that William would spend his life in relative obscurity after the war. The true nature of his uncle’s legacy and the full extent of the Nazi atrocities were a permanent stain to his name. William had an extraordinary life, with winning the Purple Heart, being personally attended to by Roosevelt, vehemently opposing Adolf Hitler, and going on to run a successful business in America.

Although William served as a medic in the US Navy and not in actual physical combat, the challenges he faced were just as formidable. He had the reputation of his family name to overcome and as the horrors of the Nazi brutality were revealed post war, that challenge certainly would not have been made any easier. Despite his limited combat experience his actual contribution to the Allied cause was greater than he could have imagined. His public opposition to his uncle and his voluntary service spoke volumes as invaluable propaganda for the Allies.

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.

Star Fort and the Siege of Ninety Six in the American Revolutionary War

The Siege of Ninety Six was a siege in South Carolina in the American Revolutionary War from May to June 1781. The Patriot Nathanael Greene led a force of 1,000 in a siege against Loyalists in Ninety Six. The siege took place around Star Fort. Abrielle M. Lamb explains.

Nathaniel Greene. By John Trumbull, 1792.

Patriots and Loyalists

During the American Revolution, there were two major groups that emerged in the colonies concerning war efforts and conflicting sentiments towards England. Many are familiar with the patriots, the revolutionists who dumped tea in the harbor and challenged the authority of the King. However, there were a number of individuals and communities in the colonies who did not align with the patriot movement or desire independence from the crown; these groups were known as loyalists. Loyalists supported the English Monarchy in retaining power over the colonies and a continuation of their reign in America. In the struggle between patriots and loyalists there was a significant landmark that is less discussed compared to larger memorials or battle sites but, nonetheless, should be remembered. A major loyalist community during the American Revolutionary Era was Ninety Six in South Carolina. There had been a considerable amount of tension in this area before and during the Revolution between patriots and loyalists; however, it was the loyalists who had control of this area. Star Fort shielded the settlement of Ninety Six, according to The American Battlefield Trust, “Ninety Six was protected by the formidable Star Fort and the smaller Stockade Fort. Its garrison was made up almost entirely of loyalist colonists.”[1]

Star Fort

The Star Fort would prove to be a truly significant location during the American Revolution, specifically during the siege of Ninety Six in the latter half of the war. Star Fort was designed, as its name suggests, in the shape of a star which differed from the common square fort layout at that time. The fort was set into the ground, making the walls thick mounds of earth. The construction of the fort lasted from December of 1780 to early 1781. The star shaped design was not a common or largely desirable layout as capacity for soldiers was greatly reduced, and the design was more difficult to construct than the average square forts. However, loyalist engineer, Lt. Henry Haldane was convinced that the unique shape with its eight points would be more beneficial in the long run. The benefit that Haldane saw in the design was that the points of the star made it possible for musket and cannon fire to cover all sides and shoot in every direction from the fort's walls.[2] Though it was constructed using an uncommon design, it proved a strong front for the British Army and loyalist forces.

Nathanael Greene and His Siege

The patriot revolutionist, Nathanael Greene, launched a famous attack known as the Siege of Ninety Six which took place from May 22 – June 18, 1781. On June 18, Greene issued an attack on the fort, while at the same time, British troops were traveling from Charleston to Ninety Six to support and defend their forts. It was with some hesitation that Greene gave the order, but he did order the attack on Star Fort. The battle lasted for just under an hour in which time Greene’s men valiantly attempted to take the fort from the loyalists but were inevitably forced to retreat. The incoming British troops from Charleston arrived two days after Greene’s army withdrew from the area. The loyalists had indeed held their ground but after the siege British officers concluded that their position was too vulnerable and abandoned their post.[3] There are several reasons that the Star Fort was significant during the American Revolution, two of the main points of its importance rests in Greene’s attack and Britian's inevitable abandonment of the fort. Greene’s attack on the fort was important because although Greene had to retreat while the loyalists held their position at Ninety Six, he had launched a daring attack. Greene’s continued fighting and strategy in North and South Carolina during the war greatly contributed to American independence.[4] The impact that Green’s siege had on the British was significant. When they abandoned the fort, they destroyed what was left after the siege and burned the buildings that remained. The war continued and there were other battles fought in the southern colonies but the British departure from the fort effectively brought an end to the British occupation at Ninety Six.[5] Though Greene did not take Star Fort during his siege, he showed his strength and the courage of his men; and although the British Army held Star Fort, they were ultimately forced to abandon their position.

The Star Fort Today

Today, visitors can walk out to the Star Fort and battlefield which has undergone very little reconstruction since its original construction. The National Park Service comments, “The siege trenches are partially reconstructed, but the Star Fort is original. The Star Fort was an earthen fort. As you see it today is how it looked in 1781... The walls are a little weatherworn in places, but are original.”[6] There are many benefits to visiting physical locations for research and learning. Visiting Star Fort would be helpful for anyone studying the American Revolution to be able to gain a better understanding of how the fighting took place and to see the impressive star shaped fort that had such a large impact on the southern battles, fighting, and strategy during the war for independence.

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

Bibliography

“Ninety Six.” American Battlefield Trust. Last modified October 5, 2022. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/ninety-six.

“The Star Fort.” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Last modified August 30, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/nisi/learn/historyculture/the-star-fort.htm.

Cann, Marvin L. “War in the Backcounty: The Siege of Ninety Six, May 22-June 19, 1781.” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 71, no. 1 (January 1971): 1–14.

Fore, Samuel K, and Walter B Edgar. “NINETY SIX, BATTLES OF (1775, 1781).” Essay. In 101 People & Places That Shaped the American Revolution in South Carolina, 103–105. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2021.

“Star Fort Image - Online Tour Stop 11.” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, n.d. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/nisi/learn/photosmultimedia/online-tour-stop-11.htm.

[1] “Ninety Six.” American Battlefield Trust. Last modified October 5, 2022.

[2] “The Star Fort.” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Last modified August 30, 2024.

[3] Samuel K. Fore and Walter B Edgar. “NINETY SIX, BATTLES OF (1775, 1781).” Essay. In 101 People & Places That Shaped the American Revolution in South Carolina, 103–105. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2021.

[4] “Ninety Six.” American Battlefield Trust. Last modified October 5, 2022.

[5] Samuel K. Fore and Walter B Edgar. “NINETY SIX, BATTLES OF (1775, 1781).” Essay. In 101 People & Places That Shaped the American Revolution in South Carolina, 103–105. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2021.

 [6] “The Star Fort.” National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Last modified August 30, 2024.

Roots of Righteousness: A Glimpse into Ethics as the Moral Fabric of India

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behavior in a society. In very simple terms, they constitute the rights and wrongs that guide people’s conduct. The Indian ethics are generally connected to the principle of anekantavada or many-sidedness, emphasizing that there is “no absolute truth” and no neatly defined binaries of right and wrong. They are based on factors such as the person practicing them, the situation, and the time at which they are practised. Indian ethics focus on accepting and encouraging diverse thoughts and beliefs, hence propagating “unity in diversity” and “diversity in unity.”

Apeksha Srivastava explains.

A manuscript from the Mewar Rāmāyaṇa. This shows Rāma slaying Rāvaṇa.

“It is surely extremely strange that whenever, either in Greek, or in Chinese, or in Persian, or in Arab writings, we meet with any attempts at describing the distinguishing features in the national character of the Indians, regard for truth and justice should always be mentioned first.” — F. Max Müller, Sanskritist and philologist (1882)

The Rig Veda and Upanishads

Composed between 1500–1000 BCE, the Rig Veda mentions the concept of Ritam (cosmic order) through which the physical and the social worlds are sustained. Ritam can be understood as the sense of righteousness. It later developed into the concept of Satyam (truth), with strong ethical implications. Dharma, the building block of Indian ethics, has been translated from the Rig Veda to refer to words such as justice, duty, righteousness, and order, among others. It is important to note that dharma is a multifaceted concept and does not denote a single idea or meaning.

Composed between 800 and 500 BCE, the Upanishads reveal further developments in Indian ethical thought. For example, Aham Brahma asmi (1.4.10; Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) translates to “I am Brahman (the Absolute)” and can be understood as: A person is a part of God (and not separate from this universal consciousness). It is essential to grow cognizant of this identity. Further, the Upanishads highlight that every person has a distinct nature (svabhava), function, truth, and path (svadharma), echoing the concept of anekantavada. The Puranas also propagate notions like all creation is interconnected and that one can be happy when all are happy.

Beyond Binaries

The Ramayana and Mahabharata stories underline the idea that ethics are complex. Several dilemmas shape the events of these epics and put forth the question: How to decide what is dharma in different situations? The central message of the Bhagavad Gita, part of the Mahabharata, is Nishkama Karma, meaning desireless action. It propagates the concept that people should work without any expectation of results. What matters ultimately is the inner growth of the individual, which can be achieved when one’s actions align with one’s dharma. Nishkama Karma forms the basis of Karma Yoga, a spiritual practice of selfless action that can lead a person to liberation (moksha). Lord Krishna emphasized that dharmacannot be practiced in passivity; several situations arise when a person needs to take a particular side in life. Some examples showcasing the sophisticated nature of dharma include the following:

Dronacharya: In the Mahabharata, Drona was a master of advanced military arts, including divine weapons. The Pandavas decided to use Drona’s only weakness, his son Ashwatthama, to save many lives in the war. The Pandava Bhima killed an elephant named Ashwatthama and spread the news of his death. Drona asked the Pandava Yudhishthira (known for always speaking the truth), who clearly said that Ashwatthama was killed. It is said that Krishna suppressed the word ‘elephant’ by blowing the conch. The news of the death of his son eventually led to the slaying of Drona. This story emphasizes that if an untruth saves lives, then perhaps ethics is not about always telling the truth.

Vibhishana and Kumbhakarana: Ravana’s brothers Vibhishana and Kumbhakarana in the Ramayana skillfully demonstrated that there is no single path to dharma and no single way of solving an ethical dilemma. Kumbhakarna adhered to the dharma of loyalty to his kin. At the same time, Vibhishana chose to follow the dharma of saving the people from the evil of his brother Ravana by opposing his kin and supporting Rama.

Buddhism’s Eightfold Path

Buddhism originated in the Indian subcontinent and mentions a noble eightfold path encompassing the ‘right’ vision, intention/aspiration, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration. Once Buddha preached, “... whenever someone abuses us, we can either choose to accept or decline that anger. Our response will decide who owns and keeps the bad and negative feelings.” This story beautifully encourages the practice of the right speech, action, and mindfulness. Buddhism also talks about having compassion for others. Aligning with this idea, Buddhist economics studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods/services by changing the focus from self-interest to no-self (generosity), with ‘right’ livelihood and sustainability. While traditional economics emphasizes maximizing profits, Buddhist economics aims to minimize suffering (losses) for all.

Morals in Jainism

Jainism also originated in the Indian subcontinent and mentions the Triratna (three jewels) as the ‘right’ faith, knowledge, and walk. Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacharya (chastity), and aparigraha (Non-possession) are its five ethical codes. Detachment (non-attachment or non-possession) is one of its main morals. It can serve as the means to attain the realization of one’s self. Jainism’s concept of violence, acceptable only when absolutely necessary for self-defense, appears to echo with Lord Krishna’s advice from the Mahabharata that dharma cannot be practiced in passivity (at least, in certain situations according to Jainism).

The Timeless Classic

Composed around the 5th century CE by Thiruvallur and consisting of 1,330 short couplets, the Kural is a classic Tamil language text. It is considered a great work on morality, known for its secular nature. Some examples from this work include (a) In prosperity, bend low [be humble], (and) in adversity, stand straight [be strong], and (b) Always aim high—failure then is as good as success. This text provides worldly wisdom and guidance to make ethical decisions.

Some Case Studies on Different Aspects of Dharma

Din-i-Ilahi: The Divine Faith was propounded by the Mughal emperor Akbar (1582), who wanted to unite his people so that all of humankind could worship God according to their faith. Its writer, Abu’l-Fazl, expressed, “every sect can assert its doctrine without apprehension, and everyone can worship God after his own fashion.” Discriminations among the different religions of the realm were prohibited. Here, religious harmony emerges as a critical component of dharma.

The Story of Panna Dhai: I remember a story my mother told me during childhood. It is the tale of Panna Dhai, a 16th-century maid to Rani Karnavati, who helped her in political matters and the upbringing of the prince, Udai Singh II, along with her own son, Chandan. During the attack on Chittor, Panna sent Udai out to a river while putting her son in Udai’s place on the bed. When Bhanvir, the enemy, came and asked for Udai, Panna pointed at the bed occupied by her son and watched as Banvir murdered him. An epitome of courage and sacrifice, Panna adhered to the dharma of loyalty to her kingdom, where she lived. Saving the prince was more important to her than her child. This incident reflects anekantavada (“no absolute truth”) and dharma that depends on the person, situation, and time of practice. Panna chose her duty as a nursemaid over being a mother. Had she not done so, India might not have known the ancient hero Maharana Pratap, who was later born as the eldest son of Udai Singh II.

The Bishnoi Sacrifice: In the year 1730 at Khejadli (Rajasthan), 363 Bishnoi women, children, and men, led by Amrita Devi, sacrificed their lives to protect Khejadli trees while chanting their Guru’s teaching: “If a tree is saved even at the cost of one’s head, it is worth it.” It led the Maharaja of Jodhpur to prohibit tree cutting and animal hunting in all Bishnoi villages, attaching a sense of sacredness to these forms of nature. Such traditions from India are based on the dharmaof non-hurting and simple living.

Beyond One’s Life: Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920) was a mathematics teacher, social reformer, and freedom fighter. He encouraged people to fight for India’s freedom so future generations could enjoy the fruit. It can be equated with thedharma of having no relaxation (in one’s efforts) so that one does not incur the curse of one’s children and descendants.

Guest is God: Indians have believed since ancient times in the spiritual tradition of guests being considered divine. Adhering to this principle as their dharma, many Taj Hotel employees died saving the lives of the hotel guests during the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Although many knew all the back exits that could have safely led them out of the hotel, they stayed back to save the guests selflessly.

In conclusion, India’s ethics system is based on diverse philosophies, religious teachings, and cultural traditions spanning thousands of years. It is important to note that the information provided in this article is not exhaustive in nature. The complexity associated with ethics reflects India’s pluralistic society, offering insights into living a meaningful life. Understanding the anekantavada aspect of these ethics not only highlights India’s glorious past but also inspires discussions about morality in a rapidly changing world.

Apeksha Srivastava is pursuing her Ph.D. at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. She was a visiting researcher at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (USA) from April to July 2024.

References

1. Danino, M. (2020). System of ethics in India: Lecture and discussions. Perspectives on Indian Civilization course at IIT Gandhinagar.

2. Nadkarni, M.V. (2011). Ethics in Hinduism (Book – Ethics For Our Times: Essays in Gandhian Perspective). Oxford Scholarship Online.

3. Ganguli, K.M. (1883–1896). The fifteenth day at Kurukshetra – The fall of the preceptor, Drona (Mahabharata). Retrieved from wisdomlib.org.

4. Mahatthanadull, S. (2018). The noble eightfold path: The Buddhist middle way for mankind. International Buddhist Studies College, Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University.

5. BBC. (2009). The three jewels of Jainism. BBC Religions.

6. Tiruvaḷḷuvar (around the 5th century CE). Tirukkural. Retrieved from wisdomlib.org.

7. Rajasthan Heritage Protection & Promotion Authority. (n.d.). Panna Dhai panorama, Kameri, Rajsamand. Rajasthan Government.

8. Spiegel, A. (2011, December 23). Heroes of Mumbai’s Taj Hotel: Why they risked their lives. NPR.

Ancient Exploration to India and Africa: Eudoxus of Cyzicus

In the long annals of exploration, certain names gleam through the fog of legend: Pytheas of Massalia, who sailed beyond Britain into the icy seas of the north; Hanno the Carthaginian, who ventured down Africa's western coast; and Eudoxus of Cyzicus, the Hellenistic mariner whose final voyage, if ancient accounts are to be believed, may have taken him farther than any Greek before him, perhaps even around the entire continent of Africa. Though history leaves his fate a mystery, Eudoxus stands as one of the most fascinating figures of the late Hellenistic world: an explorer, scientist, and dreamer caught between the age of Alexander's successors and the dawn of Roman dominion.

Terry Bailey explains.

A 16th-century engraving of geographer Strabo.

Eudoxus was born in Cyzicus, a prosperous Greek city situated on the southern shore of the Propontis (modern Sea of Marmara). Cyzicus was a place of bustling harbors and active trade, ideally positioned between the Aegean and the Black Sea. It was renowned for its shipbuilding, commerce, and navigation, a fitting birthplace for a man destined to push the known boundaries of the ancient world.

Little is known about Eudoxus's family or upbringing, but surviving fragments suggest that he was not merely a sailor but a polymath, educated in the Hellenistic tradition that prized knowledge of geography, astronomy, and mathematics. His contemporaries would have been familiar with the discoveries of Eratosthenes, who had measured the Earth's circumference, and Hipparchus, who refined celestial navigation. Such advances gave Eudoxus the intellectual tools to envision voyages that stretched far beyond the familiar horizons of the Mediterranean.

Eudoxus's career first emerges from the mists of history during the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Physcon), the often-controversial ruler of Hellenistic Egypt. By the second century BCE, the Ptolemaic dynasty had turned Egypt into the commercial heart of the eastern Mediterranean, with Alexandria as its gleaming capital and the Red Sea as its gateway to the riches of Arabia and India.

Ptolemaic Egypt was deeply invested in maritime exploration, for beyond the narrow mouth of the Red Sea lay the lucrative trade routes of the Indian Ocean, routes that promised spices, ivory, silk, and precious stones. Egyptian and Greek merchants already navigated as far as the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, but voyages to India itself were still extraordinary undertakings.

According to Strabo, the Greek geographer writing in the early first century BCE, Eudoxus was commissioned by Ptolemy to undertake such a voyage. Departing from Berenice Troglodytica, a major Red Sea port, Eudoxus successfully navigated across the Arabian Sea, reaching the coasts of India, an achievement comparable to the later journeys of the Roman merchant fleets centuries afterward. He returned with rare goods and knowledge of new lands, and his success was reportedly followed by a second, longer voyage, further deepening the Ptolemies' commercial connections with the East.

In the wake of these voyages, Eudoxus's reputation as one of the most accomplished navigators of his generation was secured. Yet the restless mariner seemed unsatisfied with mere repetition of known routes. The next stage of his life would take him from the orderly bureaucracies of Alexandria to the edge of the known world.

After his Indian ventures, Eudoxus travelled westward across the Mediterranean to Gades (modern Cádiz in Spain), one of the westernmost outposts of Hellenistic trade. Here, according to the later accounts of Posidonius (as preserved in Strabo and Pliny the Elder), he conceived an audacious idea: to attempt a circumnavigation of Africa, sailing from Gades southward along the Atlantic coast and then eastward, hoping eventually to reach the Red Sea and Egypt, thereby proving that Africa was surrounded by ocean.

This concept was not entirely new. Centuries earlier, Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt (c. 600 BCE) had allegedly commissioned Phoenician sailors to circumnavigate the continent, a feat reported by Herodotus. If true, Eudoxus would have been attempting to replicate and personally verify that legendary voyage. His first expedition, launched around 120 BCE, was ill-fated. After sailing south along the coast of Mauretania (roughly modern Morocco), his ships were driven ashore, possibly by contrary winds or currents. The expedition was forced to abandon the attempt, and Eudoxus returned to Gades with what knowledge he could salvage. Yet he was undeterred. Gathering funds and new vessels, he prepared a second attempt, outfitting three ships for what would become his final and most mysterious voyage.

The sources fall silent after that. Strabo tells us that Eudoxus set out again, determined to succeed where others had failed, and that he was never heard from afterward. Whether his fleet perished in storms, succumbed to disease, or was wrecked on the western coast of Africa, no one can say. Some romantic retellings speculate that he reached as far south as the Gulf of Guinea or even the Cape of Good Hope before being lost. Others suggest he may have made landfall and settled among coastal peoples, his story vanishing into local oral tradition.

Whatever the truth, Eudoxus's disappearance gave birth to one of antiquity's great maritime mysteries, a tale that would haunt geographers and explorers for centuries. His ambition to round Africa by sea prefigured by nearly 1,700 years the achievement of Bartolomeu Dias, who reached the Cape of Good Hope in 1488 CE, and Vasco da Gama, who sailed from Lisbon to India a decade later.

Most of what we know of Eudoxus comes from Strabo's Geographica (Book II, 3.4; Book XVII, 1.11) and fragments preserved by Pliny the Elder (Natural History, VI.36). Strabo's account, derived partly from Posidonius, mixes plausible navigational detail with the characteristic skepticism of a historian wary of sailors' tales. He records that Eudoxus "set out from Gades to reach India by sea," and though he acknowledges the report of his disappearance, he adds that "whether the story be true or not, it is at least consistent with reason."

Modern historians generally treat Eudoxus's Indian voyages as credible, consistent with Ptolemaic maritime expansion in the Red Sea but his African circumnavigation as speculative. The absence of corroborating documents, inscriptions, or material finds makes it impossible to confirm that he reached far beyond the coast of Mauretania. Some scholars have attempted to trace archaeological or ethnographic echoes of Hellenistic contact along the western African littoral. Isolated finds of Greco-Roman amphorae, anchors, and coins have turned up along the coasts of Morocco and Senegal, but none can be definitively linked to Eudoxus or his expedition. Rather, they attest to the broader maritime exchange networks that already touched the Atlantic fringe of North Africa in antiquity.

Still, Eudoxus's story reveals that the idea of Africa as a navigable continent surrounded by sea rather than merging endlessly with Asia was alive and discussed among Greek scholars long before Ptolemy's cartographic synthesis in the second century CE.

Even if his final voyage ended in tragedy, his achievements mark a turning point in the history of exploration. He was among the first known individuals to attempt global navigation using the scientific and observational methods of his time applying geography, astronomy, and logic to practical seamanship. His career embodied the spirit of the Hellenistic age: a fusion of empirical curiosity, daring, and restless expansion of the known world.

In a larger sense, Eudoxus symbolizes the bridge between the ancient and modern mentality of exploration. He was not merely a mythic adventurer; he was a product of a world where geography had become a science, and where human intellect sought to measure, map, and master the planet's extremities. His lost voyage reminds us that progress often depends on those willing to vanish beyond the horizon, taking with them both their hopes and their secrets.

In the quiet pages of ancient geography, Eudoxus's name remains a tantalizing footnote, neither wholly myth nor wholly history. The same uncertainty that clouds his end ensures his immortality. Like Pytheas in the north and Hanno in the south, he represents a lineage of explorers who dared to test the limits of the known world long before the Age of Discovery.

If one day an ancient wreck were discovered along the Atlantic coast of Africa, its timbers Greek, its cargo unmistakably Hellenistic perhaps the shadowy figure of Eudoxus of Cyzicus would step at last from legend into history. Until then, his story stands as a testament to the boundless curiosity of the human spirit, and to the enduring allure of the world's uncharted edges.

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 name Eudoxus (Greek: Εὔδοξος, Eúdoxos) is of Ancient Greek origin and is composed of two elements:

εὖ (eu) — meaning good, well, or noble.

δόξα (doxa) — meaning glory, reputation, honor, or opinion.

Thus, Eudoxus literally means "of good repute," "honorable," or "possessing good glory."

This type of name was common in Greek culture, where personal names often reflected virtues or desirable qualities. The feminine form of the name is Eudoxia (Εὐδοξία), which carries the same meaning.

It's worth noting that another famous bearer of the name was Eudoxus of Cnidus (Εὔδοξος ὁ Κνίδιος), a 4th-century BCE mathematician and astronomer, entirely distinct from Eudoxus of Cyzicus, the mariner and explorer of the 2nd century BCE.

Needless to say, Greek names are often descriptive, therefore, that linguistic habit makes it entirely plausible that Eudoxus literally eu-("good, well") and doxa ("repute, glory"), could have been an honorific or nickname granted after famous deeds rather than a birth-name.

In a culture that routinely turned virtues and accomplishments into personal labels, a mariner who brought home exotic cargoes, demonstrated exceptional seamanship, or even simply returned with striking tales of distant coasts would have been a natural candidate to acquire a name meaning "of good repute."

The name itself reads like an external judgment, less a neutral label one is born under and more the kind of commemorative phrase friends, patrons, or chroniclers might affix in praise.

The same cultural habit can be seen at work across Greek society as a whole, rulers and public figures commonly received epithets that recorded achievements or qualities, think of royal sobriquets like Sōtēros ("Saviour"), Euergetēs ("Benefactor"), or civic nicknames and honorifics carved into inscriptions.

At the personal level, storytellers and historians often refer to men by a descriptive tag (for example, "the Just," "the Bold," "the Long-lived") that highlights a salient reputation. For an adventurous navigator whose career included voyages to India and a legendary attempt to round Africa, a retroactive honorific such as Eudoxus fits neatly into that pattern: it communicates public appraisal rather than natal identity.

Linguistically, the structure of Εὔδοξος favors an interpretive reading. The eu- prefix is frequently productive in Greek for praise-derived formations (compare Euphemia, Euphrates in name-formation logic), and -doxos carries the evaluative sense of reputation or opinion. Names of this morphology are just as easily read as earned titles as they are read as hereditary names.

Given the antiquity of record-keeping and the tendency of later compilers (geographers, historians, encyclopedists) to summarize a life with a short, pithy label, it is not hard to imagine that the mariner's contemporaries or early biographers began calling him "Eudoxus" after his notable exploits and that the name then stuck in the literary tradition.

That said, the argument is necessarily conjectural, surviving sources do not record whether Eudoxus the mariner was given that name at birth or acquired it later, and either possibility remains plausible. Nevertheless, when you place the matter in its Greek linguistic and social context a world comfortable with descriptive epithets, eager to honor public success with names, and supplied by writers who loved an apt label the hypothesis that Eudoxus was a post-facto epithet celebrating reputation and achievement is persuasive.

Thereby, explaining both the name's felicitous fit to his career and why later writers preserved a name that reads, almost perfectly, like a summary of the man's public image.

The Sack of Baltimore: Ireland’s Slave Raid

Detestable as it may be, slavery has been an almost constant presence in human civilization until recent history. Most people are aware of slavery’s role in history’s most dominant societies, such as the Americas, the Roman Empire and ancient Egypt. But human bondage didn’t always occur on these massive scales.

Over the centuries many people and communities have been forced into unpaid servitude, but due to their small numbers or marginalized culture have been largely forgotten. One such example is the little-known Sack of Baltimore. This slave raid on the edge of Europe was carried out by a group that were, for a time, one of the most feared bands in the Mediterranean and beyond.

OJ Wheaton explains.

A depiction of an Algerian slave market by Jan Luyken.

The Barbary pirates

The Barbary pirates were privateers consisting mostly of Muslim crews from the north African coast, who made their living via frequent raids throughout the Mediterranean, West Africa and the northern Atlantic. 

During these raids people would be kidnapped en masse to be transported back to the slave markets of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. It is often believed that their name derives from the ‘barbaric’ nature of their trade, but in truth it stems from the Berbers - the oldest known inhabitants of this region of Africa[OW1] .

Unlike the Atlantic Slave Trade in which notions of racial superiority were used to justify the enslavement and trafficking of black Africans, the Barbary pirates held no such distinctions for their victims. Christians, Jews and Muslims were all taken by force[OW2] . Distance from north Africa also failed to provide safety: some raiding parties went as far as Iceland in search of their human loot.

An unlikely target

In the year of 1631 the few hundred people living peacefully in Baltimore would have unlikely even heard of the Barbary pirates. The village had been founded as an English colony almost thirty years earlier, and enjoyed a small economy based mostly around commercial fishing.

On June 20 the pirates descended on the village. They were led by Dutch captain Murad Reis the Younger. Murad was himself once a slave of the Barbary pirates, but after converting to Islam he joined the profession of his captors and rose in the ranks until he was also committing the deeds he was previously a victim of.[OW3] 

There is debate over how exactly the pirates found their way to Baltimore. The generally accepted story concerns the capture of a local fisherman by the name of John Hackett who, in exchange for his own freedom, led the pirates to Baltimore. Hackett may have been acting out of desperation, but as the villagers who escaped the slavers’ clutches returned to their now-deserted village, they sought vengeance. Hackett was hanged for his treachery.[OW4] 

Into bondage

At least 107 of Baltimore’s residents were kidnapped by Murad and his crew, with some estimates reaching above 200. More of these were native Irish people, with a few English settlers taken as well. The fate of these unfortunate innocents was varied, but all faced the standard horrors that has awaited slaves throughout the ages.

Some were destined to become galley slaves. A practice widely used by the Romans, this was a particularly cruel destiny that would see able-bodied slaves chained up and forced to row their masters’ vessels. The punishing work and horrific conditions resulted in a short life expectancy – most galley slaves would live and die in the bowels of the ship without ever setting foot on land again.

Other victims of the raid were taken back to the Barbary states and sold in the slave markets. Records of slave transactions in this area at the time were sparse, so exact details of what happened to the majority of Baltimore’s victims are impossible to know. However it’s likely that some of the women would have been kept in a harem and faced sexual slavery at the hands of their masters. Others would have been used as laborers, forced to undertake the most back-breaking of tasks until their bodies were spent.[OW5] 

It is known that of the more than 100 villagers who were captured, only three would return to see their homes again.

The lucky few

As mentioned, records of this era are sketchy at best, but it was reported that three women from Baltimore were ransomed and eventually able to return home[OW6] . It’s unclear just how the families of these villagers would have afforded such a ransom, but some historians speculate that wealthy relatives would deal with pirates in complete secrecy, fearful that if news of their willingness to pay for their loved ones’ freedom got out, more of their family would be targeted by kidnappers.

The Irish poet Thomas Davis (1814–1845), who was writing 200 years after the raid, immortalized it in his poem The Sack Of Baltimore[OW7] . Although its historical accuracy cannot be guaranteed, a line from this poem gives a tale of a kidnapped villager who kills her captor before being executed herself.

The maid that Bandon gallant sought is chosen for the Dey—

She's safe—he's dead—she stabbed him in the midst of his Serai

And what of the remaining villagers of Baltimore, many of whom watched their friends and family being carried off by the pirates? Most of them moved to the nearby town of Skibbereen. Anyone who stumbled across Baltimore in the following decades would have found an eerily-empty town, featuring only abandoned homes and a crumbling stockade where Hackett was put to death.

Voices of the victims

No words from the people of Baltimore speaking about their plight remain, however some victims of the Barbary pirates did manage to record their experiences.

Olafur Egilsson was a reverend from the western islands of Iceland. He, along with his pregnant wife and children were enslaved during a raid by Babary pirates in 1627. His wife gave birth during the voyage to Africa. 

Eglisson was set free, without his family, with the intention that he would travel to Denmark (Iceland was a Danish Dependency at the time) and ask Danish King Christian IV to ransom the captives. Unfortunately due to the expense of the 30 Years War, King Christian was unable to buy the freedom of his subjects.[OW8] 

Eglisson wrote about his experiences [OW9] of the slave market he was taken to in Algiers:

“When we came to the marketplace, we were placed in a circle, and everyone’s hands and faces were inspected. Then the local King chose from this group those who he wanted. His first choice amongst the boys was my own poor son, 11 years old, whom I will never forget, as long as I live.”

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

 [OW1]https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire

 [OW2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml

 [OW3]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id%3DSJEg0p4RCP4C%26pg%3DPA97%26redir_esc%3Dy%23v%3Donepage%26q%26f%3Dfalse&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760218418798850&usg=AOvVaw0UOlgfc7sGES4nCqW4m6-M

 [OW4]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BBHpBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 [OW5]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://archive.org/details/trent_0116405722392&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760218418799392&usg=AOvVaw351Tkidjpv3ExC1vhnk9PV

 [OW6]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://baltimorepolicemuseum.com/en/the-sack-of-baltimore&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760218418798215&usg=AOvVaw3Hcy8W8eBs0acM4v8FlE9b

 [OW7]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://celt.ucc.ie/published/E850004-001/text001.html&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760218418797830&usg=AOvVaw2Lr6S7_XGvUVRNK2DOxHCl

 [OW8]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://grapevine.is/icelandic-culture/books/2009/08/20/book-review-travels-of-reverend-olafur-egilsson/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760218418797376&usg=AOvVaw3JQ9WXofDo2MNhTDbVXvqy

 [OW9]https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DM2EJChRdxL0&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1760218418797551&usg=AOvVaw1w6vPAJyCHfuJcM_B8pqcn

King George III: The King That Wasn’t Mad?

Was King George III quite absurd or just misunderstood? Was he really the mad King that ruled like a tyrant or was he simply a man who succumbed to mental illness? If so, can we argue that he as an individual as well as his legacy have been misjudged and misconstrued?

The year is 1788. At Kew Palace. Inside the stone walls, a 50-year-old King George has descended into madness in the last few months. His behavior and mannerisms have shifted from calm and confident to agitated, angry and incoherent. The problem unclear, his family and five personal doctors are concerned. In their panic the King is placed into a mental asylum to be treated in secrecy. The question that concerns the monarchy is can the King be cured or will his legacy be overshadowed by his illness?

Sophie Riley explains.

George III. 1779 painting by Benjamin West.

The Crisis of 1788-89

By late 1788, the Kings decline could no longer be ignored what started as hours of endless monologues quickly turned into violent outbursts that ended in tearful fits. His Courtiers watched in alarm as they witnessed the decline of a man they once respected.

Doctors were quickly summoned but late 18th century medicine was ill equipped for curing mental illnesses. Some believed his blood had been poisoned which caused the king to have consistent bloodletting sessions, whilst others believed his mental decline was caused by his nerves and the rest blamed it on divine punishment. Alongside the bloodletting the additional treatments were severe and coldly dished out. In their desperation for the king’s welfare, he was subjected to hours of isolation, physical restraints and blistering several doctors in the hope of shocking the King back to good health.  None worked and he became a spectacle and a man to be feared by parliament and his own family.

As the Kings condition declined, the monarchy teetered on the brink. With the sovereign ill who would govern the country if the worst should happen? The Price of Wales and his allies pushed for the Regency Bill to be drawn up, whilst the Kings hopeful ministers clung to a quick recovery.  Britain however would have to watch in a state of desperation as their fate hung in the balance of a man’s fragile mind.

Contemporary Conceptions

As the King’s health continued to decline, the news began to spread beyond the confinements of Kew Palace. His illness became a public spectacle. Britain in 1788 was nation of rumor where daily updates about the King’s mental wellbeing spread like wildfire through tavern gossip and in the news bulletins.  The caricature of the mad monarch pacing the palace grounds became a source of both pity and fascination by the public.

For ordinary citizens to see the king decline felt like a personal attack on their stability. Despite his legacy of madness King George III was a dutiful and conscientious monarch who made decisions for the good of his country.  Despite his loss of America, he was a popular figure who brough stability in a time of industrial and social change. As well as being a dutiful monarch he was also a devote family man who set an example for his wife, children, and his people.   To see him unravel like this was to watch stability begin to shatter, some prayed for his recovery whilst others deemed this as a divine punishment for losing their colonies in America.  

The media of the 18th century like now was unforgiving, Satirical artists seized an opportunity to dehumanizer and degrade the King.  Caricature images of George in deranged poses surrounded by his concerned family and attendants appeared daily. He was forever compared to the Flamboyant Price of Wales who was portrayed as a saint waiting eagerly for power. These cruel yet compelling images shaped the public’s imagination by reducing a complex human illness to a farce.

Parliament became a political battlefield in which the kings condition became ammunition for both sides. The Prince of Wales argued for immediate regency through establishing the Regency Bill, however the Kings cabinet insisted on patience and loyalty to the crown. George’s health became a state emergency where every doctor’s report and flicker of coherence where up for debate as if it where law. The monarchy during this time had never been so fragile.  

Yet despite all the mockery and intrigue there was a quiet sympathy from those who served the King personally. Accounts from them speak of a man who was tormented by illness, a man who begged for forgiveness from his wife and children and above all this a sovereign who begged for empathy from those around him. In their eyes George was not mad but a tragic symbol of human fragility.

Medical Theories Then and Now

Medicine and science were still a mystery when King Georges health declined. His physicians observed his erratic behavior and yet they had no framework to go off. The belief during the 18th century was to purge and shock the body into releasing the illness. Treatments were brutal and consisted of constant bloodletting and purging whilst being restrained. The Kings Doctors led by Francis Willis believed that a combination of strict control and moral discipline would restore their King.

Towards the end of the century, it seemed that the Kings health was improving as he began to recover and gradually return to his royal duties. His subjects, parliament and his family were both relieved and uncertain. Historians today are also stunned as some would argue that his recovery was miraculous, however modern historians believed that his illness had a cyclical nature and that the moments of clarity were followed by relapse.  The mystery of King George’s illness still baffles people today.

Researchers in the 20th century would propose that King George III suffered from porphyria when they studied his medical records. Porphyria is a disorder that affects your nervous system which in turn can cause confusion, depression, and memory loss. This proposal at the time was very persuasive as it transformed the mad king into a misunderstood patient. 

For decades the diagnosis of Porphyria would reign until modern day scholars revisited his records and in turn cast a shadow on the late King’s diagnosis. Recent in-depth studies into the Kings medical records and his own personal letters have highlighted a more appropriate diagnosis of bipolar disorder. His personal letters highlight periods of mania where his energy would burst off the page in long sentences some of which contained over 400 words and eight verbs.  he would also often repeat himself and talk until he was foaming at the mouth.    Were eighteenth century physicians saw mental weakness and twentieth century researchers saw chemistry, twenty first century scientists seen a mind that was struggling with mental illness.

This ever-changing diagnosis tells us much about ourselves as a society as it does about King George’s condition. Each century has diagnosed and depicted his story to fit their own understanding of madness- from divine punishment to bodily disorder to mental health condition. However, what remains consistent is the humanizing of George’s suffering. The King who once governed an empire was reduced to a man trapped by the medicine and judgements of his time.

A King Beyond Illness

History remembers him for his madness but King George should be remembered for more than just that.  Long before the illness came, he had already changed the country and the monarchy in ways that would extend beyond his lifetime.

Unlike previous monarchs, George valued simplicity in life and the monarchy, he showed this in his devotion to his wife and fifteen children.  He strived to make the monarchy a symbol of morality in the age of scandal. His modest lifestyle and agricultural interests earned him the affectionate nickname Farmer George which showed his enthusiasm for rural improvement and scientific innovation.

George was also a consumer of the arts and had a passion for knowledge which he showed in creating a national library from his own personal book collection. He was also the first monarch to have a formal education in science and have his own astronomical observatory. This shows that despite his illness George seen himself as a servant of the people and not just a ruler from privilege.

Even in the face of losing the Americas and bouts of illness George’s resilience was remarkable.  His subjects who once either ridiculed or where fearful of him came to see him as a symbol of endurance and strength. By the end of his reign satire had been replaced with sympathy. The once mocked King was now a symbol of dignity in suffering— a man who wore his crown and his condition with strength.

Conclusion- Reassessing King George III

To label George as the mad King is a sign that you support his enemies who were calling for his abdication. His story is one of tragic humanity where a man was reduced to a shell of himself due to mental illness. An illness that pulled his whole life as a king, father, and a servant to his people into question.  

His legacy has become a footnote of his own derangement. This sadly overshadows the diligent monarch, father, and the patron of artistic and scientific progression that we have come to discover.  He was a man who struggled with illness in a time were no sympathy was given and no medicine could cure. The ability we have now to reassess him is to acknowledge not just human tragedy but also the endurance of George’s spirit.

Perhaps, in understanding him better, we also see how far our own perceptions of mental health and the monarchy have come.

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

Russian Colonization in Alaska and The Pacific Northwest

Peter the Great, one of the most notable Czars in Russian history and famous for opening Russia’s windows to the West, played a pivotal role in extending Russian borders further east into Siberia. Summoning a Danish Naval Officer in the service of Russia by the name of Vitus Bering, Czar Peter, in one of his final acts, ordered Bering to lead an expedition to the eastern extremity of the continent to the Kamchatka Peninsula in 1725. From there, Russia would move over to the American continent.

Brian Hughes explains.

"Advancement of the Promyshlenniki to the East" by V.G. Vagner. Promyshlenniki translates approximately to hunter-trapper frontiersmen.

Back in 1725, it was unclear whether Czar Peter and Bering had prior knowledge that Asia and North America were not in fact connected, but the impetus for the exploration appears to have been a joint explorative/probing mission to determine how far west other European powers, especially Spain, had explored. After sailing into the sea which now bears his name, Bering initially failed to reach the North American mainland. It would be more than a decade before he embarked on a second expedition this time successfully reaching what is now Alaska in July 1741. Despite the impressive intrepidness and endurance made by the officers and men of the expedition the most immediate impact upon return to St. Petersburg was the procurement of rich furs, mainly sea otters. This later launched a gradual wave of highly enterprising traders, entrepreneurs and adventurers backed mostly by private or individual fortunes to tap into the fur rush, much like what the French and British had already been doing on the opposite side of the American continent.

Russian fur traders known as Promyshlenniki began to island hop eastward via Siberia and into the Alaskan mainland and broader Pacific Northwest. A relentless campaign ensued to harvest the highly sought after furs of sea otters, foxes, and various northern seals. Once one island/area was rapaciously depleted of furs the hunters and trappers merely moved on to the next and continued to exploit and slaughter. This had a horrific impact on the local native populace as they watched in horror and confusion as their abundant food and survival sources were destroyed and threatened with extinction.

1780s

By the 1780s the chaotic free for all operations of independently operating Promyshlenniki steadily gave way as six competing companies arose much like the Hudson’s Bay Company in British North America. Under such companies which were typically named for their founder(s) such as the Sheilikhov-Golikov Company. Competition would increase but took on a more organized fashion as the first permanent Russian settlements soon began to emerge because of coordinated and sustained trapping operations.

Despite some coordination and cooperation with the native populace, mainly Aleuts and Tlingits, relationships began to falter despite the pleadings and alleged interest in Native wellbeing of the distant and all too preoccupied monarch Catherine the Great. The all-too-common clash of cultures kept increasing in intensity and atrocities with several military encounters ensuing. The Natives never could gain a decisive edge given their lack of gunpowder and firearms and became fewer in number.

In 1808 the Russians relocated their erstwhile capital of Russia America from Kodiak Island to Sitka. There they took advantage of secure and deep harbors as they expanded their shipbuilding operations utilizing the abundance of timber in the surrounding area. Consolidating their regional monopoly the Russians virtually controlled much of the Pacific fur trade from the Aleutians to Northern California, providing lucrative furs and pelts to the markets in Asia and North America, even trading consistently with the newly created United States. Russian ships likewise began to sail further south into the Pacific laying anchor at places such as Easter Island and the Hawaiian Archipelago, all at the behest of the Czar who was determined that Russia remain a major player on the global geopolitical stage.

Mid Century

Russia would hold onto its outposts in Alaska ever so tenuously well into the mid-19th century as it faced consistently mounting pressure from the British and American who similarly coveted Alaska and the Pacific Northwest’s strategic and economic potential. The Russian attention eastward would wane however with the emphasis on southern extension into the Caucasus’s and Central Asia would pit Russia and Great Britain against one another in both hot and cold conflicts such as the Crimean War and the so-called Great Game.

In the 1850s, overhunting and trapping coupled with the bevy of conflicts abroad led to the Russian Empire devoting fewer men, material and resources to its outposts in the Pacific Northwest. Cognizant of Russia’s vulnerability from other European powers and prioritization of other regions the Czar decided to entertain and eventually approve a sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 for the price of seven million dollars, roughly two cents per acre. Thus, ending the near century and a half legacy of Russian activity in North America. To this day the Orthodox Church is still a prominent institution in the now State of Alaska. A vestige harkening back to an often-overlooked chapter in American and Russian history.

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

Antarctic Exploration: Ernest Shackleton

Ernest Shackleton remains one of the most remarkable figures of the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, not for the discoveries he made, but for the indomitable spirit, endurance, and leadership he displayed in the face of seemingly impossible odds. Born on the 15th of February, 1874, in Kilkea, County Kildare, Ireland, Shackleton grew up in a large Anglo-Irish family. His father, a doctor, moved the family to London when Ernest was ten. Though bright, Shackleton found school confining and left at sixteen to join the merchant navy. The sea suited his restless temperament, and he quickly earned his officer's certificate, gaining valuable experience in navigation and leadership—skills that would later define his Antarctic career.

Terry Bailey explains.

Ernest Shackleton.

Shackleton's first encounter with the frozen continent came as a member of Captain Robert Falcon Scott's Discovery expedition (1901–1904). The journey awakened in him an enduring fascination with Antarctica and a drive to reach further than anyone before. However, illness forced Shackleton's early return home, an experience that left him determined to lead his own expedition. In 1907, he fulfilled that ambition with the Nimrod Expedition. Pushing further south than any man before him, Shackleton and his small team came within just 97 miles of the South Pole before turning back, a decision that demonstrated both his courage and his prudence. His choice to prioritize his men's lives over fame would become a hallmark of his leadership philosophy.

The most extraordinary test of Shackleton's resolve came with the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition of 1914–1917, an ambitious plan to cross the Antarctic continent from sea to sea via the South Pole. His ship, Endurance, left England just as the First World War began, and by January 1915 it had become trapped in the Weddell Sea's thick pack ice. For months, the crew watched helplessly as the pressure of the shifting ice slowly crushed their ship, until Endurance finally sank in November 1915. Stranded on drifting ice floes hundreds of miles from land, Shackleton and his 27 men faced the ultimate test of survival. In conditions of unimaginable cold and constant hunger, they camped on the ice for months, enduring blizzards, dwindling supplies, and the continual threat of the ice breaking beneath them.

When the ice finally disintegrated, Shackleton ordered his men into three open lifeboats, which they navigated through frigid, storm-tossed seas to the desolate Elephant Island. For the first time in over a year, they stood on solid ground—but rescue was still nearly impossible. Realizing that help would not come to them, Shackleton made one of the most daring decisions in the history of exploration. With five companions, he set out across 800 miles of the most dangerous ocean on Earth in a 22-foot lifeboat, the James Caird, bound for South Georgia Island. After 16 harrowing days battling hurricane winds, freezing spray, and monstrous waves, they reached the island's uninhabited southern coast. Shackleton and two others then undertook an unprecedented 36-hour trek across glaciers and mountains to reach a whaling station on the northern shore. From there, Shackleton organized rescue missions, and after several failed attempts, he finally succeeded in bringing every one of his men home alive. Not a single life was lost—a testament to his exceptional leadership, courage, and unyielding will.

The Endurance expedition did not achieve its original geographic goal, yet it became one of the greatest survival stories ever told. Shackleton's calm authority, compassion for his men, and ability to maintain morale under the bleakest conditions made him a model of leadership studied to this day. His mantra, "By endurance we conquer," perfectly encapsulated both his expedition and his character.

In his later years, Shackleton struggled to find purpose in a world that had moved on from the age of exploration. He lectured, wrote, and tried to raise funds for new ventures, but his health began to fail. In 1921, he set out once again for the Antarctic, this time leading the Shackleton–Rowett Expedition aboard the ship Quest. However, before the journey could begin in earnest, Shackleton died of a heart attack on the 5th of January, 1922, at South Georgia—ironically the very island that had marked his greatest triumph. His body was buried there at Grytviken, at the edge of the world he loved so deeply.

Ernest Shackleton's legacy endures not in the discoveries he made, but in the spirit he embodied. His Endurance expedition remains a timeless tale of survival, teamwork, and leadership in adversity. Shackleton's story speaks to the unbreakable strength of human will when confronted with the raw power of nature, and his name continues to inspire adventurers, explorers, and leaders alike more than a century after his death.

In the final measure of history, Ernest Shackleton stands not merely as an explorer of frozen frontiers, but as a navigator of the human spirit. His expeditions, though often thwarted by the merciless forces of nature, revealed the deeper triumphs of character that outshine geographical success. Shackleton's courage, empathy, and unshakeable belief in the possibility of survival transformed desperate endurance into a shared act of hope. He led not through conquest, but through compassion, reminding the world that true greatness lies not in discovery alone, but in the preservation of life and the perseverance of purpose. His achievements demonstrated that leadership in its purest form is not about domination or fame, but about service, loyalty, and the ability to inspire others when all seems lost.

The ordeal of the Endurance was more than a tale of polar hardship, it was a study in human resilience and moral strength. Shackleton's steadfast optimism in the face of catastrophe kept despair at bay and gave his men something far more valuable than comfort: belief. His decisions, often made in the most perilous circumstances, consistently placed the welfare of his crew above personal ambition. This selflessness, rare among leaders of his era, turned what could have been a tragedy into one of the most celebrated rescues in the annals of exploration. In his insistence that every man would live, Shackleton embodied the ideal that leadership means responsibility for others, not authority over them.

Even after his death on the shores of South Georgia, Shackleton's influence did not fade. His story has become a moral compass for explorers, adventurers, and leaders in every field, those who face the metaphorical ice and darkness of their own challenges. The principles he lived by, courage under pressure, unwavering resolve, and care for one's companions remain timeless lessons in endurance, applicable not only to the extremes of Antarctica but to all human endeavor. Modern leadership studies, military academies, and business institutions still turn to Shackleton's example as a model for crisis management and team unity. His methods of fostering morale, maintaining purpose, and balancing discipline with empathy have proven as effective in boardrooms and classrooms as they once were on the drifting floes of the Weddell Sea.

In this way, Shackleton transcended his age and the icebound world that defined it. While many explorers sought glory through conquest or discovery, Shackleton's fame rests upon something more enduring: his humanity. He understood that exploration was not only about charting the unknown, but also about confronting one's own limitations and drawing from within the strength to persevere. His legacy, therefore, is not frozen in the past but alive in every act of determination, every instance where the human spirit refuses to yield to despair.

Ernest Shackleton's life is a reminder that greatness can emerge not from reaching a destination, but from the journey itself, the endurance, the compassion, and the unbroken will to carry others safely through the storm. As long as there are frontiers to face, whether of ice, space, or spirit, Shackleton's example will continue to guide and inspire. His name endures, not as a relic of the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, but as a timeless symbol of leadership, humanity, and the unconquerable power of hope.

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

A Philadelphia Baseball Late-Season September Swindle

It turns out that being the home to America’s oldest sports franchise still in continuous operation since 1883 means that its history is both well — good and bad. Throughout the existence of Philadelphia, the city has seen its fair share of hoaxes and heists alike — and it turns out — the sport’s scandal has made it into our history books as well. Recently it’s been one hundred and twenty-five years since the Phillies were caught red-handled in a buzzer-based baseball scandal at the Baker Bowl on Lehigh Avenue.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

Morgan Murphy.

Unfortunately for that same oldest, continuous sports franchise in American Sports History — the Phillies history has been intertwined with sign-stealing accusations multiple times over their long, storied history. Fifteen years ago in 2010 — during a stretch run of sustained success for the franchise catapulted by a 2008 World Series Championship right here at Citizens Bank Park — the team was accused of sign stealing when Philadelphia Bullpen Coach Mick Billmeyer utilized a pair of binoculars to observe catchers. In 2020 — players on the team even spoke out against the Houston Astros during their own sign-stealing controversy.

To be fair — Major League Baseball Teams knew that something was going on with the Phillies for quite some time. On September 17th, 1900 — the world would find out exactly what that was. And if you looked at the analytics — in 1899 (one year after Murphy instituted his sign-stealing scandal)—the Phillies scored nearly 100 more runs at home. It was even noted that at the games where Murphy was not in attendance — that the Phillies could hardly hit at all.

It turns out that all that the Philadelphia Phillies merely needed was some binoculars, a buzzer, and a certain player on the roster. During a double-header on September 17th against the Cincinnati Reds in Philadelphia in front of more than 4,800 fans — one of the earliest examples of sign-stealing in major league baseball would be exposed in the third inning.

Phillies backup catcher Morgan Murphy had previously been associated with a sign-stealing scheme in Philadelphia in 1898. Then carefully positioned behind an outfield wall whiskey advertisement — he would utilize his field glasses to relay signals to the batter. In 1900 — he would take the scheme to a new level.

Bringing in third base coach Pearce “Petie” Chiles — Murphy would sit in an observatory in the center-field clubhousewith binoculars in-hand. Then — Murphy relayed the signals from the visiting team’s catcher through the use of a telegraph device connected by hard-wire to a buzzer that had previously been buried under the third-base coaches box. Chiles has a noticeable leg-twitch — which some say combined with in detecting the vibrations of the buried buzzer — helped in allowing the scheme to be exposed.

Back in the third-inning during one of the games of the double-header — Reds player Tommy Corcoran had uncovered something in proximity to third base. Before the stadium groundskeeper and a policeman could reach the third base area — Corcoran had dug up the buzzer. He followed the buzzer wire all the way to the Phillies clubhouse— confronting Murphy. Umpire Tim Hurst finally proclaimed, “Back to the mines, men. Think on that eventful day in July when Dewey went into Manila Bay, never giving a tinker’s dam for all of the mines concealed therein. Come on, play ball.”

The Phillies were never punished by the MLB what was uncovered in Sept. 1900. With a final record of 75–63, they wouldn’t even make the playoffs. the Reds finished worse at 62–77. Just MLB history being made in September of 1900. And the outcome of the game itself? The Phillies won of course — by a score of 4–2.

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

The Outbreak of World War 1: How Belgium Said ‘No’ to Germany in 1914

We may think that the history of Belgium in 1914 was a long time ago, something that could never happen today. We couldn’t be more wrong! Belgium faced intense pressure from a much larger neighbor, a situation that small countries still experience to this day. What makes Belgium stand out is that, given only twelve hours to decide, they didn’t cave in, and in doing so, changed history forever. In 1914, Germany had a plan. Step one: march through Belgium. Step two: crush France. Step three: Win the war, or something like that. But they forgot that Belgium might say no. But now on a serious note, during The Great War Belgium was occupied for four years, and that’s all because Belgium didn’t allow Germany to move troops onto Belgian territory to attack France. But why did they refuse? Germany after all had around seven times more troops than Belgium. Well it boils down to a few reasons.

Kacper Szynal explains.

A Punch cartoon from 1914 showing ‘little’ Belgium barring ‘big’ Germany's path.

Why Germany needed to cross Belgium

The Schlieffen Plan required a fast, easy entry into France, which meant invading Belgium, and originally the Netherlands to strike France from their territory and crush them in weeks. Just before the war, the invasion of the Netherlands was scrapped because of Dutch trade neutrality and their trade routes, also because Queen Wilhelmina was a close friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. The plan was simple: defeat France via Belgium before Russia could fully mobilize. Then, the entire German army could turn east and deal with Russia, a strategy that didn’t exactly go according to plan, but that’s a story for a totally different article.

Why Belgians Didn’t Believe Germany

This is something I often see overlooked. Germany tried to scare Belgium into thinking that France was the threat, by saying that France would attack them, to get to Germany. Of course Belgians didn’t take that seriously at all.

Belgium’s Neutrality and the Treaty of London

I think that speaks for itself. Belgium, being a neutral country, couldn’t just give them military access through their land because that would be seen, not as an attempt at surviving the war, but as a cooperation with the Central Powers. You may ask, what's the problem, a lot of countries are neutral. Yet the problem is Belgium’s neutrality wasn’t just their choice, it wasn’t just their policy, in 1839 Belgium signed the treaty of London, the treaty clearly said that Belgium will become permanently neutral, no matter what. If they would accept the German ultimatum in the worst case scenario where Entente wins, Belgium would cease to exist, because the whole point of Belgium was to be a neutral buffer state between Germany and France. In the best case scenario, Belgium would become a German puppet, and that’s a point we will talk about in a bit.

Germany’s Track Record with Occupied Territories

From France’s Alsace-Lorraine to Prussian Poland, Germany wasn’t keen on returning occupied territories, and allowing them to enter Belgium would be a death sentence for the country. As I said, in the best case scenario, they would become a puppet. And Germans weren’t really nice to non-Germans living inside their occupied land. Of course they would never allow something like that so their answer would be always no.

Belgium knew that resisting German occupation would save them

Of course, as I said, Germany had around seven times more active troops. But Belgium knew that if Entente would win the war, Belgium would be restored to full independence, maybe even gaining new territories. It was a bit of a gambit, because if Germany were to win The Great War, Belgium would not only become a puppet, but in the worst scenario would need to pay massive war reparations for not letting Germany in.

Belgians weren’t keen on Germans inside their country

I mean, would you want three quarters of a million foreign soldiers inside your small country? And let them attack your neighbor out of the blue? Imagine it like this: Russia or any big power wants to attack Sweden and asks nicely if their army could march through Finland. I don’t think anyone in Finland would allow something like that. That’s basically what happened in Belgium in 1914. They couldn’t just allow something like that.

Belgians thought they could stop the attack

Ok, let’s be clear, no, Belgians didn’t think that their small army could stop the German advance, but they were promised aid from France and the British Empire if Germany would attack. They thought that they could stop the advance with their help, and well it didn’t really go that well, did it?.  It was a weird mix of optimism and overconfidence.

Aftermath of Belgians saying no

Now, after knowing why Belgians said no, let's talk about the aftermath of that important decision. Of course the most obvious one, Germany attacked Belgium. They sent the ultimatum on August 2, 1914 at 7pm giving them only 12 hours to respond. After Belgium refused to give them military access, Germany attacked two days later on August 4, 1914. Also because of that declaration of war, the British Empire joined the war, joining the Entente side. But why? Remember the Treaty of London? It didn’t only make Belgium neutral, it also guaranteed their borders. The UK, signing that treaty in 1839, wanted to keep the balance of power in Europe; they could have never imagined that 75 years later the same treaty would drag them into the greatest war Europe had ever seen.

Conclusion: Did Belgium make the right choice?

Well, we can’t say for certain what would have happened if Belgium had allowed German troops to attack France from their territory. But looking from the perspective of 1914, I think they had only one risky choice, and that was the one they went with, and that was not letting them in without a fight.

Belgium’s stance in 1914 serves as a powerful reminder that smaller nations deserve respect, and that bravery can truly change the course of history. And no, Germany didn't get any tea from Belgium during The Great War.

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

References

Tuchman, Barbara W. The Guns of August. New York: Macmillan, 1962.

Zuber, Terence. Inventing the Schlieffen Plan: German War Planning, 1871–1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Zuckerman, Larry. The Rape of Belgium: The Untold Story of World War I. New York: New York University Press, 2004.

MacMillan, Margaret. The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. New York: Random House, 2013.

Hastings, Max. Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.