The First Great Battle of the Us Civil War’s Western Theater: Shiloh Part 1

The Battle of Shiloh (April 6–7, 1862) almost ended Generals Grant and Sherman's careers. Instead, it is considered their first great victory, a testament to their tenacity and determination.

General PGT Beauregard planned a surprise advance and attack at Pittsburg Landing, on the west bank of the Tennessee River. On the first day, the Confederate Army routed the Union Army and only tenacious defense saved the day. On the second day, Union reinforcements and Rebel confusion led to a complete reversal of the fortunes of day 1.

Lloyd W Klein explains in part 1 in this series.

Battle of Shiloh by Thure de Thulstrup.

Planning and Strategy

Maj Gen Don Carlos Buell and the Army of the Ohio had taken Nashville in February 1862. He was able to claim the city with minimal effort in February 1862, and was promoted to major general shortly thereafter. In March 1862 General Henry Halleck ordered Buell to move south to rendezvous with General Ulysses S. Grant and the Army of the Tennessee at Pittsburg Landing, TN. Union leadership realized that its troops were too spread out, so it was decided to concentrate the troops. Recognizing this impending combining of forces, the Confederates were compelled to act.

After the losses at Forts Henry and Donelson and the abandonment of Nashville, the various Rebel armies converged on Corinth, Mississippi. This was a malarial-infested river town and a poor location for a retreating army.  However, Corinth was the junction of 2 major railroads, the Memphis & Charleston RR and the Mobile & Ohio RR, and hence was a critical railroad crossroads, it was a convenient place to concentrate. Johnston’s command had only about 17,000 troops, so he joined his forces with those under General Polk. Because of Corinth’s centrality, he was able to gather 40-45,000 troops. This was probably sufficient to face Grant alone, who had about 48,000, but not combined with Buell., with an additional 18-20,000. Hence, a pre-emptive action to prevent their joining was a necessity.

Exactly how involved Albert Sidney Johnston was in planning the attack is controversial; it has been suggested that he was totally out of his depth and that Beauregard both planned and led the attack. The broad concept was to attack Grant before Buell joined him. Another error was that the rains had slowed travel from their base in Corinth.  Had they arrived a day sooner General Buell might not have gotten there in time for day 2.

General Charles Ferguson Smith was at the time commander of the Union Army, as Halleck tried to dump Grant behind the scenes. Sherman went upstream with his division to raid the Memphis & Charleston RR, but on the way noted Pittsburg Landing and sent a recommendation to Smith that he occupy it. Smith sent Hurlbut, who occupied the landing. Upon Sherman's return from his unsuccessful raid, he landed there, decided the ground was good, and took charge of the forces around the landing and occupied Shiloh Church, on the west bank. Grant probably made an error in setting up camp on the side of the river closest to the known position of the Confederate Army. Grant’s back was to the river, and he could have been destroyed.

Sherman had set up camp around the Shiloh Church. Grant probably made an error in setting up camp on the side of the river closest to the known position of the Confederate Army. Grant’s back was to the river, and he could have been entirely destroyed. Pittsburg Landing is nine miles upriver (south) of Savannah, and it had a road that led to Corinth, Mississippi. About three miles inland from the landing was a log church named Shiloh (a Hebrew word meaning "place of peace”.  It seemed like a good choice at the time because it was away from the river and on land that was well-drained and open. The area that would become the Shiloh battlefield was somewhat shaped like a triangle, with the sides formed by various creeks and the Tennessee River. The land was mostly wooded, with scattered cotton fields, peach orchards, and a few small structures.

The stealthiness of Beauregard's plan depended on speed. The march from Corinth is less than 20 miles and should have taken trained troops one day to approach and form for an assault. The rebel troops were untrained, to put it mildly, and the march took 3 days. Beauregard's biggest mistake in planning was the initial formation with each Corps spread across the front one behind the other. Commanding such a formation on a Corps level was impossible and not long after the jump off command responsibilities were separated in a more logical distribution of authority. Since the rebels were so untrained, Corps level identity wasn't strong. Beauregard underestimated the length of time to march from their camps to the area of Pittsburgh Landing.  This resulted in many of their troops not having enough rations and they then stopped their initially successful assault in order to feast at the Union campsites. Another error was that the rains had slowed travel from their base in Corinth.  Had they arrived a day sooner Buell might not have gotten there in time for day 2. In fact, the whole idea was to attack Grant before Buell joined him.

No one in the Union Army expected Beauregard to suddenly appear on their south flank. The divisions of Sherman and Prentiss were the least experienced, so when they bolted, it seemed to be a general retreat. Sherman had heard the reports of enemy soldiers in the area but he was concerned that if he entrenched, it would be viewed that his “insanity” regarding the war had returned so he ignored it. The lack of entrenchments was a distinct disadvantage for the Union troops and made the battle a "stand-up" fight for most of the day.

The camp alignment was designed for camping convenience and contributed to a more or less piecemeal resistance at first, but did help in a "defense-in-depth" resistance to the Confederate onslaught. Also having Sherman at the front right from the beginning turned out to be fortunate.

Every West Point trained officer (Halleck , Grant, Smith, Sherman, and McPherson) believed that Johnston and Beauregard would hold their troops behind the Corinth entrenchments and await the Union Army. Every day there were orders from Halleck in St Louis to Grant for him NOT to bring on a battle by any aggressive moves.

Order of Battle

Union Army

Major General Halleck served as the Commander of the Department of the West, with his headquarters located in St. Louis. A member of the Democratic Party, Halleck's intellectual approach contrasted sharply with that of his predecessor, Fremont. Although he was known for his cautious demeanor and did not fully endorse Grant's aggressive tactics, President Lincoln urged him to devise an offensive strategy. It is possible that Halleck harbored some distrust towards Grant, and perhaps even felt envious of the latter's achievements up to that point.

Major General Ulysses S. Grant held the position of commander for the District of West Tennessee and the XIII Corps, operating from the field. After being released from what could be described as house arrest at Fort Henry, he arrived in Savannah, Tennessee, on March 23, 1862. Grant assumed the role of Senior Officer Present (SOP) for the Tennessee River Expedition, which is often referred to as either the Army of the Tennessee or simply Grant's Army. He established his headquarters at the Cherry House, situated on a ridge overlooking Savannah. Following his victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, Grant was promoted to Major General. However, Halleck had recently removed him from field command of the expedition after Grant left his district to meet Buell in Nashville, failed to report on his troop strength, and allegedly did not promptly halt looting at the captured forts. It was later revealed that Halleck's inquiries regarding Grant's forces had not reached him.

Halleck also mentioned concerns about rumors of Grant's potential return to alcohol consumption but ultimately reinstated him to field command. This decision may have been influenced by pressure from Lincoln and the War Department. When Halleck communicated the reinstatement to Grant, he framed it as an effort to rectify an injustice, omitting the fact that the initial injustice had originated with him. In response to Grant's letter expressing concern about possible adversaries between them, Halleck assured him, "You are mistaken. There is no enemy between you and me."

Major General Don Carlos Buell served as the Commander of the Department of the Ohio and the Army of the Ohio, although he held a junior rank compared to General Grant based on their respective dates of appointment. Following the capture of Fort Donelson, Buell's command was placed under the authority of General Halleck, who subsequently ordered him to advance from Nashville to Savannah. By April 1, 1862, Buell's leading division, under the command of Brigadier General Nelson, was still a week away from reaching Savannah. Buell, who had recently transitioned from being Halleck's equal to a subordinate, was recognized for his exceptional organizational skills, making Halleck's decision to assign him to this task a prudent one. In November 1861, Buell was dispatched to the Western Theater of the war in Kentucky, where he took command of the Army of the Ohio. He received directives from President Abraham Lincoln and General George B. McClellan to launch an invasion into eastern Tennessee. However, citing insufficient transportation for his large force of over 50,000 troops, Buell opted to advance on Nashville instead, capturing the city with relative ease in February 1862, which led to his promotion to major general shortly thereafter.

The next in seniority, Major General John McClernand, served as the commander of the 1st Division but had been assigned the role of garrison commander at Savannah. Following him in the chain of command was Major General C.F. Smith, who, while serving as a division commander, took on the responsibilities of the Tennessee River Expedition Commander during a period when Grant was occupied at Fort Henry and McClernand was relegated to garrison duties. Unfortunately, Smith became incapacitated due to a leg injury sustained while attempting to board a rowboat, which prevented him from participating in the Battle of Shiloh. He ultimately succumbed to an infection and dysentery a few weeks later, leading to Brigadier General William H.L. Wallace taking over his position.

Brigadier General William T. Sherman commanded a newly formed division. He was positioned as the forward leader of the Expedition at the Pittsburgh Landing campsite. Previously, Sherman led the 5th Division, but his pessimistic outlook on the war resulted in a breakdown that necessitated a brief leave of absence. After recovering, he established a strong partnership with Grant that would ultimately change the course of the war. At this moment, he was commander of a division under Grant.

The next most senior officer, Major General Lew Wallace, serves as a division commander and is stationed at Crumps Landing, located just upstream from Savannah. The other division commander under Grant's command was Benjamin Prentiss, who led the 6th division.

Confederate Army

Albert Sidney Johnston was a respected officer in the antebellum army, and his decision to join the Confederacy was seen as a significant advantage for the South. A West Point graduate, he gained recognition as a hero during the Mexican War. He rose to the rank of colonel in the distinguished 2nd US Cavalry, where Robert E. Lee served as his lieutenant colonel, and notable figures such as William Hardee and George Thomas held the rank of major. At the onset of the Civil War, Johnston was in command of the Department of the Pacific, which led President Davis to appoint him as a full general, placing him second in seniority, just behind Samuel Cooper. Subsequently, he was assigned to lead the western theater of operations. Following Zollicoffer’s defeat at Mill Springs, Davis appointed PGT Beauregard to serve under Johnston. However, the setbacks at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Nashville raised concerns regarding Johnston's effectiveness. His tenure was marked by a mix of successes and failures; he took command in Tennessee in September 1861 after Polk's breach of Kentucky's neutrality and occupation of Columbus, Kentucky. From his base in Bowling Green, Kentucky, he projected a strong front that unsettled both Major General Robert Anderson and Brigadier General Sherman, who were in charge of the Department of the Ohio, while the current commander, Major General Buell, adopted a notably cautious approach. Nevertheless, Johnston's oversight of the river forts along the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers was lacking, allowing Grant's Tennessee River Expedition to capture both forts and Nashville.

PGT Beauregard stepped down from his position as commandant at West Point to take charge of Charleston Harbor, where he oversaw the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the events at the First Battle of Manassas.

The organizational structure of the Confederate army included the First Corps under Leonidas Polk, the Second Corps led by Braxton Bragg, the Third Corps commanded by William Hardee, and the Reserve Corps under John C. Breckinridge. This assembly essentially represented a reunion of the US 2nd Cavalry, orchestrated by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, who was joined by the former Vice President of the United States. This alignment was likely intentional, as Davis had been preparing for the impending conflict long before it officially commenced.

The Battle – Day 1

Beauregard underestimated the time necessary to march from their camps outside of Corinth to the area of Pittsburgh Landing.  This resulted in many of their troops not having enough rations. One consequence was that after their initially successful assault, the Confederate forces halted to feast at the Union campsites.

Surprise Attack

Strategically, the rebel assault was definitely a surprise, but tactically it was most assuredly NOT a surprise. Like calling Gettysburg a meeting engagement, it depends on exactly what we mean by the word “surprise”. There was no prepared defensive line and no entrenchments, and no one expected an attack or a battle in that location. Only a few pickets were in place. So from a preparedness perspective, it was a surprise. But there had been a minor skirmish on April 4th. There were myriad reports of Confederates in the area.

At midnight April 5, Colonel Peabody ordered Major James E. Powell to take three companies of the 25th Missouri Infantry Regiment, and two companies of the 12th Michigan Infantry Regiment, on a reconnaissance to Seay Field. Around 5 am, Confederate pickets fired at Powell’s men. When Powell advanced into Fraley’s Field, he ran into Major Hardcastle’s 3rd Mississippi Battalion. When General Johnston heard the sounds of battle, he gave Beauregard a fateful order. Meanwhile, Powell sent back word that he had run into a Confederate force of several thousand. When Prentiss heard this report, he had an odd response. Sherman also had a weird response until an event occurred he could not ignore.

Colonel Everett Peabody had ordered a reconnaissance by 3 companies at midnight on April 5 and a sighting was made. That was when the battle began. Colonel Everett Peabody of the 25th Missouri was a new brigade commander in General Prentiss' new division and were the most southerly camped troops near the Shiloh branch Creek. Because of many days of encountering rebels in the woods and on the roads by pickets and cavalry, Colonel Peabody was very nervous and worried on the night of April 5 into the early morning of April 6. About 1:00 am Peabody sent out Major James Powell of the 25th with a small patrol that soon returned with word he had encountered Confederate pickets very close. Peabody organized a larger patrol and they went out at 3:00am. Powell found Hindman's Confederate division advancing and attacked. One of the ironies of Shiloh was that this large battle began with an attack by Union soldiers. Eventually Powell figured the rebels were too strong and began a fighting withdrawal back to the Union camps. Prentiss at first was outraged that Peabody had provoked an attack unordered, But then realized what it meant.  And Peabody basically saved the Union army by giving them time to prepare. Sherman didn’t believe it until he went forward to see for himself and was wounded slightly while an aide was killed.

At 5:30 am, Johnston ordered a general attack but it took at least 2 hours to organize and even then the alignment was off axis. Hardee and Bragg began the assault with a 3 mile wide line. At 7:30 am, the corps of Polk and Breckinridge moved forward on the flanks, extending the line and causing intermixing of commands. In essence the attack was one very long frontal attack. The idea was to drive the Union camps back to Owl Creek, away from the river (NOT into it, which is a common misconception), which should have meant an attack primarily on the Union left.

At dawn, Confederate forces under General Albert Sidney Johnston and General P.G.T. Beauregard launched a surprise attack on Union troops encamped near Pittsburg Landing in southwestern Tennessee. Johnston aimed to defeat the Union army before reinforcements under General Don Carlos Buell could arrive.

The firing became almost continuous and swelled so Peabody, Sherman, Prentiss, and their men knew something big was happening, but Prentiss and Sherman needed a little more persuading.

Grant maintained in his Memoirs that it was not a surprise attack.  The northern newspapers exaggerated the nature of the surprise at the time; indeed the Union did not entrench but Sherman had been forewarned and elements of the Union army found the southern lines quite soon. Halleck would help Grant cover for whatever surprise it was, in large part because it was a victory in the end. Of course, this view was beneficial to Grant, and also to Halleck at the time, to keep themselves from being embarrassed, or even relieved of command.  It is still controversial whether or not Union soldiers were really bayoneted in their tents and shot in their underwear as was reported in the papers, but most modern accounts say that was an exaggeration.

Grant was having breakfast in Savannah. When he heard the sounds of battle, he ordered General Nelson forward, took his steamboat to Crump’s Landing where he ordered Lew Wallace to prepare to move. then got to Pittsburg Landing at about 9am. He was on crutches, as he had fallen from his horse recently.

The Union forces were caught off guard, with many soldiers still in their tents or eating breakfast when the attack began. The Confederate assault overwhelmed the Union front lines, pushing them back toward the Tennessee River.

The Union army, spread across multiple camps, was unprepared for the intensity of the attack. Many units were quickly overrun, and disorganized Union troops retreated in panic.

The nature of the surprise was exaggerated by the northern newspapers at the time; the Union did not entrench, but General Sherman had been forewarned and elements of the Union army found the southern lines quite soon after their arrival. Despite being routed early, Sherman showed tenacity and skill despite adversity on the first day, proving to himself and to others that he had the emotional and cognitive skills necessary to lead an army.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Further Reading:

·       Daniel, Larry J. (1997). Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War. New York City: Simon & Schuster.

·       James M McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.

·       Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volumes 1-3. Random House, 1963.

·       Ulysses S Grant, The Autobiography of General Ulysses S Grant: Memoirs of the Civil War. Accessed at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm

·       William T Sherman, Memoirs of General William T Sherman. Accessed at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4361/4361-h/4361-h.htm

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/shiloh

·       http://www.npshistory.com/publications/civil_war_series/22/sec11.htm

·       https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-shiloh-the-devils-own-day/

·       https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-shiloh/

·       https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/was-general-grant-surprised-by-the-confederate-attack-at-shiloh.htm

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/battle-shiloh-shattering-myths

Vikings in the East: From Vladimir the Great to Vladimir Putin

The Origins of a Contested Legacy in Russia and Ukraine

In Western Europe, we typically associate Vikings with the storm-tossed waters of the North Sea and the North Atlantic, the deep Scandinavian fjords and the attacks on the monasteries and settlements of northwestern Europe. This popular image rarely includes the river systems of Russia and Ukraine, the wide sweep of the Eurasian steppe, the far shores of the Caspian Sea, the incense and rituals of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the high walls and towers of the city of Constantinople. Yet for many Viking raiders, traders and settlers, it was the road to the East that beckoned.

These Viking adventurers founded the Norse–Slavic dynasties of the ‘Rus,’ which are entangled in the bitterly contested origin myths of both Russia and Ukraine. The Rus ruler, Vladimir (Ukrainian: Volodymyr) the Great, converted to Christianity – in its Eastern Orthodox form – in 988, on Crimea, and so they are at the heart of the concept of ‘Holy Russia’.

Martyn Whittock explains.

Martyn’s new book, Vikings in the East, is here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

A depiction from the Radziwiłł Chronicle.

Go East!

The East played a major part in the start of the so-called ‘Viking Age,’ in the middle of the eighth century. Alongside various suggested causal factors such as population growth in Scandinavia, cultural conflict with the expanding Christian Frankish Empire, the beginnings of kingdom building in the northern homelands, and agricultural disruption due to volcanic activity, changes taking place in the distant Islamic Caliphate (as the centre of political power there shifted from Damascus to Baghdad) disrupted the flow of silver to Scandinavia. For years, this silver had reached northern Europe, traded for slaves, furs and amber. Facing this change, raiding in the West offered Norse elites an alternative way to get their hands on precious metals and slaves. At the same time, the forest products of the eastern Baltic and the supply of slaves from there drew Swedish adventurers eastward on the austrvegr (the Eastern Way), as it was known in Old Norse. This involved interactions with indigenous Balts, Finns and Slavs that were, at time, mutually beneficial and, at other times, ruthlessly exploitative. No one scenario sums up the complex interactions over several centuries.

The key thing is that the Viking phenomenon increasingly had an Eastern Front. Utilising the river systems, these Vikings soon became active on the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and in the Byzantine Empire. As a result, vast streams of silver once again flowed north as evidenced by hordes of Arab dirham coins unearthed on Gotland and in Sweden. By the 790s, merchants from the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate (now centred on Baghdad) were expanding their trading journeys up the River Volga and bringing with them good-quality silver again, much of which ended up in Scandinavia. The revival of the flow of silver had a huge impact on Norse trading activities, including slave trading.

From the year 800, huge numbers of silver coins struck in Islamic mints (especially in Central Asia) began to enter Russia and the Baltic region. While this flow of silver appears to have once more slowed dramatically in the 830s (due to renewed turbulence in the caliphate), it picked up again between about 850 and 900 (with a temporary slowing down once more in the 880s). It slowed again in the 970s, before picking up again in the 990s and finally ended in about 1030. When the silver was flowing north, much was funnelled via Gotland.

A striking example of the wide-ranging character of the Baltic trading hub can be found in the thirteenth-century Icelandic Saga of the People of Laxárdalur (Laxdæla saga). In this, an Irish princess, captured as a teenager, is sold to an Icelandic chieftain by a Rus merchant operating on the Swedish island of Brännö. It is an example of slave trading which united the west and east of the Viking world.

Written evidence regarding the Vikings of the East

Evidence for this eastern Norse movement survives on a number of runestones in Sweden. A very important one is located beside the driveway of Gripsholm Castle. When translated, it bears witness to an adventure that went terribly wrong, a very long way from home. The runes in question were carved within the body of a snake that follows the edge of the stone and then curls into the centre. This runic inscription reads:

   Tóla had this stone raised in memory of her son Haraldr, Ingvar’s brother. They

   travelled valiantly far for gold, and in the east gave (food) to the eagle. (They) died

   in the south in Serkland. 

The ‘Serkland’ that is referred to on this and on four other runestones was the name used by Scandinavians for the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate and other Muslim areas of the East. The term was either derived from the word ‘Saracen’ (so meaning ‘Saracen-land’) or from ‘serkr’ (gown), referring to the distinctive robes worn by the Muslims living in the East. Either way, it was a long way from home, back in Scandinavia.

This runestone is known today as Sö179, and is one of about twenty-six so-called ‘Ingvar runestones.’ Most of these are found in the Lake Mälaren region of southern Sweden; specifically in the provinces of Södermanland, Uppland and Östergötland. They are named from a Swedish Viking named Ingvar the Far-Travelled, who led an expedition to the Caspian Sea.

This single expedition is mentioned on more runestones that any another event in Swedish Viking history. This points to its importance to contemporary society in the eleventh century. Other evidence indicates that he and most of his companions died in 1041. Some of them died in a fierce battle fought at Sasireti in Georgia, to the west of the Caspian Sea. This battle involved Byzantines (from the Eastern Roman Empire, with its capital in Constantinople), Georgians and Scandinavian mercenaries. The battle was fought in a Georgian civil war. Those that did not die in the battle itself later succumbed to disease far from Scandinavia. These included Ingvar himself.

A twelfth-century Icelandic saga called Saga of Ingvar the Far-Travelled (Yngvars saga víðförla) states that some survivors made it back from the Caspian to Russia.  Others travelled on to Miklagarðr, the Scandinavian name for Constantinople. Viking sieges of that great city eventually gave way to more mutually advantageous trading arrangements, even if these were tightly controlled by the Byzantine authorities. In time, many Norse warriors also served in the imperial Varangian Guard.

With regard to the Islamic caliphate, in the late 840s, the Director of Posts and Intelligence in the Baghdad caliphate’s province of Jibal (in north-western Iran), Abu’l-Qasim Ubaydallah ibn Abdallah ibn Khordadbeh, recorded that a group of newly arrived foreign traders, who he called the ‘ar-Rus,’ had brought merchandise to Baghdad on camels. Rus traders had also been noted further east, in Persia. Sailing through the Persian Gulf, they had also reached lands described as ‘Sind, India, and al-Sin’. There are debates over whether the last place named represented Tang China or the khaganate of the Uyghurs. Either way, the route to the East took Norse traders far from home. Islamic travellers also wrote dramatic accounts of meeting Norse traders and slavers of the Rus on the River Volga, in the first half of the tenth century.

The East in the mental world of Norse mythology

Intriguingly, the East also loomed large in Viking-Age mythology, as it did in Viking-Age economics and politics. In this area of life, East met West in the world of the gods and goddesses of Norse mythology. The key source for this is the Saga of the Yngling Family – usually simply referred to as Ynglinga Saga. This is the first part of the Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson’s history of the ancient Norwegian kings, which is titled Circle of the World (Heimskringla). The earliest part of this saga claims to deal with the ‘arrival’ of the Norse deities in Scandinavia. In this section, it is explained that they originated in a part of Asia to the east of what is called the Tana-kvísl river. From Snorri’s explanation, this river is what we now call the River Don. The River Don flows from south of Moscow to eventually reach the Sea of Azov, which is linked to the Black Sea. Now in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine, this region borders the Caucasus to the south. Snorri also knew the river in question as the Tanais (Tanais being a settlement in the delta of the River Don). The region east of the Tanais was, according to Snorri, the location of the original city of the gods.

The ‘geography’ of this account in Ynglinga Saga was clearly inspired by knowledge of strange lands in the East that had actually been explored by real-world Viking-Age traders. However, it had later been reinvented in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Norway and Iceland as a fabulous ‘never-never land’ that was situated far-far away. This is revealed by the fact that, in Snorri’s account, Odin’s eventual journey to Scandinavia is described as being via the Don and Volga rivers and through Garðaríki, the Old Norse name for the lands of the Rus (the ‘Kingdom of the Towns’). Odin’s route in the mythological story was, in reverse, the historic Viking routeway to the Byzantine Empire and Serkland, the Norse name for the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate. In other words, the Viking-Age divinities were described as traversing the very same river routes as the real-life traders of the ninth and tenth centuries.

Many Norse traders and adventurers used this eastward route and, in time, plugged into the western end of the Silk Roads that stretched across Eurasia as far as Japan. Trade routes which started in Scandinavian trading centres such as Birka (Sweden), Hedeby (Denmark, now Germany), and Gotland (Sweden’s largest island), extended far into western Eurasia along the river systems of the modern nations of western Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Many Norse travelled the rivers to the Black Sea and the Byzantine Empire; others journeyed to the Caspian Sea and beyond.

The Norse and origin stories in Russia and Ukraine

In the twelfth century a source of information known as the Tale of Bygone Years (Pověstĭ Vremęnĭnyhŭ Lětŭ) was compiled in what is now Ukraine. It is now generally known as the Russian Primary Chronicle or the Tale of Bygone Years. According to this account, Viking adventurers (called the Varangian Rus) used force to subjugate the Slavic and Finnish tribes living south-east of the Baltic. But, the chronicler tells us, they were then driven out. However, once free of the Rus, warfare broke out between the indigenous tribes and they decided that, perhaps, the rule of the Rus was not so bad after all. Consequently, they invited them back to bring order. This is clearly later spin designed to enhance the prestige and legitimacy of those ‘invited back.’ It has a rather modern – colonialist – feel to it.

The curious thing is that the original ‘colonial perspective’ was penned by one of those colonised, not by one of the outside colonisers. This, though, is readily explained. Whoever wrote this interpretation of the foundation of the Rus state was one who was heavily invested in it. Therefore, although the spin was sharply patronising in tone regarding the capabilities of the indigenous Slavic and Finnish peoples, its purpose was to trace the arc of history in a providential way. As a result, it was narrated in a way that revealed the ‘good order’ brought by the newcomers, who would eventually be founders of the state and – crucially – converts to the Orthodox Christian faith.

The three brothers referred to in the Russian Primary Chronicle (and the towns they were credited as founding) were: Rurik (or Riurik) in Novgorod, Sineus in Beloozero and Truvor in Izborsk. The last two may be Slavic versions of original Old Norse names: Signjotr and Thorvar. Rurik, who was to give his name to the Rus dynasty itself (the Rurikid), represents a name that was originally something like Old Norse Hrøríkr or Rorik.

According to the Russian Primary Chronicle, the Viking brothers were of the Varangian tribe of the Rus. This is a designation designed to clearly signal that they were the people who eventually gave rise to the state of the Kyivan Rus, using the ethnic names known to both Slavs and Byzantines for the Norse in, what is now, Russia and Ukraine. Their return as rulers, the chronicler suggests, occurred sometime around 860/862. When Sineus and Truvor died, Rurik amalgamated their lands under his rule and so was formed the nucleus of what would become the princedom of the Rus. The source now called the Novgorod First Chronicle (Novgoródskaya pérvaya létopisʹ), describing events from 1016 to 1471 and drawing, in part, on eleventh-century sources, also records this story of an invitation to foreign rulers to come and bring order and law.

The Russian Primary Chronicle also claims that, while Rurik was establishing himself at Novgorod, two other Rus leaders – Askold and Dir – travelled southward down the river Dnieper and established their rule in the settlement later known in Russian as Kiev (Ukrainian: Kyiv). It is likely that they took control of a trading post of the Khazars, who were already exploiting a favourable position on the Dnieper river route to the Black Sea.

If the Russian Primary Chronicle’s dating is correct, this set up two rival Rus mini-states: Novgorod in the north and Kiev/Kyiv in the south. Rurik ruled until c. 879. His successor, named Oleg or Oleh (a Slavic form of the Old Norse personal-name Helgi) then struck south and seized Kiev/Kyiv in c. 882 and relocated his capital there. The Russian Primary Chronicle says that, in so doing, he killed Askold and Dir, the Viking chieftains who had established their rule there a little earlier.

In this way, the new state of (what is often called) the Kyivan Rus was traditionally established. It would last until the 1240s, when it fell to the Mongols. Over time it became increasingly Slavic in culture, since the Norse were always a minority. However, the last Rurikid (the dynasty claiming descent from the Viking Rurik) to rule Russia did not die until the late sixteenth century. After a time of extreme turbulence, the next Russian dynasty, in the early seventeenth century (the Romanovs), manufactured connections with the older royal line stretching back to the Norse founders of the Rus state. Rulers after them continued to reference these ancient roots, as rulers of Muscovy sought to extend their authority south into, what is now, Ukraine. This, they claimed, was a ‘gathering in of the Rus lands.’

A contested legacy

After the destruction of the Kyivan Rus state, by the Mongols in the 1240s, Russian rulers (based in Moscow) have frequently referenced these Norse origins when trying to enhance their power and secure control over the Ukrainian lands.

Since the eighteenth century the credit that foreign Viking incomers were accorded in the formation of Kyivan Rus has fluctuated over time, in line with changing Russian politics. This is sometimes termed the ‘Normanist debate.’ In the mid eighteenth-century, foreign involvement in the formation of Russia became intellectually unacceptable. However, it became more fashionable again in the nineteenth century as tsars married into German royal families and relished tales that Russians needed the strong hand of autocrats to bring order.

Under Stalin, in the 1930s, promoting the idea of foreign founders of Russia would – and did – bring a death sentence. It hardly helped that Hitler claimed, with predictable Nazi racism: “Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of organisation into Russian humanity, the Russians would still be living like rabbits.”

Under Vladimir Putin the wheel has turned again. The Rus origin story is central to his insistence that Russia and Ukraine are one people, with Moscow now the dominant force. In 2015, when Putin sought to justify his annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, in 2014, he asserted that Crimea has “sacred meaning for Russia, like the Temple Mount for Jews and Muslims,” and, furthermore, that Crimea is “the spiritual source of the formation of the multifaceted but monolithic Russian nation.” He added: “It was on this spiritual soil that our ancestors first and forever recognized their nationhood.” He was referring to the Christian baptism of the Rus ruler, Vladimir the Great, in 988.

In 2016 a massive statue of Vladimir the Great was erected in Borovitskaya Square, in central Moscow.  It was unveiled by his namesake: Vladimir Putin. The erection of the statue was immensely controversial because St Vladimir – called St Volodymyr in Ukrainian – is claimed by both Russia and Ukraine as a founding father and many Ukrainians considered it a provocative gesture. It was highly significant that the statue was unveiled on National Unity Day in Russia – a national holiday revived by Putin in 2005. At the time, many Ukrainians felt that the action was a deliberate attempt to challenge the idea of Ukrainian sovereignty and cultural independence.

In 2021, prior to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Putin once more referenced the ancient Rus as founders of a united state (a view which denied Ukrainian sovereignty). Then in 2024 – in conversation with the US conservative commentator Tucker Carlson – Putin explicitly referred to the Norse roots of the Rus as a way of claiming that Russia is now the legitimate heir of ancient European traditional culture, not the Liberal West.

In conclusion, the Vikings of the East have been on a journey over time that is comparable to the immensity of their geographical journey in the ancient past. And, in the conflicted world of the twenty-first century, it is clear that the ‘journey’ of the Vikings of the East is far from over!

Martyn’s new book is Vikings in the East: From Vladimir the Great to Vladimir Putin – The Origins of a Contested Legacy in Russia and Ukraine. It is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Bronze Age Collapse - Part 3: After the Storm – The World Reforged

The fall of the Late Bronze Age civilizations stands as one of the most significant and mysterious upheavals in ancient history. Once-thriving societies, known for their vast trade networks, monumental architecture, and bureaucratic governance, experienced a dramatic decline, leading to what is often termed a "Dark Age."

Terry Bailey explains.

Part 1 in the series is here and part 2 is here.

Alabaster Stela of the Asirian King Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 BC) - British Museum, with credit to and available from this link.

Across the eastern Mediterranean, major cities such as Mycenae, Ugarit, and Hattusa were either abandoned or greatly diminished. Writing systems disappeared, economies shrank, and long-established political structures crumbled, forcing surviving communities to adapt to a world of uncertainty.

Historians and archaeologists continue to investigate the causes behind this widespread collapse, with theories ranging from climate change and prolonged droughts to warfare, migration, and the breakdown of trade routes.

However, while this period was marked by hardship and regression, it also laid the foundation for new societies and cultural transformations. The emergence of the Philistines, Israelites, and Phoenicians, along with the eventual resurgence of Greek city-states, demonstrates that history is not solely a tale of decline but also of resilience and reinvention.

By examining the consequences of the Bronze Age Collapse, it is possible to gain valuable insight into the fragility of complex societies and the ability of human civilization to adapt in the face of crisis. The following discussion explores the demographic shifts, technological advancements, and cultural realignments that shaped the post-Bronze Age world, revealing how the collapse was not merely an end but also a new beginning.

The "Dark Age" and population declines

The centuries following the collapse of the Late Bronze Age are often referred to as a "Dark Age" due to the loss of large-scale social organization, literacy, and monumental architecture. Many cities were abandoned or dramatically reduced in size, including Mycenae, Ugarit, and Hattusa. In some regions, particularly Greece and Anatolia, evidence suggests significant population declines.

Archaeological data, such as soil core samples and pollen analysis, indicate a decline in agricultural output, likely exacerbated by climate changes, leading to food shortages. The Linear B script used by Mycenaean bureaucracies vanished, and writing would not return to Greece for centuries. Without strong central authorities, communities became smaller and more localized, often shifting toward subsistence farming rather than trade-driven economies.

New powers and cultural shifts

Despite the initial chaos, new powers and cultural developments emerged from the ruins, reshaping the ancient world. Ironworking became more widespread, eventually replacing bronze as the dominant metal for tools and weapons. Iron was more abundant and did not require the complex trade networks that bronze production demanded.

The shift to iron significantly changed warfare, as seen in early Iron Age sites like Philistine settlements where iron weapons appeared alongside pottery styles indicating Aegean influence.

The rise of new societies

The power vacuum left by the fallen Bronze Age empires allowed new groups to establish themselves:

Philistines, Israelites, and Arameans: Archaeological sites such as Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod reveal Philistine settlements with distinct Mycenaean-style pottery, suggesting a migration from the Aegean. Meanwhile, the Israelites and Arameans emerged in the Levant, gradually forming distinct identities, as seen in the Merneptah Stele, which provides one of the earliest known references to Israel.

The Neo-Assyrian Empire: While Assyria suffered during the collapse, it re-emerged as a dominant force by the 10th century BCE, rebuilding its military strength and reasserting control over Mesopotamia.

The Phoenicians: With the collapse of major land-based powers, Phoenician city-states like Tyre and Sidon flourished as maritime traders. They developed an alphabet that would influence Greek and Latin scripts, leaving a lasting linguistic legacy.

The Greek Recovery: Greece slowly recovered from its Dark Age, leading to the Archaic period. The adoption of the Phoenician alphabet helped restore literacy, and early city-states (poleis) began to form, setting the stage for the Classical period.

Lessons from the Bronze Age collapse

The Bronze Age Collapse serves as a powerful case study of the fragility of interconnected civilizations. Archaeological and climate data show that a combination of factors, climate shifts, drought, economic instability, warfare, and social upheaval, can create cascading failures.

Parallels can be drawn with later collapses, such as the fall of Rome or economic depressions. The reliance on global trade, economic interdependence, and environmental factors remain crucial concerns for modern societies.

Therefore, the aftermath of the Bronze Age Collapse was a period of profound transformation. While the devastation led to a loss of centralized authority, economic downturns, and technological regression, it also paved the way for new social structures, innovations, and emerging powers that reshaped the ancient world. The decline of palace economies and long-distance trade routes forced societies to adapt, often turning to localized economies and alternative resources such as iron. In this way, what appeared to be an era of regression ultimately laid the groundwork for the next great civilizations.

The resurgence of powerful states like the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the rise of the Phoenicians as maritime traders highlight humanity's ability to recover and innovate in the face of adversity. The adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks is one example of how knowledge, even after a period of decline, can re-emerge and influence future generations. Similarly, the gradual revival of Greek city-states set the stage for one of the most influential cultural renaissances in history.

Perhaps the greatest lesson from the Bronze Age Collapse is the vulnerability of interconnected systems. The factors that led to its downfall, climate change, resource scarcity, warfare, and shifting trade networks, mirror challenges faced by modern global societies.

The fall of once-mighty kingdoms serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that resilience and adaptation are essential for survival. The ancient world did not simply rebuild; it evolved, forging new identities, technologies, and institutions that would shape the course of history for centuries to come. By examining the past, it is possible to gain insight into the cycles of collapse and renewal that define human civilization. The world after the storm was not a return to the past but the birth of something new, a reforged world that carried the legacy of its predecessors while charting an uncharted path forward.

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 Merneptah Stele

The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele, is a granite victory inscription commissioned by Pharaoh Merneptah (1213–1203 BCE), the son of Ramesses II. Discovered in 1896 by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie at the mortuary temple of Merneptah in Thebes, Egypt, the stele commemorates the Pharaoh's military victories, particularly against the Libyans and various peoples in Canaan. The text is written in hieroglyphics and follows the tradition of Egyptian rulers glorifying their conquests. However, its historical significance extends far beyond Egyptian military exploits.

The most remarkable aspect of the Merneptah Stele is that it contains the earliest known extra-biblical reference to Israel. In the final lines of the inscription, Merneptah boasts that "Israel is laid waste, its seed is no more," suggesting that an entity called Israel was already established in Canaan by the late 13th century BCE. This makes the stele an invaluable artefact for biblical archaeology, in addition, and ancient Near Eastern history and archaeology, providing tangible evidence of Israel's presence in the region during this period. Unlike other groups mentioned in the stele, Israel is not described as a city or a kingdom but rather as a people, implying a semi-nomadic or tribal societal structure at the time.

The Merneptah Stele is critical in historical and biblical studies because it helps contextualize the origins of ancient Israel and its interactions with powerful neighboring civilizations. It also contributes to debates regarding the chronology of the Exodus, the early Israelites' settlement patterns, and their relationship with Egypt. Additionally, the stele sheds light on the geopolitical landscape of Canaan, confirming Egyptian military campaigns in the region. As one of the most significant inscriptions from ancient Egypt, it remains a key primary source for historians and archaeologists studying the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age Near East.

The Small Town in the American Northeast with an Unfortunate Past

Here, Michael Leibrandt argues that the northeast area of the United States  is quite old – and has some fascinating stories. He looks at the story of Centralia, Pennsylvania.

A part of the Centralia mine fire as it was after being exposed during an excavation in 1969. Available here.

The northeast of the United States is old.  I’m not trying to create a mid-life crisis here — I’m talking about being historic. Although our nation is still considered relatively young compared to the rest of the world — we’ve got some definite historic architecture.

We’ve also got some rural areas that are downright eerie. Some of our fields have the occasional, well placed, 18th century weather-worn-and-wooden barns. Some of our cracked cement highways are traveled only infrequently. And our high-elevation mountains offer the perfect cover to conceal a castle worthy of Nosferatu himself.

With unmistakable parallels to the setting of the video game Silent Hill and some sixty miles northeast of Pennsylvania’s capitol of Harrisburg is the town of Centralia. At its height — Centralia’s population was about 3,000 in 1890 — but unlike other towns — something seemed loom over this mining town. 

Like many Pennsylvania communities — Centralia was incorporated right after the American Civil War in 1866 as a mining borough — its citizens and miners employed by the local Locust Mountain Coal and Iron Company — and the mine itself having opened in 1862.

The start

Centralia’s story begins when native Americans would sell their land around what would become the town to European Agents around 1749. In 1793 — Robert Morris who was not only signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 but also was a hero in the Revolutionary War— acquired land in the valley around what would become the town. In 1868 — Alexander Rae who founded the town itself at the end of the Civil War — was brutally murdered by the Molly Maguires while en-route between Centralia and Mount Carmel. According to legend — the first Roman Catholic Priest to live in Centralia (Father Daniel Ignatius McDermott) was assaulted by several members of the Molly Maguires in 1869 and subsequently cursed the land around the town and proclaimed that nothing but the Church would eventually remain in Centralia. He ended up very close to being right.

In June of 1948 — just three years after the end of World War II — United Airlines Flight 624 traveling between San Diego and New York crashed into a mountain between the Pennsylvania towns of Aristes and Centralia. The plane went into descent before crashing. Residents of Centralia helped to bury the victims in St. Ignatius Cemetery.

Fire

But the event that would ultimately doom Centralia happened around Memorial Day of 1962 — when a crew doing a controlled burn of a landfill around Centralia did not extinguish the blaze and the fire seeped into an old mine shaft that was not properly sealed. Over the years — millions of dollars were spent by the federal government in attempts to extinguish the fire but every attempt found it to be much larger than originally thought or ran out of funds.

Over the years as snow melted quickly from the warm ground and smoke oozed from the rusted vents around the town — concerns grew about Centralia. In 1979 — then Mayor John Coddington was forced to close his gas station when fuel in the tanks began to boil underground. In 1981 — a twelve-year-old boy nearly died when he fell into a 100-foot sinkhole before being pulled out by his cousin. In 1993 — Pennsylvania bypassed route 61 — the main thoroughfare into town due to fire by the mine.

After millions were invested to extinguish the fire, Governor Bob Casey would claim eminent domain in 1992 which condemned all the borough’s structures. In 2009 — then Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell began evictions for the residents who remained. In 2002 — Centralia’s Postal Code was removed. Today — the Municipal Building doesn’t even bear Centralia’s name — the remnants of stone walkways indicate where homes used to be. The nearby town of Brynesville was completely vacated — today remaining only by a Shrine at the side of the road and an old garage.

Now the horror of what happened in Centralia has become historic. The remaining residents settled their lawsuit in 2013 — receiving $218,000 in as payment for their homes and the right to stay in their houses for the rest of their lives. After the residents are deceased —many of the houses constructed with those multiple-chimney looking support buttresses are demolished. When the last five residents are no longer with us as of the 2020 census — the town of Centralia — shrouded in a backdrop of steam — will be gone forever.

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

Chicago’s Prohibition Era North Side Wives

Being the wife of a wanted criminal in the 1920s was equal parts alluring and terrifying. You were constantly in danger, or at least your spouse was in danger of being shot on the street or “taken for a ride.” If you chose this life you were probably one of three kinds of woman. Someone who really had no clue what the man they loved did, chose to see what the man they loved did and pretended not to know about it or knew what they did and embraced it. For the most part women who married the bootleggers of prohibition turned a blind eye to their husband’s escapades for one reason or another. It took a special kind of personality, one that, it might be argued wasn’t that different from those that they were partners in life.

Erin Finlen explains.

Images to click on before you start:

George Moran and Lucille: https://images.app.goo.gl/nTCYpeTnHW1Qt6bHA

Cecelia Drucci: https://images.app.goo.gl/agLdrHV5DAwHnTpX6

Hymie Weiss and Josephine Simard: https://images.app.goo.gl/XD61BpZUuxECbdXq7

Dean O'Banion and Viola: https://images.app.goo.gl/WKR137gBQypWFiRD9

Viola O’Banion

Viola O’Banion was born Viola Kaniff in Chicago, Illinois on March 27,1901. When she was school age she went to boarding or finishing school in Iowa. She was home on her Christmas break in December of 1920 and she and some girlfriends went to cafe on the North Side, where she caught the eye of Dean O’Banion. Viola could be described as the female of version of her husband. She had dark blond hair and blue eyes and an infectious attitude and penchant for trouble. She radiated a joy for life. Dean was instantly in love and the two were married in February of 1921.

There is a real possibility that Viola had no idea her husband was in the bootlegging business. She even told a reporter who came to visit O’Banion when he was under house arrest pending the trial for the murder of John Duffy that there was no way he could have done it, the police just didn’t like him.

The two vacationed together on the infamous trip where Dean is credited with finding the Tommy Gun and ordering some to be brought to Chicago, but there is no reason to suggest that she was involved with his criminal activities in anyway. When Dean was murdered she claimed that the only reason he ever carried a gun was for protection in the dangerous city, something Dean could have told her and she probably believed, it was a plausible reason in the city where money controlled the cops and the money was controlled by the gangsters. For better or worse the pair were a good match and both loved each other dearly. Viola would never be quite the same after his death.

That’s not to say that she was lost her mischievous streak by any means. In 1926, she married a man on a dare only to discover he was already married and promptly divorce him. In 1929, she was arrested for driving over 66 mph through a residential neighborhood and using the sidewalks as well, an activity that her late husband had also engaged in. Then, in 1934 she watched as her sister jumped off a bridge. When her sister was rescued she accompanied her to the county hospital. They refused to say why her sister was in the water and Mrs. O’Banion Carter, as the papers called her, answered with, “I don’t like the police and we were just celebrating a wedding.” A dislike and distrust of policeman and a joyful outlook on life made her the perfect and possibly blind eyed wife to Dean O’Banion and his gangland kingdom.

Josephine Simard

For the purposes of this article I am going to call Josephine the fiancé of Hymie Weiss, splitting her version of events and what can be proven cleanly down the middle. Marie Josephine Simard was, like Dean and Viola, a bubbly outgoing young woman who was born on October 23, 1902 in Massachusetts. She joined the Ziegfeld Follies in New York City, a comedy troupe of chorus girls, who were considered risqué at the time, and in the fall of 1925, the tour was visiting Chicago where she met Earl “Hymie” Weiss. It’s probable that the vivacious personality of Simard was what drew him to her, she brought out the good side of the otherwise angry, violent, and serious man, a much needed light after the death of his best friend the year before.

There is a lot of speculation about the relationship that the pair actually had. Josephine said that she spent the happiest days of her life to that point with Weiss, that even though he was a bootlegger he enjoyed quiet nights at home with her and that if you didn’t know who he was you would never guess. At no point did she hide that she knew what he did or who he was, instead she said it didn’t matter because she loved him. Their friends all said that they were very happy together and a picture of the two in Miami, Florida taken between the winter of 1925 and fall 1926 shows an extremely happy couple. They were reported to have heated arguments but only because, as Rose Keefe says in her book, The Man Who Got Away, they were such different personalities. The famous scene in the 1931 film, The Public Enemy, where James Cagney shoves a grape fruit in Mae West’s face supposedly came from an incident where Weiss shoved an omelet in Josephine’s face because she was talking too much early in the morning.

According to Josephine, the pair were so in love that they eloped in Florida in the winter of 1925, but she was never able to provide a marriage certificate, saying that Weiss had a priest brought to their room. Stating that she was his widow, she insisted that she had a right to his estate when he died. His mother and the executor of his will, Mary Weiss was not having it, going so far as to have her son in law, James Philip Monahan go get the car that Weiss had bought for her. The pair faced off in probate court, no small feat for the Follies Girl, since all signs point to Mary Weiss being a fierce woman who didn’t back down from a fight. The case was eventually dismissed. It is worth noting that Weiss was meticulous about his will. It makes sense seeing as he had terminal cancer. If the marriage was legally binding it’s doubtful that he would have neglected to add her to it.

She never hid who she had married. Her second husband, Samuel Marx, remembered her as crying a lot when they met due to losing Weiss. For Simard it was either love or money that kept her with Weiss, not a notion that he wasn’t the bootlegging kingpin that he was. Most people at the time said it was the money, but from her heartfelt statement after his death, it’s clear she loved him dearly.

Cecilia Drucci

The wife of Vincent Drucci is actually harder to track than her husband. In fact, she is downright impossible to find any factual information on. There is no record of their marriage until she says at his funeral that they gave him a swell send off and yet, if you were to think of the kind of woman Drucci were to marry, it would be Cecilia.

There isn’t much know about her, besides that she was blond and feisty. There is an anecdote that sees her threatening a dinner guest with a butchers knife. When a dressmaker was telling people that Drucci had robbed her store, he showed up with an unknown blond woman and told her to teach the woman a lesson. The woman turned the shop over and Drucci herded the customers to the backroom before the pair fled in a taxi. There is a chance that this woman was Cecilia. Although, blond doesn’t tell us much. While his friends were faithful to their partners once they found them, Drucci was not and was reputed to have a different blond on his arm every night.

When Drucci was buried his wife said “We sure gave him a swell send off,” and then disappeared without a trace. There isn’t much to tell about her but Cecelia Drucci exemplifies the woman who worked alongside her husband in the Chicago Underworld.

Lucille Moran

George Moran’s wife is not Cecilia Drucci nor is she Viola O’Banion. However, neither does she quite fit the same mold as Josephine Simard. She wasn’t a high strung, quick tempered moll, a naive young lady who had no idea what her husband did and she also wasn’t as willing to pretend that Moran didn’t have a criminal record that he was actively adding to during their marriage. She loved and supported her husband and knew what he was to the Chicago Underworld, it was less important to her though than the fact that he was a good husband and a great father to her child.

Born in 1899, Lucille was a recently divorced mother of one when she met George, in 1923. He was instantly smitten with her according to their love story and, while she was at first worried that he wouldn’t accept her son, Moran was just as infatuated with him. The boy spoke French, which Moran had grown up speaking and helped him learn English.

Though he seems to have been an ideal partner there was no hiding what he did for a living, especially when he was arrested on suspicion of attempting to assassinate Johnny Torrio. After that he moved to a hotel and when Weiss was assassinated in 1926, he was arrested there after he left the funeral without telling anyone and rumors abounded as to his future plans. Lucille was supportive, loving and there for every step of her husband’s life, even picking him up when he was released on bail or watching in court. Then, in 1929, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre happened. She had to wait for news that he was alive and then he fled to Canada, leaving her and her son at the hotel, to be watched over by his underlings. When he returned, she tried to remain just as strong as she had been but after another trial in 1930, Moran was advised to leave Illinois all together and she had had enough. She decided that she couldn’t live like that anymore and served him divorce papers.

And they all lived…

Well, not happily ever after. The life of the women who called a gangster her husband was high stress and fraught with danger, whether they accepted it or not. Of the four women discussed only one didn’t see her marriage end in tragedy and it was the scare of doing so that made her finally pull the trigger on her divorce (so to speak). Viola, Josephine, Cecilia and Lucille were also, strangely, all perfect fits for the men they married, at least from a historical perspective. Viola and Dean, fun loving partners in life with hot tempers and a disrespect for the law. Josephine and Earl, volatile, quick tempered people who balanced each other out and brought out the best in each other. Cecilia and Vincent, who were so alike as to be almost uncanny. George and Lucille, each there for each other when they were needed, level headed and perseverant. Four different couples and four different but intriguing female figures of the 1920s.

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.

 

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago During Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

My Al Capone Museum. (n.d.). https://myalcaponemuseum.com/

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Bronze Age Collapse - Part 2: The Great Upheaval and Cause of the Collapse

The world of the Late Bronze Age was a dazzling network of powerful civilizations, bound together by trade, diplomacy, and shared technologies. As discussed in Part 1, the Hittites, Egyptians, Mycenaeans, and other major powers created an interconnected web of prosperity. Yet, by the end of the 12th century BCE, this world had crumbled. Entire cities lay in ruins, societies disintegrated, and long-established empires vanished from history. But what caused this collapse?

To understand the causes it is important to explore the intricate and interwoven factors of environmental shifts, economic turmoil, military upheaval, and technological transitions, that created a perfect storm of crises, leading to one of the most dramatic periods of decline in human history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Part 1 in the series is here.

The Sea Peoples in ships during battle with the Egyptians. A depiction of a relief from the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu.

Environmental and climatic factors

Archaeological and palaeo-climatic evidence suggests that a series of severe droughts struck the Eastern Mediterranean during the late 13th and early 12th centuries BCE. Tree-ring analysis from Anatolia and pollen records from the Levant indicate a sharp decline in precipitation, leading to failed harvests and widespread famine.

Lake sediments from Cyprus and the Dead Sea further corroborate this period of prolonged aridity. The Hittite and Egyptian records refer to grain shortages, hinting at growing food insecurity. The effects were catastrophic. Urban centers, which relied on stable agricultural output, suffered devastating food shortages, leading to depopulation, internal strife, and mass migrations. Trade routes became unstable as hunger forced people to move in search of sustenance, disrupting long-established economic patterns. In some cases, entire regions were abandoned, as evidenced by the decline of once-thriving settlements such as Emar in Syria.

Economic decline and trade disruptions

The Late Bronze Age economy depended on complex international trade networks that supplied essential raw materials. Bronze, the defining metal of the age, required a steady supply of copper and tin, elements that were often sourced from distant locations. When trade routes collapsed, so too did bronze production, crippling military and economic stability.

Archaeological evidence from Ugarit, a major trading hub, shows that it was suddenly cut off from its usual trading partners before its destruction. Communications discovered in the ruins of Ugarit describe desperate appeals for aid and warnings of impending disaster. With trade in disarray, central authorities struggled to maintain control.

Inflation and food shortages led to social unrest, as documented in letters from the Egyptian pharaohs lamenting the high cost of grain. The economic strain may have contributed to weakened state institutions, making them more vulnerable to internal and external threats.

Warfare and invasions

Perhaps the most dramatic element of the Bronze Age Collapse was the wave of invasions and destruction that swept through the region. Chief among the aggressors was the enigmatic Sea Peoples, a confederation of warriors who attacked numerous cities across the Eastern Mediterranean. Egyptian inscriptions, such as those at Medinet Habu from the reign of Ramesses III, describe these seaborne raiders in battle, detailing their destruction of cities and their attempt to invade Egypt itself.

Other major powers suffered even worse fates. The Hittite capital, Hattusa, was destroyed and abandoned, with no later reoccupation, signaling the total collapse of the Hittite Empire. The Mycenaean palaces in Greece were burned and abandoned, leading to a centuries-long decline in Greek civilization. The fall of Ugarit, documented in a final letter from its last ruler, shows the sudden and brutal nature of these attacks.

The military infrastructure of these states was not prepared for such upheaval. Internal revolts, possibly by oppressed lower classes or mercenaries, further destabilized the already-weakened polities. The sheer scale and synchronization of these invasions suggest a combination of external aggression and internal fracturing.

Technological and military shifts

The changing nature of warfare may have also contributed to the collapse. The Late Bronze Age was dominated by chariot-based armies, which required large logistical support, training, and infrastructure. However, as societies became weaker and trade disruptions limited access to high-quality materials, the effectiveness of chariot warfare declined.

At the same time, iron weaponry began to spread. While the transition from bronze to iron took time, some groups may have gained an advantage through the use of iron tools and weapons. The Philistines, a possible subset of the Sea Peoples, appear to have been early adopters of ironworking technology.

Archaeological sites such as Ashkelon have revealed early iron artefacts, suggesting a gradual but significant shift in military capabilities. Additionally, shifts in military recruitment weakened traditional armies. Many rulers relied on foreign mercenaries, whose loyalty could be fickle. The breakdown of centralized authority may have meant that these warriors turned against their employers, contributing to the cycle of instability.

The domino effect - Civilization in freefall

Once the collapse began, it rapidly spread across the Eastern Mediterranean. The destruction of key trade centers led to further economic and political breakdowns, creating a cascading effect. Archaeological evidence shows that entire regions were depopulated. In Greece, the Mycenaean palace complexes, including Pylos and Tiryns, were burned and abandoned. The Hittite heartland became a wasteland, and Ugarit ceased to exist.

Egypt, while surviving, emerged from the crisis in a weakened state. Ramesses III's inscriptions claim victory over the Sea Peoples, but Egypt's empire shrank dramatically. The loss of territories in Canaan and the Levant marked the beginning of a long decline for the New Kingdom.

The knowledge and administrative skills that had supported these civilizations were also lost. The collapse of writing systems, such as Linear B in Greece, marks a regression in literacy and bureaucratic administration. The world of vast interconnected states gave way to small, isolated communities struggling to rebuild.

The end of an era and birth of the New World

The collapse of the Late Bronze Age was not the result of a single catastrophic event but rather a convergence of multiple, interwoven crises that overwhelmed even the most powerful civilizations of the era. Environmental stress, economic disintegration, military upheaval, and technological transitions combined to create an unprecedented period of societal collapse.

Severe droughts led to widespread famine, weakening the agricultural and trade-based economies that had sustained the great empires. The disruption of trade routes not only crippled industries dependent on essential resources like tin and copper but also destabilized political structures, as rulers struggled to maintain control over increasingly desperate populations.

At the same time, waves of invasions and internal revolts further shattered these fragile societies. The arrival of the Sea Peoples marked the final blow for many city-states, while the fall of the Mycenaean palaces, the destruction of Hattusa, and the obliteration of Ugarit signaled the disintegration of long-standing power centers. The changing nature of warfare marked by the decline of chariot-based armies and the slow but inevitable rise of iron weaponry ushered in a new era, leaving behind the remnants of a world once dominated by bronze.

The aftermath of the collapse reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean. Egypt, though it survived, never regained its former dominance. The once-mighty Hittites disappeared entirely, while the Greek world plunged into centuries of economic and cultural regression. The loss of centralized administration, literacy, and trade networks meant that knowledge, technology, and governance had to be rebuilt almost from scratch.

However, from this period of darkness, new societies eventually emerged. The Phoenicians, the Israelites, and the early Greek city-states would rise from the ruins, laying the groundwork for the Iron Age civilizations that followed.

Ultimately, the great upheaval of the Late Bronze Age is a solid indication of the fragility of complex societies. It serves as a powerful reminder that even the most interconnected and prosperous civilizations are vulnerable to the cascading effects of environmental stress, economic turmoil, and military conflict. While the Bronze Age world may have vanished, its legacy endures in the lessons it offers about resilience, adaptation, and the ever-changing nature of human history.

In Part 3, we will explore the aftermath of the collapse: how survivors rebuilt, what new civilizations rose from the ashes, and how the lessons of the Bronze Age Collapse continue to resonate in history today.

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 sea people

The Sea Peoples were a confederation of maritime raiders and invaders who played a significant role in the collapse of several major civilizations during the late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE). As indicated in the main text, these groups attacked and contributed to the downfall of powerful states such as the Hittite Empire, Mycenaean Greece, and the Egyptian New Kingdom. The origins and identity of the Sea Peoples remain a topic of intense scholarly debate, as they left no written records of their own, and much of what is known comes from Egyptian and other contemporary sources, particularly inscriptions by Pharaoh Ramesses III, which potentially could be tainted with bias.

One prevailing theory suggests that the Sea Peoples were not a single unified culture but rather a coalition of various displaced or migratory groups. The upheavals of the late Bronze Age, including climate change, famine, internal strife, and the collapse of trade networks, may have forced numerous populations to seek new lands and resources, leading to waves of seaborne invasions. Among the names recorded in Egyptian sources, such as the Medjay, Sherden, Lukka, and Peleset (often identified with the Philistines), it is possible that the Sea Peoples included displaced Mycenaeans, Anatolian groups fleeing the collapse of the Hittite Empire, and even people from the central Mediterranean, such as Sardinia or Sicily.

Archaeological and textual evidence suggests that the Sea Peoples were both warriors and settlers, with some groups integrating into the societies they attacked. For example, the Peleset are thought to have settled in Canaan, eventually forming the Philistine culture. Other groups may have contributed to the cultural and demographic shifts that marked the transition from the Bronze Age to the early Iron Age.

While their exact origins remain elusive, the Sea Peoples are best understood as a diverse and fluid collection of migrants, adventurers, and raiders whose actions reshaped the ancient Mediterranean world.

Bronze Age Collapse - Part 1: The World Before the Collapse – A Flourishing Civilization

The Bronze Age, 3000 - 1200 BCE, marked a period of remarkable human progress. Across the Mediterranean and Near East, great civilizations flourished, building empires, advancing technology, and creating extensive trade networks. This era was defined by the widespread use of bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, which revolutionized warfare, agriculture, and craftsmanship.

Yet, around 1200 - 1150 BCE, a cataclysmic event known as the Bronze Age Collapse brought many of these civilizations to their knees. Cities burned, trade routes crumbled, and once-powerful kingdoms disappeared from history. Understanding this collapse is crucial because it reshaped the ancient world, leading to the emergence of new societies and altering the course of human development.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of Ramesses II triumphing over the Hittites in the siege of Dapur. Available here.

Major civilizations & political structures

Egypt (New Kingdom)

At its height, Egypt's (New Kingdom) 1550 -1070 BCE, was a formidable empire stretching from Nubia to the Levant. Pharaohs such as Thutmose III, Amenhotep III, and Ramesses II expanded Egypt's influence through military conquest and diplomacy. Monumental structures like the Karnak Temple and Abu Simbel reflected Egypt's immense wealth and power. However, by the 12th century BCE, Egypt faced increasing pressure from external invasions, particularly from the enigmatic Sea Peoples.

The Hittite Empire

Centered in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey), the Hittite Empire 1600 - 1180 BCE, rivalled Egypt in power. The Hittites controlled key trade routes and were masters of chariot warfare. Their capital, Hattusa, contained vast archives of cuneiform texts that provided insight into their administration and military campaigns. However, the empire struggled with internal strife and external threats, weakening its ability to resist the upheavals to come.

Mycenaean Greece

The Mycenaeans 1600 - 1100 BCE, dominated the Greek mainland and the Aegean. They were warrior-kings who built impressive palatial centers such as Mycenae, Pylos, and Tiryns. The deciphered Linear B script reveals a highly organized bureaucratic system managing agriculture, taxation, and military affairs. The legendary Trojan War, though mythologized by Homer, likely reflects real Mycenaean involvement in conflicts across the eastern Mediterranean.

Minoan Crete

The Minoans, 2000 - 1450 BCE, predated and influenced Mycenaean Greece. Though their dominance declined following natural disasters and invasions, Minoan culture persisted in Mycenaean Crete. The palace of Knossos, with its vibrant frescoes and labyrinthine corridors, stands as a testament to its artistic and architectural prowess.

Babylonia & Assyria

The Mesopotamian world was dominated by Babylonia and Assyria. Babylonia (under the Kassites) thrived as a center of learning and law, preserving the traditions of Hammurabi. Assyria, meanwhile, grew into a militaristic powerhouse. Both states relied on complex administrative systems documented in vast collections of cuneiform tablets.

Canaanite City-States

Canaanite city-states, such as Ugarit and Byblos, were crucial trade hubs linking Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Aegean. Excavations at Ugarit have unearthed extensive archives detailing commercial transactions and diplomatic correspondence, illustrating the interconnectedness of Bronze Age societies.

The Sea Peoples and other marginal societies

By the late Bronze Age, a mysterious confederation known as the Sea Peoples began raiding coastal settlements. Their origins remain debated, but they contributed to widespread devastation, particularly in Egypt and the Levant. Other groups, such as the nomadic Arameans, also began challenging established powers.

Economic & cultural achievements

Trade networks: The lifeblood of civilization

Trade was the backbone of the Bronze Age economy. Copper from Cyprus and tin from Afghanistan and Cornwall, (a region within what is now known as Great Britain), were essential for bronze production. Ships laden with goods crisscrossed the Mediterranean, linking civilizations in a vast commercial web. The Uluburun shipwreck, discovered off the coast of Turkey, provides a snapshot of this trade, carrying goods from Egypt, Mycenae, Canaan, and Anatolia.

Writing systems: Record-keeping and administration

Writing systems such as Linear B (used by the Mycenaeans), cuneiform (Mesopotamia), and hieroglyphs (Egypt) were vital for governance, trade, and literature. The clay tablet archives of Hattusa and Ugarit offer invaluable records of diplomatic agreements and economic activity.

Monumental architecture and art

The era saw grand architectural feats, from Egyptian temples to Mycenaean citadels. Art flourished, depicting religious rituals, military exploits, and daily life in vivid frescoes and sculptures.

Military strategists and technology

Bronze weaponry, chariots, and composite bows revolutionized warfare. Fortifications, such as the massive walls of Mycenae, showcased advancements in defensive architecture.

Signs of weakness before the fall

Climate fluctuations and early signs of drought

Paleo-climatic studies indicate that the Late Bronze Age experienced episodes of drought, possibly disrupting agriculture and weakening states reliant on food surplus.

Overextension of Empires

Many kingdoms expanded beyond their sustainable limits, placing immense strain on resources and administration. The Hittites, for example, struggled to maintain control over their vast territories.

Internal revolts and instability

Evidence from cuneiform records and archaeological layers of destruction suggests that internal conflicts weakened several states before the final collapse.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bronze Age was a golden era of human civilization, one of technological ingenuity, political complexity, and flourishing trade. It was a time when great empires such as Egypt, the Hittites, and Mycenaean Greece extended their influence through diplomacy, warfare, and economic expansion. The Mediterranean and Near East were interconnected in ways that foreshadowed the globalized economies of later millennia. However, this intricate web of civilizations proved fragile when faced with a perfect storm of challenges.

The collapse that followed between 1200 and 1150 BCE was not a singular event but a cascading failure of societies already weakened by climate fluctuations, internal strife, and overextension. The arrival of the enigmatic Sea Peoples was only one piece of a larger puzzle, migrations, famines, and political upheavals all played a role in dismantling the old world order. The once-thriving palaces of Mycenae, the archives of Hattusa, and the great cities of Canaan were reduced to ruins, signaling the end of an age.

Yet, from this collapse emerged new foundations for the civilizations that followed, which were not merely a period of decline but one of transformation. The rise of new powers, such as the Neo-Assyrians and later the Greek city-states, laid the groundwork for the Iron Age, ushering in fresh innovations and cultural shifts. The lessons of the Bronze Age collapse remind us of the fragility of interconnected societies, and the resilience of human civilization to rebuild, adapt, and evolve.

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:

Fall of Troy

The fall of Troy, known in ancient Greek as Ίλιος (Ilios), is estimated to have occurred around the late Bronze Age, with modern scholars often placing it between 1250 BCE and 1180 BCE. This timeframe is derived from archaeological excavations at the site of Hisarlık in modern-day Turkey, which is widely believed to be the historical Troy.

The most accepted dating suggests that Troy VIIa, a layer of destruction at the site, aligns with the traditional period of the Trojan War. Evidence of fire, siege, and violent collapse at this level supports the idea of a catastrophic event, though whether it corresponds precisely to the war described by Homer remains debated.

Homer's Iliad, composed around the 8th century BCE, presents the war as a grand narrative of honor, heroism, and divine intervention rather than a precise historical account. The epic revolves around the wrath of Ἀχιλλεύς (Achilleus, Achilles) and the siege of Troy, but it does not depict the city's fall.

The Iliad ends before the infamous Trojan Horse ruse and the final destruction. In this sense, Homer's version serves more as a metaphorical exploration of Troy as a symbol of human ambition, conflict, and fate rather than a strict retelling of events. The war, as depicted, is as much about the cultural and moral struggles of the Greek world as it is about an actual historical conflict.

The actual fall of Troy likely involved a prolonged siege, resource depletion, and internal strife rather than the singular dramatic deception of the Trojan Horse, which appears in later literary traditions such as The Aeneid by Virgil.

Archaeology suggests that the city was indeed destroyed and rebuilt multiple times, reinforcing the idea that Troy was both a historical location and a mythological and literary construct, shaped over centuries to reflect the values and anxieties of the Greek world.

The literal translation of the Iliad

The actual literal translation of Ἰλιάς (Ilias), pertaining to Ilium, the ancient name for the city of Troy, comes from Ilios(Ἴλιος), an alternate Greek name for Troy. In essence, Ilias means "The Story of Ilium" or "The Tale of Troy." The commonly used English title, The Iliad, follows this meaning, signifying Homer's epic poem about the Trojan War.

Egyptian chronology

The chronology of ancient Egypt is often adjusted due to the challenges associated with reconstructing a timeline from fragmentary and sometimes contradictory evidence. Unlike modern calendars, the Egyptians used a regnal-year dating system, meaning events were recorded based on the number of years a particular pharaoh had ruled. When records of a pharaoh's reign are incomplete or lost, historians must rely on other methods, such as archaeological evidence, astronomical calculations, and synchronization with other ancient civilizations, to estimate dates. This can lead to revisions when discoveries alter previous assumptions.

One major reason for adjustments is the reliance on astronomical data, particularly references to the heliacal rising of the star Sirius (Sothis), which the Egyptians used to track their calendar. However, because their calendar lacked leap years, it drifted relative to the solar year, creating inconsistencies when trying to correlate it with absolute dates. Additionally, king lists and inscriptions from different sources, such as the Turin King List, the Palermo Stone, and Manetho's history, sometimes conflict or contain gaps, requiring scholars to reinterpret the evidence.

Furthermore, ancient Egypt's interactions with neighboring civilizations, such as the Hittites, Babylonians, and Assyrians, provide external synchronization that can refine its chronology. However, as these civilizations’ chronologies are revised, Egypt's timeline must sometimes be adjusted accordingly. Advances in radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) have also provided new insight that occasionally challenges traditional historical dating, leading to further refinements in Egypt's timeline. Consequently, Egyptian chronology remains a dynamic field, continually updated as new evidence emerges.

American Isolationism is Back Again - A Historical View

David Hamilton’s forthcoming book The Enigmatic Aviator: Charles Lindbergh Revisited  finds earlier parallels with current events and looks at the ever-changing verdict on Lindbergh.

Here, the author considers American isolationism in the context of his new book.

Charles Lindbergh shown receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross from President Calvin Coolidge in June 1927.

The American Founding Fathers counseled that the nation should ‘avoid foreign entanglements’, and President Trump's recent hesitation in support of Ukraine brings back memories of earlier similar debates. In the 1930s, the mood in Congress and the country was that American involvement in World War I had been a mistake and had not only failed to make the world ‘safe for democracy,’ but too many lives had been lost or damaged. But by 1940, President Roosevelt started to try to convince America to get involved in the new war in Europe. Public opinion was divided, and although there was majority support for giving help of some kind to beleaguered Britain, the polls were against putting ‘boots on the ground’. Leading the opposition to such deeper involvement was the America First Committee (AFC), the most significant grassroots movement ever in America, and they preferred the term ‘anti-intervention’, which did not suggest total withdrawal from the rest of the world. The AFC had the most support in the Midwest, while FDR and his hawks in the cabinet had the backing of the anglophile East Coast. The AFC had bipartisan political support and was joined by writers and historians. Eventually, their star speaker at the regular nationwide rallies was the American aviator hero Charles Lindbergh (1902-1974). After his famous solo flight to Paris from New York in 1927, he had retained a remarkable mystique since he coupled his success in the world of commercial aviation with a policy of avoiding the still-intrusive press, particularly the tabloids, by using the European royalty’s strategy of ‘never complain never explain.’ He traveled widely in Britain, France, Germany, and Russia and proudly showed their military planes; it was his confidential reports via the Berlin American embassy back to G2 intelligence in Washington on the Luftwaffe strength that eventually convinced President Roosevelt in 1938 to order a rapid expansion of the American Air Corps. From 1939, Lindbergh added his voice to the anti-intervention movement, starting with historically based, closely argued radio broadcasts and then speeches at the large AFC rallies later. His emergence was doubly uncomfortable for FDR. He not only feared Lindbergh’s contribution to the debate but knew that his close connection to the Republican Party (including marrying Mexican ambassador Dwight Morrow’s daughter) meant he could be a formable populist political opponent should he run for president, as many had urged. In response, FDR and his inner cabinet, aided by compliant congressmen and friendly columnists, mounted an unpleasant campaign against Lindbergh, and, rarely debating the issues he raised, they preferred an ad hominemattack. His travels in Germany and interest in the Luftwaffe made him vulnerable, and the jibes included but were not limited to, claiming he was a Nazi, a fifth columnist, an antisemite, a quisling, and even, mysteriously, a fellow traveler.

World War Two

It is often said that Lindbergh and the AFC lost the intervention argument to FDR, but instead, Pearl Harbor brought abrupt closure to the still evenly balanced debate. Thereafter, during the War, Lindbergh worked in the commercial aviation sector and then flew 50 distinguished missions with the Marines in the Pacific. After FDR’s death, the unpleasantness of the intervention debate was admitted and regretted (‘there was a war going on’), and some private apologies reached Lindbergh. Even the FBI was contrite. FDR had brought them in to investigate Lindbergh, even using illegal wiretaps. Still, when J. Edgar Hoover closed their huge file on him, he added a summary saying that ‘none of the earlier allegations had any substance.’

Lindbergh was welcomed back into the post-war military world. As a Cold War warrior, he worked with the atomic bomb air squadrons and served on crucial ballistic missile planning committees. From the mid-1950s, he successfully took up many conservation issues. Now a national icon again, but a reclusive one, his book on the Paris flight and the book sold well. From Truman’s administration onwards, he was in favor of the White House, and the Kennedys sought the Lindbergh’s company, invitations which the couple occasionally accepted. Now, on the White House’s social A-list, Nixon also puts him on important conservation committees. When he died in 1974, President Ford expressed national sympathy. Later, Reagan’s addresses to young people often invoked Lindbergh as a role model.

Lindbergh disparaged

But by the end of the century, something changed, and his place in history became uncertain. This was not the result of new scholarly work or an adverse biography. All the post-war literature had been favorable to him, including Berg’s thorough Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of 1998, which cleared him of any Nazi leanings or antisemitism.[1] The damage to Lindbergh instead came from historical fiction. The basis of Philip Roth’s best-selling novel The Plot Against America 2004 was the well-worn ‘what if’ fictional trope that Hitler won the European war. Lindbergh, elected as US president, aligns with him and acts against the Jews. Roth's usual disclaimer was that his story was not to be taken seriously, but it was. Historical fiction can be entertaining if the sales are low and the author obscure, but the inventions can be dangerous in the hands of a distinguished author. An HBO television series of the same name based on the book followed in 2020, and it often felt like a documentary. Serious-minded reviewers of the television series took the opportunity to reflect widely on fascism and antisemitism, with Lindbergh still featured as a central figure. The mood at the time was ‘wonkish,’ looking again at figures of the past and seeking feet of clay or swollen heads, or both. When others sought any justification for Roth’s allegations, they returned and found the smears and insults directed at Lindbergh during the intervention debate. The old 1940-1941 jibes were revisited, and, yielding to presentism, to the dreary list was added the charge of ‘white supremacist,’ which at the time had escaped even Lindbergh’s most vocal opponents. Evidence for all the old labels was lacking, and to prove them, corners were cut even by serious historians, leading to a regrettable number of mangled or false quotations. The most vivid tampering with the historical record was misusing a newspaper picture taken at an AFC rally in 1941. It shows Lindbergh and the platform party with arms raised, and the caption at the time noted that they were loyally saluting the flag. The gesture at that time was the so-called Bellamy salute which was soon officially discouraged and changed in 1942 to the present hand-on-heart version because of its similarity to the Nazi salute.  Washington’s Smithsonian Institution was now revisiting Lindbergh, and although they had proudly used Lindbergh’s plane Spirit of St Louis as their star exhibit since 1928, they had now deserted him. An article in their Smithsonian Magazine, after denigrating the AFC, described Lindbergh as ‘patently a bigot’ and used the image suggesting a Nazi salute.[2] The Minnesota Historical Society, also with long-standing links to the Lindbergh heritage, also turned to him and answered inquiries about Lindbergh by directing them mainly to the Roth novel and the television program based on it. They also recommended a shrill new book on Lindbergh subtitled ‘America’s Most Infamous Pilot.’. Lindbergh had not been ‘infamous’ until 2004.

The 100th anniversary of Lindbergh's classic flight will be with us soon in 2027. The damage done by Roth’s mischievous historical fiction should be met instead with good evidence-based history, restoring the story of this talented man.

David Hamilton is a retired Scottish transplant surgeon. His interest in Lindbergh came from the aviator’s laboratory work as a volunteer in Nobel Prize-winner transplant surgeon Carrel’s laboratory in New York.[3]  His forthcoming book is The Enigmatic Aviator: Charles Lindbergh.

[1] A. Scott Berg, Lindbergh (New York, 1998).

[2] Meilan Solly ‘The True History Behind ‘The Plot Against America’’

Smithsonian Magazine, 16 March 2020.

[3]   David Hamilton, The First Transplant Surgeon (World Scientific, 2017).

Audrey Hepburn in World War Two

One of the most devastating conflicts in history, the Second World War, touched the lives of millions, its impact also played a huge role in the life of Oscar winning actress, and beloved style icon, Audrey Hepburn. Audrey’s early life was spent in Holland in the midst of the Nazi Occupation where she witnessed the best and worst of humanity, and developed the ideals that would influence her later life.

Erin Bienvenu explains.

Audrey Hepburn in 1952. Available here.

Audrey was born in Brussels, Belgium, on May 4 1929, to an English father and Dutch mother. Her mother, Ella van Heemstra, was from an aristocratic family, and already had two sons from a previous marriage, Alexander and Ian. She had met Joseph in the Dutch East Indies. Through a genealogy study, she believed her husband was a descendant of James Hepburn, the third husband of Mary Queen of Scots. Excited by this royal connection Ella insisted the family adopt the name ‘Hepburn-Ruston.’

When Audrey was six her father walked out on his family, an event that would haunt her for the rest of her life. He returned to England, where Audrey was also sent to school. Despite their close proximity Joseph never visited his young daughter and the lonely Audrey immersed herself in the world of ballet. It enriched her life and she was determined to become a prima ballerina.

War Begins

Audrey’s life was uprooted once again when the Nazi’s invaded Poland, and Britain declared war. Ella believed her daughter would be safer in Holland, which had a history of neutrality, and genuinely thought that Hitler would respect the countries stance.  Audrey was driven to the airport by her father, it was to be the last time she would see him until she was an adult.

Little Audrey had largely forgotten how to speak Dutch during her time away, and she found school difficult, again dance became her escape. She lived with her mother and brothers in Arnhem, where they were close to extended family.

All hopes of safety were dashed when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands in May 1940. At first, Audrey remembered, life seemed to go on as normal. The soldiers behaved politely in an attempt to win over the Dutch people. Audrey continued to go to school, though her lessons increasingly became focussed on the war and Nazism. That same year Audrey enrolled in the local dance school, where her teachers were impressed with her passion and gracefulness.

Despite their initial conciliatory behaviour, the Nazis soon revealed their true colours and life for the citizens of Arnhem began to change. Food was rationed, and day to day life became increasingly dangerous. Audrey’s brother Alexander was determined not to be forced into work by the Germans and he went into hiding, Ian however was not as lucky. To his family’s immense distress, he was rounded up and forced to work in a Berlin munitions factory.

Audrey was also a witness, on multiple occasions, to the local Jewish population being herded onto cattle cars at the train station-their destination then unknown. The horror of these scenes became a recurring theme in her nightmares, she was horrified at the way the Nazis treated people. She saw the Nazis shooting young men in the streets, the violence becoming a constant in people’s lives.

Then her beloved Uncle Otto was arrested as a reprisal for an underground attack on a German train. Otto was held hostage in the hopes the real perpetrators would come forward.  They did not, and he and four other men, were executed some weeks later.
Adding to her distress, Audrey’s parents had a complicated relationship with the Nazis. Like many in their social circle both Joseph and Ella had initially been attracted to the ideas of fascism, they even met Hitler in 1935. But as the war went on, Ella’s beliefs began to change, she had seen too much cruelty and suffering. Joseph meanwhile spent the war years imprisoned in England for his fascist sympathies.

Helping the Resistance

Distraught by what had happened to Otto, Ella and Audrey went to live with his wife, Miesje, Ella’s sister, and their father in the town of Velp, just outside of Arnhem. Audrey held a special place in her heart for her grandfather, with whom she spent many hours doing crossword puzzles, he became the father figure she had so longed for.

It was also in Velp that Audrey began doing volunteer work for local doctor, Hendrik Visser t’Hooft, a man with close ties to the resistance. Through the doctor Audrey and her mother became involved in events known as ‘black evenings’, concerts organised to raise money for the resistance. In private homes, sometimes her own, Audrey danced for a select audience with the windows blackened and doors guarded so that no Nazi could look in. It was a family affair; Ella made her daughters costumes and Audrey choreographed her own routines. It was a welcome, though risky, distraction from the events going on outside. Audrey was to remember fondly how, “The best audience I ever had made not a single sound at the end of my performance.”

This was not the only way Audrey helped the resistance. At least once she delivered copies of the underground newspaper, Oranjekrant. She hid copies in her socks and shoes and then cycled off to deliver them. On another occasion the doctor sent her into the woods near Velp with food and a message to a downed allied airman. No doubt Audrey’s fluency in English made her valuable in this role. On her way home however, she ran into a German police patrol. Thinking quickly and remaining calm, Audrey began picking wildflowers which she offered to the men. Seeing such a young, innocent girl, they sent her on her way without a second thought.

As the war continued food became an ever-increasing problem, and in order to supplement their meagre rations many were forced to forage in the countryside for additional supplies. The van Heemstras ate nettles, grass and made flour from tulips, but it was never enough and Audrey was soon suffering from the effects of malnutrition.

Another problem arose when she turned fifteen. She was required to register, in order to continue dancing, as a member of the Dans Kultuurkamer, an institution created by the Nazis in order to control the arts in Holland. Audrey wouldn’t consider joining such an organisation and this coupled with her poor health led her to temporarily give up her dance lessons. But dance was vital to Audrey’s well-being so she began teaching others instead, offering small private lessons where she could pass on her knowledge and enthusiasm.

Operation Market Garden

In September 1944 the allies launched Operation Market Garden – what was supposed to be the beginning of the successful liberation of the Netherlands. They landed near Arnhem and in the fierce fighting that followed the town was all but destroyed. From her home in Velp, Audrey could hear the almost continuous sound of gunfire and explosions. The Germans ordered the complete evacuation of Arnhem, and many of the displaced made their way to nearby Velp. The van Heemstras, who also had an unwelcome Wehrmacht radio operator working in their attic, opened their home to about forty refugees. The scenes all around invoked a strong response in the compassionate Audrey. She later said, “It was human misery at its starkest.” She was eager to help, offering dance lessons to the anxious citizens of Arnhem in an effort to distract them from the horror outside. She also continued to help Dr. Visser t’Hooft with the endless stream of wounded who came pouring in. Soon even local schools were converted into make shift hospitals, but conditions were desperate.

During this time Audrey’s family also hid a British paratrooper in their cellar. If discovered they would all have paid with their lives, but for Audrey the situation was also exciting. The paratrooper was a kind of knight in shining armour, he represented liberation and freedom to her. It’s not known how long he remained with the family before the resistance could spirit him away, but eventually the Nazis ordered all the refugees from their temporary homes.

Surviving

When Operation Market Garden did not succeed, the Dutch were forced to endure what became known as the ‘hunger winter.’ Disease and starvation were rife and Audrey developed jaundice. Then in March 1945 she was rounded up on the street with several other girls, destined to work in the understaffed German military kitchens. Thankfully Audrey had the presence of mind to run off when the soldiers had their backs turned. She made it home and hid in the cellar until it was safe to come back out.

Not long after the allies again began to close in on the Germans and Arnhem was once again under siege. The van Heemstras spent much of their time in the safety of their cellar, occasionally resurfacing to assess the damage to their home and to try and gain any news of the invasion. They lived as best they could, never quite sure what each day would bring, and then, finally, after weeks of fighting the constant barrage of noise stopped.

Hearing voices Audrey and her family cautiously emerged from their hiding place. At their front door they discovered a group of English soldiers, Audrey was over joyed. She recalled, “freedom has a bouquet, a perfume all its own – the smell of English tobacco and petrol.” The soldiers were equally delighted to have liberated an English girl! The war was finally over.

Audrey was just sixteen years old, malnourished and suffering from jaundice, asthma, edema and anemia – but she was alive, and that was what mattered most to her. As was her immediate family, her two brothers had also survived the war.

Audrey resumed her ballet studies, which took her to Amsterdam and then London, and in the end to a career as an actress. However, she never forgot her war years, they shaped her as a person and would lead to the role she most valued, helping underprivileged children in war torn countries as an ambassador for UNICEF.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Diamond, Jessica Z & Erwin, Ellen (2006), The Audrey Hepburn Treasures: Pictures and Mementos from a Life of Style and Purpose. New York: Atria Books

Dotti, Luca (2015), Audrey at Home: Memories of My Mother’s Kitchen. New York: Harper Design

Hepburn Ferrer, Sean (2003), Audrey Hepburn: An Elegant Spirit. New York: Atria Books

Matzen, Robert (2019), Dutch Girl: Audrey Hepburn and World War II. Pittsburgh: GoodKnight Books

Paris, Barry (1996), Audrey Hepburn. New York: Berkley Books

The Crimean War – Part 6: The Long-term Effects and Historical Significance

The Crimean War (1853–1856) is often remembered for the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade, the pioneering efforts of Florence Nightingale, and the brutal conditions suffered by soldiers on all sides. However, its true significance extends far beyond these well-known episodes. As the final instalment in this series, we examine how the war shaped future conflicts, modern medical practices, political realignments, and cultural legacies. The Crimean War was a crucible of change, marking a transition from traditional to modern warfare and leaving an enduring impact on global history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Read part 1 in the series here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and part 4 here.

A Russian Emancipation Reform took place in 1861. The above painting is Peasants Reading the Emancipation Manifesto, an 1873 painting by Grigory Myasoyedov.

A catalyst for future conflicts

The Crimean War foreshadowed many aspects of later conflicts, particularly the American Civil War (1861–1865) and the First World War (1914–1918). Tactical developments, such as the use of rifled firearms, improved artillery, and early trench warfare, highlighted the obsolescence of Napoleonic-era battle strategies. The war also underscored the importance of logistics, supply lines, and rail transport, elements that would become central to modern warfare.

For the American Civil War, the Crimean War offered key lessons in battlefield medicine, military organization, and the use of industrial technology in war. Notably, Union and Confederate forces adopted the rifled musket and the Minié ball, both of which had proven devastating in Crimea. Additionally, the use of railways to transport troops and supplies became a strategic necessity in the American conflict.

During the First World War, echoes of the Crimean War were unmistakable. Trench warfare, extensive use of artillery bombardments, and the difficulties of siege warfare at Sevastopol found eerie parallels on the Western Front. Furthermore, the Crimean War demonstrated the importance of alliances and diplomacy, a factor that would play a crucial role in shaping the alliances of 1914.

The war's role in modern medical practices

Perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of the Crimean War is its impact on medical care. The appalling conditions in field hospitals, where infections ran rampant and sanitation was virtually nonexistent, led to a medical revolution spearheaded by figures such as Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. Nightingale's implementation of hygiene protocols, improved ventilation, and systematic patient care dramatically reduced mortality rates.

The war also highlighted the need for organized battlefield nursing, paving the way for the establishment of professional nursing as a respected vocation. Nightingale's work influenced the founding of the modern military medical corps and laid the groundwork for the Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross movement.

Political fallout for Russia and the Ottoman Empire

The Treaty of Paris (1856) ended the Crimean War but left deep political wounds, particularly for Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, previously regarded as an unstoppable force in Eastern Europe, suffered a humiliating defeat that exposed its military and logistical shortcomings.

The war spurred Tsar Alexander II to initiate the Great Reforms, including the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 and the modernization of the Russian military. These reforms, while significant, also sowed the seeds of future unrest and revolution.

For the Ottoman Empire, the war briefly strengthened its position as a European power, but it also underscored its dependence on British and French support. The empire's chronic instability and economic weaknesses persisted, contributing to its gradual decline and eventual collapse in the early 20th century.

Enduring cultural legacy

The Crimean War left an indelible mark on literature, art, and memorial culture. Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem The Charge of the Light Brigade immortalized the tragic heroism of British cavalrymen, ensuring that their doomed advance remained a symbol of both courage and folly.

Meanwhile, artists such as Roger Fenton pioneered war photography, providing some of the first visual records of conflict and shaping public perceptions of war.

Memorials to the Crimean War can be found across Europe, particularly in Britain, where statues, plaques, and monuments honor the sacrifices of soldiers. The war's legacy also persists in the many place names and military traditions inspired by its battles and leaders.

The transition to modern warfare

The Crimean War marked a crucial shift from traditional to modern warfare. The use of industrial technology, the importance of logistics, and the role of the press in shaping public opinion all foreshadowed conflicts to come. It was one of the first wars to be extensively covered by newspapers, influencing government decisions and public sentiment in a manner that would become standard in later wars.

Moreover, the Crimean War demonstrated that war was no longer solely about battlefield heroics; it was about endurance, supply chains, and public perception. It highlighted the growing importance of infrastructure, railways, telegraphs, and steam-powered ships, which would become indispensable in future conflicts.

Needless to say, the Crimean War was far more than a conflict of empires vying for influence; it was a turning point in the evolution of warfare, medicine, politics, and culture. It heralded the twilight of the old world and the dawn of a new era defined by industrialized conflict, strategic alliances, and the inexorable advance of technology.

The echoes of Sevastopol's sieges, the lessons learned in battlefield medicine, and the political upheavals it triggered all reverberated through the decades, shaping the course of history in ways its contemporaries could scarcely have imagined.

Militarily, the war exposed the obsolescence of outdated tactics and underscored the necessity of logistical efficiency, mechanized transport, and advanced weaponry, principles that would dominate future conflicts from the American Civil War to the mechanized horrors of the 20th century.

In medicine, it catalyzed a transformation that saved countless lives in subsequent wars, institutionalizing sanitation, organized nursing, and the professionalization of medical care. Politically, it reshaped the balance of power in Europe, compelling Russia to modernize, hastening the Ottoman Empire's decline, and reinforcing the precedent that alliances could determine the fate of nations.

Culturally, it imprinted itself onto literature, photography, and collective memory, immortalizing both its tragedies and its triumphs.

Ultimately, the Crimean War stands as a watershed moment in global history, a conflict fought with the weapons of the past and present, therefore, bearing the hallmarks of the future. It was a war that reshaped the world, not only through the treaties that concluded it but through the profound and lasting transformations it set in motion.

The shadows of Crimea stretched far beyond the battlefields of the 1850s, lingering in the wars, politics, and medical advancements that followed, ensuring that its legacy endures to this day.

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 Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions, the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law, have their origins in the mid-19th century, with their development significantly influenced by the horrors of the Crimean War (1853–1856).

This conflict, exposed severe deficiencies in battlefield medical care and the treatment of wounded soldiers, highlighting the need for international humanitarian protection.

As indicated in the main text the Crimean War was one of the first major conflicts in which mass media, particularly war correspondents and photographers, brought the suffering of soldiers to public attention.

Reports from the front lines described appalling conditions, with thousands of wounded left untreated due to a lack of medical personnel and supplies. The work of figures such as Florence Nightingale and others, who revolutionized military medical care and nursing by improving sanitation and organizing hospitals, underscored the desperate need for standardized and humane treatment of the wounded.

The inefficiency and suffering witnessed during the war deeply influenced the movement towards formalized humanitarian protections. Swiss humanitarian Henry Dunant, inspired by similar horrors he observed during the Battle of Solferino (1859), took up the cause of improving battlefield medical care.

His 1862 book, A Memory of Solferino, argued for the establishment of a neutral medical organization to aid wounded soldiers regardless of nationality. This led to the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863 and, a year later, the signing of the First Geneva Convention in 1864.

While the Geneva Conventions were not directly a product of the Crimean War, the lessons of that conflict, especially the need for better medical care and organized humanitarian efforts, greatly contributed to the momentum that led to their establishment.