Killing the King – The English Civil War

In the final in the English Civil War series of articles, Myra King looks at how the English Civil War progressed, finally leading to King Charles I being put on trial by Oliver Cromwell’s government.

In this series on the English Civil War, we have previously considered the Divine Right of Kings, and Henry VIII and bloody religious change, how the Gunpowder Plot may have been a Protestant-led conspiracy, and Scotland and the lead up to the English Civil War.

“I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me... Warts and everything,”

These were the words of Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell. This inspired the saying, “Warts and All,” meaning taking the bad with the good. Which, when looking at Cromwell, that is exactly what you have to do. Despite having no military and political training he was quickly promoted to one of the principal commanders of the Parliamentary army. He had the support of most of those in the towns and cities, while nobility and landowners backed King Charles I.

Each side gathered more supporters and more hatred until eventually tensions rose too high and complaints were too grievous.

In August 1642, in the town of Nottingham, war was declared against the King who had, one too many times, raised his royal standard and declared his intent to rule England however he saw fit.

Cromwell at the Battle of Naseby, 1645. By Charles Landseer.

WAR

There were only three major battles in the English Civil War: Edge Hill (1642), Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645).

The battle of Edge Hill has the interesting ability to claim no victor. Both sides cried that they were winners but neither really won. The following year saw many more small engagements; the Cavaliers won more often than not. But these battles were not big enough to dent the Parliamentarian army nor make any hedge way to winning the war.

Although it did give Dr William Harvey the ability to camp on the battlefields and study the anatomy of the dead. It is thanks to the fallen soldiers and the brave doctor that we know that blood circulates through the body in a continuous loop. It was at the second major battle, Marston Moor, that the tide began to turn against the King. The Cavalier army had set up camp on a field just west of York. With only an hour left of sunlight, Prince Rupert and the rest of the dukes, settled down to dinner and expected to hunker down for the night once it was done. To them, it seemed preposterous that the Parliamentarians would attack them with the dark night so imminent. This decision proved Royalist stupidity or it showed that Parliamentarians did not practice gentlemanly war.

Either way, before the aristocracy was done with their leg of lamb, the Parliamentarians attacked. The unprepared Cavaliers were slaughtered where they stood. This was the first true victory for the Parliamentarian Roundheads.

Charles had officially lost the north of England.

But the fatal blow came in June 1645 when Cromwell desecrated any hope of victory for the Royalists. They were beaten and broken at the battle of Naseby.

They did not recover and the entire cause was lost.

Charles, ever the sneak, decided to surrender himself to the Scottish rather than Parliament. He was banking on the shaky alliance between Cromwell and the Scots collapsing under this new deceit. He did not bank on the idea that the Scottish were just as sneaky. They simply sold Charles to Parliament for £400,000 in January 1647.

Although, that brought its own problems. What on earth was parliament supposed to do with a defeated king?

Luckily for them, King Charles paved the road to doom all on his own.

RULE BRITANNIA

The song “Rule Britannia” was performed for the first time on August 1, 1740, one hundred years after Charles’s defeat. But the chorus of this patriotic song might as well have been written as the wretched king walked the land.

“Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!”

The English had had enough.

They were done with their tyrant kings who seemed to serve only themselves. The first Civil War had proved how quickly and effectively the people would take up arms against the king.

They would no longer be slaves!

But in November 1647, Charles escaped from Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight. He ran back to the Scots and begged them for an army. This led to the second Civil War. Unfortunately for Charlie, he was easily defeated.

One has to wonder why this was. Were the Scots purposely leading him to his downfall or were they simply just not all that interested in winning, since this would mean continual war with the English? Or was it a simple case of the angry English having so much firepower that the mighty Scots were no match?

Whatever it was, the result was that Charles, now twice defeated, had proved that he could not be trusted. He was tried at Westminster Hall in January 1649. He was found guilty of the crime of “traitorously and maliciously” levying war against Parliament and the people.

THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY

He was executed on January 30, 1649. A king finally cut down for his crimes against England.

It was, of course, the most controversial trial of the century. There were no laws for the trial of a monarch. The English had to bring in a Dutch lawyer who based his work on ancient Roman law. This law stated that a military body (i.e. Parliament) could legally overthrow a tyrant (now you know why so many Roman emperors met their end at the hands of the Praetorian Guard!).

During the trial, Charles refused to recognize the legality of the court. He also refused to take off his hat as a sign of respect to the judges. We assume that he was aiming for an air of royal pride. In reality, all it did was confirm to the judges that Charles was arrogant and dangerous. He was executed on a cold Tuesday afternoon. He had been allowed a last walk through St. James’ Park with his dog. His last meal was a paltry slice of bread and glass of wine. His executioner refused the job at the last moment. And so did his replacement. And his replacement. And also his replacement. And then his replacement. Eventually someone was found and offered £100 for the job. A hefty salary, almost one hundred times the original payment. At 2pm, Charles was led to the block. He wore two shirts as he didn’t want the cold to make him shiver and have that misconstrued as fear.

Once he was dead, spectators stole his blood in superstitious belief of its healing qualities.

On February 6, 1649, the monarchy of England - something that had existed since just after the Roman period - was abolished.

The Civil War was not so much a war as it was a revolution. The beaten masses rose up as one against their tyrannical leader. Some would say that Charles was simply replaced by another tyrant as Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector. Although the Puritan Cromwell abolished Christmas, sport and theatre, he was an extremely popular leader within his own time. He ruled England well and took it from strength to strength. Unfortunately he never had the foresight to lay down a constitution so that his ideas of government, which served the country well, were preserved. These ideas went to the grave with him. Without their Lord Protector, England was simply lost.

Although they had fought a war in order to abolish the monarchy, within years of Cromwell’s death, England invited the royal family back.

Charles’s eldest son, Charles II, became king under one condition: Parliament had the most say in every decision.

Did you enjoy this article? And would you like to read more in-depth history articles? Well, take a look at History is Now Magazine! It is available instantly and is free for at least one month if you subscribe today! And what’s more, there is no obligation to pay anything if you’re not 100% satisfied with the magazine…

Click here for information on the iOS/Apple edition

Click here for information on the Android edition

References

Slimy Stuarts by Terry Deary

www.britannica.com

www.bbc.co.uk/thebishopswar

www.battlefieldstrust.com

www.historyofwar.org

British History by Miles Kelly

Philanthropy in 19th Century Britain – Humble Beginnings

Britain in the nineteenth century was in many ways a dark and discouraging place; however there were shining lights in the gloom of working class life in the form of philanthropists. In this series, Lindsey Buteux will be looking at key philanthropists whose dedication to their cause brought many hundreds of individuals out of poverty and into education, better health, better living conditions and allowed them to experience the life that that their peers did not have access to.

Society did not have a particularly charitable attitude towards the poor so philanthropy at the start of the nineteenth century was not a common sight, but this had greatly changed by the end of the century. A hymn published in 1848 comments upon these social differences: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, and order’d their estate.”

So what makes certain individuals act differently to their peers, why did women such as Angela Burdett-Coutts and men such as Titus Salt, Joseph Rowntree and Charles Dickens challenge the social norm and act above and beyond in the care of the poor? Can we look to these people for inspiration in a society that is becoming increasingly insular and reluctant to be generous and giving of spirit as well as material goods?

Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1814-1906

Angela Burdett-Coutts is the first philanthropist who we will be looking at. Recognized for her charitable work by Queen Victoria in 1871, she was a friend of Charles Dickens and known as ‘Queen of the Poor’, but Burdett-Coutts was not put off by her lack of access to the family business of banking (due to being the last child of six and her gender), and instead channeled her enthusiasm into her philanthropic work.

Angela Burdett-Coutts.

Amongst her charitable donations, Burdett-Coutts supplied Florence Nightingale with the equipment she needed when treating soldiers in the Crimea and thus changed the face of nursing. Burdett-Coutts was concerned with the needs of many and in many areas such as housing, water supply, supporting military wives, child labor and education.

An 1834 report on the Poor Law made it clear that there was a “duty to promote the religious and moral education of the laboring classes” with an emphasis on literacy in order for all people to understand their “responsibilities as citizens”. There had already been plenty of work done in this area through legislation such as Sir Robert Peel’s Factory Act in 1802 which had ensured employers provided instruction in the “Three R’s” during at least some of the seven year apprenticeship however the quality of this instruction varied hugely from factory to factory. It is a wonder that by the 1830s, any form of mass education had been introduced despite the addition of more voters, as the criticism of this mass education was so brutal. MP Davies Giddy comments in 1807 that “it would teach them (laboring classes) to despise their lot in life, it would render them factious and refractory.” He also argued that the cost of this mass education would be “incalculable”.

So we learn that the role of the philanthropist in educating the “laboring classes” is invaluable in not only funding schools for the poor, orphaned and homeless children but in fighting for the cause of education. Burdett-Coutts funded schools and evening classes for children from deprived backgrounds to enable them to learn skills that would enable them to earn a living. Of course, Burdett-Coutts was not the only Victorian citizen interested in children and education. Thomas Barnardo first started his Ragged School in 1867 but just three years later had expanded into providing housing for young boys and developed a ‘no child turned away’ policy after the death of a boy who had been turned away when the shelter was full. Within seven years Barnardo had acquired tens of properties with one of his wedding gifts in 1873 being a 60-acre site to house a Girls Village.

Angela Burdett-Coutts’ giving was not limited to the poor in England, her giving extended into other parts of the Empire by providing vast sums to relieve the suffering in Ireland during the Potato Famine. Not only did she provide goods such as corn, flour, tea and sugar, but she paid for boats and equipment in an attempt to stimulate the fishing industry - something that is considered to be a very modern approach to charity, providing the needy with the tools to better their situation themselves rather than the nineteenth century tradition of giving only what the poor needed when they came begging.

Clearly this charitable nature ran in the family as her father became the first politician to fight against animal cruelty by sponsoring the first act against cruelty to animals brought to the House of Commons. She was made President of the Ladies Committee of the RSPCA in 1870.  Angela Burdett-Coutts also sponsored scientific discovery by sponsoring the Royal Marsden Hospital, David Livingstone in his African exploration and Charles Babbage in his attempts to develop an early computer.

Most significantly, Burdett-Coutts kept her giving discreet as so many of her gifts were donated anonymously. She was one of the wealthiest women of her time and it is estimated that she donated around £350 million.

What encouraged her to become so philanthropic?

So why did this young woman, of massive fortune who was well read and well travelled, decide that she would dedicate her life to improving the lives of others, most of whom she would never meet or interact with? Her contact with politicians such as William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli surely had an impact as despite their opposing political views, both political leaders acted to pass legislation to protect the vulnerable and needy through the allowance of Trade Unions in 1871 and the demolition of slums in 1875 under Gladstone and Disraeli respectively. Most significantly has to be her relationship with Charles Dickens: known philanthropist and author who used his gift to share the situation that disgusted him so greatly and to encourage middle and upper class readers to take on charitable roles. Burdett-Coutts was aware of the problem of prostitution but Dickens had an action plan to create houses for women where they could be taught, become grounded in religion and train them in a steady, firm yet cheerful and hopeful manner. Burdett-Coutts gave Dickens almost “free rein in setting it up” according to author Claire Tomalin.

Burdett-Coutts’ strength of character is shown here as her very close friend, and some would say, lover or even secret husband, guided her against becoming involved with Dickens’ project to house and reform prostitutes. The Duke of Wellington, as explained in one biography: “could not understand her enthusiasm for social reform, for popular education, clearing slums and sewers, all these were outside his comprehension”. The view of the Duke of Wellington was most definitely the popular view and one that her peers would have shared especially with regards to ‘fallen women’ who had allowed themselves to fall to the depths of society and showed no moral fiber as per Victorian values.

Angela Burdett-Coutts is not one of the most well known philanthropists, in part due to her discretion, there are no hospitals named after her or modern charities bearing her name (just one small primary school in central London), but she was surely a pioneer, not only for women but for all nineteenth and twentieth century philanthropists. She did not seek fame and gave away a significant percentage of her vast fortune, she made alliances with key politicians, authors and members of the nobility who all gave her the knowledge that she sought and the opinions she valued, even if she did not agree with them. So, if you are ever in London, take a walk around Victoria Park and spend a moment at the Burdett-Coutts fountain that was generously donated at a cost of £6,000 in 1862 to ensure that people living in the East End of London had access to clean water.

Want to read more? Click here to read our article on the contrasting lives of the rich and poor in Victorian Britain.

References

• http://philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/ 
• http://www.fergys.co.uk/Blogs/BritPMs.php 
• http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/london/122.html
• http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_history/thomas_barnardo.htm
• http://www.coutts.com/private-banking/coutts-institute/philanthropy-and-social-investment/angela-burdett-coutts/#
• http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter02.html#01

A French gift to America. The Statue of Liberty – Image of the week

The Statue of Liberty arrived in America on this day over 125 years ago, so its our image of the week.

The Statue of Liberty is today one of the great symbols of New York city. But it wasn’t always so. The statue was famously built in France before being transported to America. And it arrived today (June 17) in 1885. The statue was designed by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, and was a gift from France to America that was produced having been a vision for many years.

Our image of the week is a lithograph of the statue from 1885, one year before the statue was actually stood upon the plinth on which it was to be placed. In the image, the statue is lit up in gold against the background and in large letters underneath it says:

The great Bartholdi statue,

Liberty enlightening the world,

The gift of France to the American people.

-------------

Now, have you heard of History is Now magazine? If not, click here to find out about a great new interactive history magazine.

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Statue_of_Liberty,_1885#mediaviewer/File:Currier_and_Ives_Liberty2.jpg

The Worst King of England? The Story of George IV

King George IV of England was king for only ten years until his death in 1830, but he made a lasting impression. So much so that some have dubbed him England’s worst king. Georgie Broad explains why…

Upon the death of King George IV of England in 1830, The Times newspaper said of him “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than the deceased king”. Hardly very complimentary, but it was a truth that was felt by the majority of English citizens during his reign and echoed by many historians today. Throughout his tempestuous and turbulent reign, George IV earned a great many enemies and was the butt of many libelous jibes and quips. But just how devastating was his rule, and should he really go down in history as one of the most dismal monarchs in British history?

Mistresses and Marriage

George’s life was not terribly rich in good relationships. He had a strained and poor relationship with his father, King George III, and these rocky relations carried on throughout his life. Even his “extra-curricular” interactions with his mistresses were dysfunctional, and they earned him a lot of unwanted attention. George IV’s father strove to cultivate an era of, as Dr. Steve Parissien puts it, “sexual respectability”, and to reinforce more traditional family values throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s. George IV was able to almost totally subvert his father’s moralistic hard work all by himself… With a little help from his litany of mistresses…

George IV acquired his first mistress at the humble age of seventeen, and was secretly (and illegally) married to one Mrs. Fitzherbert, a staunch Roman Catholic, before he married his wife Caroline of Brunswick. Through these various trysts with other women, George IV ended up fathering a considerable number of children. George did not always keep his mistresses under the radar, and allegedly connected with actresses and members of the aristocracy. This string of affairs led to something of an uncertain and tacky image of the king being created, one that did not sit well with a great many English people at the time. It also stood in stark contrast to the ideals that his father lay out before him.

After much persuasion, and due to the fact he desperately wanted to settle his debts, George married his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in 1795; however the marriage was a train wreck from its beginning to its rather prompt end after the birth of their only child, Princess Charlotte. George may have had problems, but he wasn’t the only one. Caroline rarely washed, was unfit, and so physically repulsive that George turned to copious amounts of alcohol to cope with the idea of marrying her. He was so drunk on their wedding night that he collapsed and remained in that temporary resting place until the next morning. These bad feelings about Caroline were not just confined to the king. Parliament and government disliked her too – to the extent that they offered her £50,000 to stay out of the country, which she hastily ignored before settling in London. Even so, when she was accused of having affairs, she was popular enough with various civilians that they greeted her and her carriage upon its arrival at the House of Lords.

So it seems then that among the dignitaries the marriage was not very popular, although the English people sat a little more on the fence. Alas for George, his problems didn’t confine themselves solely to the women in his life.

A cartoon of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, reflecting popular opinion of the couple.

Regency and Rule

George IV did not walk right into his kingship. When his father was overcome by a recurrent illness, George IV stepped into the position of Prince Regent, something that allowed him rule of the country… in theory. During his regency and rule, George remained fairly disengaged with politics, instead preferring to leave such proceedings to governors and ministers. In doing so, the new ruler was taking a much less active role in government and the ruling of the country than his father before him. This once again proved quite a jarring difference between the new ruler and his father throughout the minds of the English people, and contributed to a social malaise in the country. In terms of representation throughout the United Kingdom, George IV visited Ireland and Scotland on state visits for the first time in many years. This of course promoted a sense of unity among the United Kingdom; however, in England, George IV was still leaving a lot to be desired.

Instead of looking toward the ruling of the country, George turned his attention to matters of style and culture, echoes of which can still be found in architecture today. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens disliked George IV’s reckless spending, his extravagant coronation was popular throughout the country, and helped him on his reign-long development of the more dramatic, theatrical and pageant-like side of monarchy that we can still see in the international aristocracy today. But his careless and excessive spending did not always strike such a chord in the nation…

The regal and wonderful coronation of George IV.

Drinking, Debt and Dining

The aforementioned debt that drove George to marry Caroline was beyond extensive. Before he became king, his debts reached heights of £630,000 in 1795, which equates to around £55,111,000 today, according to Michael De La Noy in his Pocket Biography of the King. Although various grants were available to help George IV out of his debts, the situation did little to ameliorate his public image. He instead created an image of a lavish and wasteful big spender to add to his womanizing ways, which often left the English public cold, especially due to the less than plentiful economic position of the country at the time.

One of the main things that George liked to spend his money on was drink and good food, a trend that persisted for the entirety of his reign. Toward the end of his rule, his health deteriorated so badly that he didn’t like to make many, if any, public appearances due to the public reactions to his weight though. Not only did these health problems lead to a rapid and irreversible deterioration in George IV’s public image, but it also had severe repercussions on his health. With the litany of health problems that dogged the latter years of the monarch’s life, from gout to suspected mental instability, the king didn’t so much as go out with a royal and regal bang, but instead something of an underwhelming fizzle.

A famous caricature by James Gillray showing George IV in his later, less flattering years

Legacy

Nowadays, we often praise and venerate Georgian style, from clothes to architecture and customs; however the monarch who created many of these trends has gone down in history as one of the worst that Britain has known. Positive reviews can be found of George IV, for example those of the Duke of Wellington, crediting him as “the most accomplished man of his age”, although you need to look through a lot of negative reactions first, including another from the Duke of Wellington detailing how George IV was in fact “the worst man he ever fell in with his whole life”. Contradictory, critical and downright cruel most of the time, accounts from during and many years after the reign of George IV have perpetuated an image of a useless, lazy, and unfit king; being petulant, easily swayed and irresponsible to boot. In that light, we must re-examine George IV and ask ourselves: is it fair to go as far as dubbing him the worst King of England?

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

Image sources

http://www.historic-uk.com/assets/Images/carolinesecretaryvalet.jpg?1390900293

http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/CoronationService.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3518/3640/1600/Gillray_Voluptuary_051126.0.jpg

How the Victorians used Opium

The dangers of opium were not fully understood in the Victorian period. And this led to the not too uncommon consumption of laudanum, a drink that contained opium. Here we introduce you to laudanum in the Victorian Age.

Lord Byron, famed opium user, in Albanian clothes. Painting by Thomas Phillips, 1813.

If you think drug addiction is a recent problem, think again. When I read Frankenstein recently I discovered that Doctor Victor Frankenstein used laudanum (an alcoholic tincture of opium). A drink of laudanum was made of approximately 10% opium and 90% alcohol, and flavored with cinnamon or saffron. It was first used by the ancient Greeks, and in the nineteenth century was mostly used as a painkiller, sleeping pill, or tranquilizer. It was cheaper then poppy oil and could be drunk like you’d drink scotch. It took a while for the Victorians to understand the negative side effects though. Indeed, it was only in 1919 that the production and export of opium was prohibited, and in 1928 a law was passed that prohibited its use.

Wikipedia’s list of laudanum-users is so incredibly long, it makes no sense to copy it. Here are some notable users: Lord Byron (of course!), Kate Chopin (from The Story of an Hour), Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Keats, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, and Edgar Allan Poe.In literature, it is mentioned in a number of books.Mary Shelley’s character Victor Frankenstein uses laudanum to help him sleep after the death of his friend, Henry Clerval.In Jack Finney’s Time and Again, the main character, Si Morley, wonders if a live baby in an 1882 display case has been “doped up with one of the laudanum preparations I’d seen advertised in Harpers.”The character Cassy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin kills one of her children with laudanum to prevent it from growing up as a slave.In Charles Dickens’ novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood it is the drink of choice for the sinister uncle Jasper.In Bram Stoker’s Dracula Lucy Westenra’s maids are poisoned (though not killed) by Dracula with a dose of laudanum put into wine.And Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote the poem fragment Kubla Khan immediately after waking up from a laudanum-induced dream.

So, it was a rather popular drug. In fact, innumerable Victorian women were prescribed the drug for relief of menstrual cramps and vague aches and used it to achieve the pallid complexion associated with tuberculosis (frailty and paleness were particularly prized in females at the time). Nurses also spoon-fed laudanum to infants. Finally, and sadly, the Pre-Raphaelite muse Elizabeth Siddal died of a laudanum overdose.

This article is provided by Geerte de Jong from 19thcentury.wordpress.com.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below...

References

http://www.jellinek.nl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum 

Anne Frank – Image of the week

Our image of the week is of Anne Frank, who was born on June 12, 1929.

Most of us know Anne Frank, the girl who hid with her family from the Nazis in Amsterdam for two years in an attic during World War II. Ultimately she was betrayed and sent to a concentration camp where she died. She is one of the better-known of the approximately six million victims of the Holocaust. Anne’s diary, The Diary of a Young Girl, was published after the war – and that in large part explains why she is so well known.

Anne is the image of the week in recognition that she was born on June 12 1929 – she would have been 85 today. Our image shows a smiling Anne standing against a wall with her shadow in the background. A warm but also incredibly poignant photo.

You can read an article from the blog entitled ‘The Face of Anne Frank and the Holocaust’ by clicking here.

Image source: http://www.annefrank.org/en/Anne-Frank/All-people/Anne-Frank

Sargon’s Ghost – An ancient ruler in the Middle East and the modern age

Robert Van Ness tells us about Sargon, an ancient ruler in the Middle East, and how his style of rule lingers on in the region to this day.

Ancient History most certainly still has an influence in today’s world. Though names like Suppililiuma and Ukkin Umash mean almost nothing to anyone outside of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, other names such as Sargon of Akkad have a lingering influence. What lessons could be, better should be, learned from Sargon and his influence?

An ancient facemask believed to be Sargon's of Akkad.

EARLY LIFE

Not much is known about Sargon's early life. Sargon, or Saru Kinnu, seems to have been illegitimately born to a priestess. According to chronicled legends, he became cupbearer to Ur-Zababa until the king had a dream that Sargon killed the then king. Ur-Zababa, frightened, ordered Sargon to be killed, but Sargon heroically escaped this attempt. Ur-Zababa sent word to Lugal-zage-si, King of Uruk, by way of Sargon to have Sargon killed upon arrival. The rest of the story is lost, but Sargon was not killed. Perhaps the goddess, Innana, saved him, as other legends surrounding Sargon state. Regardless, not much credence is given to early stories surrounding Sargon’s life, nor is much given to legends after his death, because the Sumerian King lists are notoriously exaggerated. Regardless, the fact that Sargon lived is certain, and he set the Ancient Near East onto a course directly affecting the modern world.

Map showing Sargon's power-base, Akkad, and his raids into Mesopotamia.

Sargon did eventually kill the reigning king, and took the Akkadian throne for himself. He claimed to have built Akkad, or Agade, though this is again an exaggeration. Akkad was around before Sargon became king and is associated with Nimrod according to the Genesis account. Sargon, however, did make Akkad into a magnificent city, and the capital of the world’s first major warrior empire. Sumer was around, as was Nineveh, and Ur, but it was Sargon who sent armies to conquer surrounding territory. His modicum was, “join my empire for protection”; the alternative was death and destruction. Uruk and Umma found this out the difficult way. Sargon razed both cities to the ground when they refused his ‘invitation.’ From there, Sargon invaded all of southern Mesopotamia.

Sumer was a large prize to Sargon, and he made certain that it would not be lost. In order to maintain control of the region, he set more than 5,000 administrators to take charge of the many Sumerian cities such as Ur, Uruk, and Eridu. He made Sumerian the world language by spreading Sumerian cuneiform throughout the known world. Trade routes and connections became Akkadian, and continued along older Sumerian passages, which included India and Egypt. Upon the face of it, Sargon seems to have been rather fair with Sumer, but he was ruthlessly brutal at times. One example is how he destroyed Kazalla so completely that “birds could not find a place to land.” Sumerians were also not allowed to rule in the Akkadian government. Only Akkadians were allowed to occupy those positions.

EVEN GREATER POWER

Sargon, happy but insatiable, did not rest content with Sumerian annexation. He began to raise new armies throughout Mesopotamia. He used these forces when the Elamites invaded Akkad by beating back the invasion. He then invaded Elam himself, and captured Susa, Barhashe, and Awan, forcing the subjected peoples into his rapidly expanding empire. With lands to the south and east conquered, Sargon turned his attention toward Taurus, modern Turkey, northern Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. He conquered these lands rather easily, and created a trade network that brought silver, gold, iron, and cedar into Akkad. Akkadian power was now over most of the Fertile Crescent as was seen through this trade network, which spanned much of the known world from Eastern Europe to North Africa to India. Akkadian customs – language, religion, art, architecture – were spread along the trade routes, and became the standard for almost two millennia until the Greeks and Persians established their mighty empires.

Enheduanna, Sargon's famous priestess daughter, who is depicted in the typical god-like fashion of the era.

Other ancient kings, such as the Babylonian Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar, studied Sargon faithfully, and based their conquests on his legends, thus establishing a lengthy tradition of powerful men ruling in their own right. Other Middle Eastern potentates up to the modern era have also drawn much from these ancient roots. Their subjected peoples view such rulers positively, as it is in their lengthy history to be ruled by such powerful men. Democratic forms of government, as a result, are often viewed as ignoble, untrustworthy, and almost contemptible by comparison to strong, centralized government. What is respectable is might, and the Middle East certainly has a history of mighty rulers descending from Sargon’s tradition. Sargon died around 2215 BC, but his influence did not. In fact, his ghost is still seen from time to time in many of the Middle Eastern potentates, who rise to govern the many thriving Middle Eastern nations.

Did you enjoy this article? If so, tell the world. Please like the article, share it, or tweet about it by clicking one of the buttons below.

Fascists falling out? How Italian Fascists discriminated against Germans in the inter-war years

Helen Saker-Parsons tells us the story of how Mussolini’s Italy systematically undermined Germans in South Tyrol, a region of Italy with a German majority – at a time when Italy and Germany were close Fascist allies. The article looks at Italian ethnic cleansing, the ban on the German language, the land of stolen treasure and counterfeit pounds.

In 1920s Europe, fascism was gathering strength. In Germany, the National Socialists were winning support on the basis of their belief in German superiority. Hitler published Mein Kampf in 1925 and wrote of the supremacy of the Aryan race. But in one German-speaking region of Europe all references to the German language were banned. This was not a socialist or communist led country, hostile to the ideas of Fascism: this was Fascist Italy. The region itself had removed its Germanic title of South Tyrol and had reinvented itself as Alto Adige. For 500 years it had belonged to Austria but after the First World War and the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919, Tyrol had been divided in two and the southern part handed to the Italians as ‘spoils of war’ in gratitude for Italy’s co-operation with the Allies during the war. Thus began a twenty-five year period in its history which saw it experience ethnic cleansing, local martyrs, and concentration camps - and ended as it became a dumping ground for Nazi lootings and the home to the production of counterfeit British pounds.

Following the rise of Fascism and Benito Mussolini in 1922, a policy of Italianization in the area was introduced, driven by Italian ultra-nationalists, such as Senator Ettore Tolomei who on July 15, 1923, presented his 32-point program for Italianization: Provvedimenti per l'Alto Adige ("Measures for the Alto Adige"), which he claimed was aimed “to clean the area which had been polluted by strangers for centuries.” Mussolini said in February 1926: “We shall Italianize this territory, because it is Italian, geographically and historically.” In fact 70% of the population spoke German and only 25% Italian. Amongst the measures were: the introduction of Italian as the only official language; the establishment of Italian kindergartens and schools; the dismissal of German-speaking civil servants and teachers; a complete stop on German immigration in South Tyrol; Italian as the juridical language; the closure of German banks; the Italianization of the names of places (towns, roads, rivers, mountains etc. – except Gries) as well as the Italianization of Germanized family names, with the list of new names being printed in 1926 in the Gazetta Ufficiale. Tolomei acquired the nickname ‘grave digger’ as he also proposed prohibiting the use of German in cemeteries and ordered that German words should be deleted from gravestones.

Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler together in Munich, Germany. 1937.

A BATTLE OF IMPLEMENTATION

These measures met with varying degrees of success. The settlement of Italians from other regions was encouraged through the building of thousands of new houses, especially in Bolzano. However the tricky terrain of high mountains and deep valleys hindered repopulation and prevented the new arrivals, especially from the south, warming to their new environment. The planned substitution of the German clergy with Italians failed because of the opposition from the Vatican. Another move that met with opposition was the ban on teaching in German - either in schools or in private lessons. School books were ‘cleansed’ of everything referring to German customs, traditions or history. The singing of German ‘Lieder’ was considered dangerous to the Kingdom of Italy. German teachers were systematically dismissed on the grounds of ‘insufficient didactica’, or transferred to the south, from where Italian teachers were recruited instead. One vehement critic of this policy was the priest, Canon Michael Gamper, long time editor of the newspaper Volksbote. In 1925 he used his paper to call for a continuation of German education, writing that it was their duty to imitate the early Christians who found refuge in the catacombs of Rome.

The clandestine establishments he encouraged became known as ‘Katakombenschulen’ or ‘catacomb schools’. A shortfall in suitable teachers was overcome by recruiting young women, without families or responsibilities. The first group of 25 teachers received training in Bolzano in 1925 under the auspice that they were part of a sewing circle. More young girls were approached until around 500 volunteers were eventually trained, usually by local clergymen and often in secret. Most of the teaching took place in barns, attics, kitchens or ‘stube’- the living rooms of rural houses. Up to five children at a time, sometimes 30 per day, received instruction in reading and writing in German. Often girls would arrive with knitting to disguise their true intentions but would leave having learned a new Tyrolean song. Books of fairy tales and songs were supplied by German cultural societies, and were smuggled from Austria, hidden in religious buildings and then taken from school to school. For the children of the catacomb schools, who also attended Italian public schools, there was a confusion of identity that lingered long in to their lives. 

After initial difficulties, secret seminars for the instruction of teachers were organized throughout the province, usually under the protection of the Catholic Church and from 1931 were also held as far afield as Munich. Despite the risks, there were many prepared to take them. One such teacher, Angela Nikoletti, has been hailed as a regional Joan of Arc. She received several warnings to stop but continued to teach undeterred. She was arrested on May 14, 1927 and sentenced to 30 days in prison. During her imprisonment she contracted tuberculosis, which worsened when she was banished from her home community on her release and forced to hide in a cave. Only once her weak condition had been diagnosed was she allowed to return home to live with her aunt. However, she was to die from her illness and her death created an almost myth-like legacy. In October 1930 her funeral turned in to a public rally and five years later a newspaper wrote:  “She had given her life for her homeland. Her German heart could bear no bonds.”

RESISTANCE

Between 1928 and 1939 various resistance groups formed to fight the fascist Italian regime and its policy of suppressing the German language. Catholic media and associations resisted the forced integration under the protection of the Vatican. The underground resistance movement, the Völkischer Kampfring Südtirols, was formed by a Nazi Party member and tailor from Bolzano, Peter Hofer. Then on October 21, 1939, Mussolini reached an agreement with Hitler that all inhabitants had until December 31, 1939 to choose between remaining in the region, accepting complete Italianization, or emigrating to Nazi Germany (including annexed Austria), the so-called "Option für Deutschland" (option for Germany). The population was deeply divided. Those who wanted to stay (Dableiber) were condemned as traitors; those who left (Optanten), the majority, were defamed as Nazis. Hitler commented on a plan to relocate the ‘Optanten’ to Crimea (annexed to Greater Germany) in 1942: “the transport of South Tyrolese to Crimea offers no special physical or psychological difficulties. They need only make a voyage down a German stream, the Danube, and they’d be right there”. But most were to be resettled in German-annexed western Poland.

The National Socialists put their successful propaganda machine into action, launching a campaign to encourage the South Tyrolean population to ‘opt’ for resettlement. Lies were deliberately spread amongst the people to incite hatred against one another, resulting in entire families being ripped apart and resentments resonating for many decades. The majority of people succumbed to Nazi pressure with 86% choosing resettlement - thus began a program of ‘ethnic cleansing’. The Optanten banded together in the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Optanten für Deutschland (Association of optants for Germany or ADO) that was founded on January 30, 1940 under the ubiquitous Peter Hofer. Those who chose to stay, the Dableiber, mainly banded together around local Catholic priests. The first families left their homeland in 1939, and up to 1943 a total of around 75,000 South Tyroleans emigrated (the original numbers curtailed by the outbreak of war), of which 50,000 returned after the war.

SWEET REVENGE?

In September 1943 Mussolini was deposed and Italy surrendered to the Allies who had invaded the country from the south. From the north the German Wehrmacht poured in its troops. On September 10, 1943 the Operation Zone of the Alpine Foothills was established, incorporating South Tyrol. The ADO was dissolved and joined with the Deutsche Volksgruppe. Peter Hofer was chosen as the Volksgruppenführer. Many German-speaking South Tyroleans, who had suffered years of linguistic oppression and discrimination by Fascist Italy, wanted revenge upon the ethnic Italians living in the area, particularly in the larger cities. There were also attempts to arrest fleeing Italian soldiers and attacks on the Dableiber. However, wide scale retribution was discouraged by the occupying Nazis who feared alienating Mussolini and the Italian Fascists. The man once described by Hitler as a ‘strutting peacock’ had been rescued from his high altitude imprisonment on the Gran Sasso by German paratroopers and had been instated as the puppet head of an Italian Social Republic in Salo. One sector of the community not considered safe, however, was the Jewish population, especially the large contingent of foreign Jews living in Merano. On September 16, 1943, the Nazis sent the first group of Merano Jews to Auschwitz.

Owing to its mountainous terrain and its remoteness, the region managed to escape much of the fighting between Allied and German forces as the former swept through the country. But the history of this tranquil region remained troubled. In summer 1944, a concentration camp was established in Bolzano, hosting around 11,000 prisoners. The area also became an extension of Switzerland as a dumping ground for Nazi lootings. The US 88th Infantry Division which occupied South Tyrol from May 2, 1945 uncovered vast amounts of precious items and looted art treasures. Among the items reportedly found were railway wagons filled with gold bars, hundreds of thousands of meters of silk, the Italian crown jewels, King Victor Emmanuel's personal collection of rare coins, and scores of works of art looted from art galleries such as the Uffizi in Florence. Furthermore, from this mountainous area, the Nazis attempted to wreck the British economy. Castello Schloss Labers (located above Merano) was used by an SS Task Force for ‘Operation Bernhard’, a plan to undermine the British economy by the mass production of fake pound notes using inmates of concentration camps as counterfeiters.

Fears the Germans might use the region as a last-ditch stronghold to fight to the bitter end were not forthcoming and following the German surrender in May 1945 Austria and Italy came to an agreement ratified under the Paris Peace Treaty that Austria would give up its claim to the region on the condition that Italy took steps to redress some of the cultural damage perpetrated under Fascism. None of the ADO leaders were tried for their crimes. Peter Hofer himself was killed during an Allied bombing raid on Bolzano in December 1943. Amongst the plethora of wreaths sent to his funeral was one from Hitler. Alto-Adige is now the wealthiest province of Italy, proud of its bi-lingualism, its diverse architecture, culture and traditions, yet for some the divisions are still raw and its troubled history too recent.

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The fascinating book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Helen has also written a historical fiction book related to World War I, Searching for Cecil. It is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

 

As always, your feedback is welcome below. Alternatively, like the article, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the links below.

References

http://www.accenti.ca/online-archive/rocky-roads-northern-italy-s-jewish-heritage-by-deborah-rubin-fields

South Tyrol: A Minority Conflict of the Twentieth Century By Rolf Steininger

http://www.fembio.org/english/biography.php/woman/print_bio/angela-nikoletti

A Comparative Study of the Northern League, Plaid Cymru, the South Tyrolese People‟s Party and the Scottish National Party Emanuele Massetti

 http://www.roughguides.com/destinations/europe/italy/trentino-alto-adige/italianization-tyrol/#ixzz32uPFtv8t

The Italian Military Governorship in South Tyrol and the Rise of Fascism  By Giuseppe Motta

 The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley  By John W. Cole, Eric R. Wolf

Food and drink in 17th and 18th century inns and alehouses

Janet Ford takes a light-hearted look at inns and alehouses in 17th and 18th century Britain by reviewing the diaries of three travellers who experienced them.

Inns and alehouses were and are one of the most important buildings in towns and villages, as they are places to socialize, have a meal, discuss various matters of the day, and - for some people - to get drunk. Two important elements of the inn are food and drink. I am going to be looking at the food and drink that was sold in 17th and 18th century inns and what travellers, who used inns, thought of them. To do this I am going to be looking at travel diaries, notably the diaries of Celia Fiennes, who travelled around England in the 1690s, John Byng, who travelled around England and Wales between 1781 and 1794 and Karl Moritz, who was German, and travelled in 1782.

The Ale-House Door, a painting by Henry Singleton. c. 1790.

Food in Inns

In terms of what they had to eat, all three travellers had, bread, mutton and cheese. Celia Fiennes also had salmon, trout, eggs, bacon and West Country tarts. John Byng wrote that he ate veal, fruit tart, chicken, cake, beef streak, sage cheese, pigeon, cabbage, cucumbers, salad with cheese, cold meats, rice pudding, gooseberry pie, beef, pig, fowls, partridge and scotched collops. Finally, Karl Moritz also ate roast meats, salad, pickled salmon, Cheshire cheese, fowl and cold meats.

These lists of food show a variety of aspects about the food in inns. It shows that inns offered a variety of food, as the list includes meats, fish, dairy products, vegetables and desserts. The type of food on offer also indicates that the most common foods in inns were bread, cheese, fish and meats, as they were written about the most. It also illustrates that food in inns between the late 17th and late 18th century did not change that much, as all three travellers wrote about similar foods.

The Quality of the Food

The travellers also commented on the quality of the food and what they thought of it. Of course opinions are different between people, as people have different tastes, but their opinions still give us an idea of what the food was like. It seems that all three travellers had good and enjoyable meals with good quality food as well as some not so nice meals. An example of a good meal is shown with Celia Fiennes at an inn in Lancashire: “At the Kings arms, one Mrs. Rowlandson, she does pot up the Charr fish the best of any in the Country”. (1)

An example of a poor meal can be seen with John Byng in an inn in Silsoe, Bedfordshire: “The chops at last burnt up and our bad dinner came in”. (2) Another example of a poor meal is illustrated with Karl Moritz at an in inn Cheshire: “Cheshire cheese roasted and half melted at the fire. This, in England it seems, is reckoned good eating, but, unfortunately for me, I could not touch a bit of it”. (3)  A possible reason why the German Karl Moritz did not enjoy some of his meals could have been down to his lack of experience and knowledge of English food.

These views suggest that food was of a mixed quality in inns; some inns took food seriously as they produced good food, while other inns cooked poorly and food was not at the center or seen as important.

Drinks in inns

The drinks sold in inns included beer, ale, wine, brandy, port and other sprits. Alehouses sold beer, ale and - in the 18th century, spirits - The difference between ale and beer is hops, as ale was made from just malted barley and beer was made from malted barley and hops. Hops made beer a lighter drink compared to ale. In terms of what the travellers drank, Celia Fiennes experienced wine, beer and ale, John Byng drank ale, beer, brandy, port and wine, and Karl Moritz drank ale. It seems that it was not until the 18th century that sprits became popular in inns, as Celia Fiennes, who travelled in the 17th century, did not write about them at all.

The Quality of the Drinks

The quality of the drinks for the English travellers was mixed; there were both good quality drinks and poor quality drinks. An example of a good drink can be seen with Celia in an inn in Nottingham: “Att ye Crown Inn is a Cellar of 60 stepps down, all in ye Rock Like arch worke over your head: in ye Cellar I dranke good ale”. (4) An example of a poor drink is shown with John Byng at an inn in Dover: “not-drinkable wine!” (5)

The view of the drinks from Karl Moritz was quite different from the two other travellers. He had not tried English ale before and had evidently not got used to the taste of it. He wrote of a Derby inn, the “strong ale of England did not at all agree with me”. (3)

The two natives show that the quality of the drinks was mixed, as many inns had good drinks, while there were a few with bad drinks. Interestingly, even though drinks were at the heart of many inns, some inns still produced or sold poor quality drinks. And the fact that the German traveller found the ale too strong indicates that a person had to get used to English ale before they could truly enjoy it.

These travellers tell us a great deal about food and drink. They first show the variety of food and drink on offer. They secondly show that, much like today, the quality of the food and drink was slightly mixed. Finally, even though some inns had poor food and drink, most inns were of a good quality and were enjoyed by most travellers.

Do you want to know more about food and drink in history? Well if you have an iOS/Apple device or an Android device, download issue 4 of History is Now Magazine to read a great article on 19th century food.

Click here for Apple/iOS | Click here for Android

(1) Celia Fiennes, Through England on a Side Saddle in the Time of William and Mary, (The Leadenhall Press, 1888), 1698 Tour: Lancaster to Carlisle, visionofbritain.org.uk/travellers/Fiennes/23

(2) John Byng, The Torrington Diaries: Containing the Tours Through England And Wales of the Hon. John Byng (Later Fifth Viscount Torrington) Between the Years 1781 and 1794, (Henry Holt and Company, 1938), A Tour of Bedfordshire, May 1794, visionofbritain.org.uk/travellers/Byng/4

(3) Karl Moritz, Travels in England in 1782, (Cassell and Company, 1886), Chapter 11: Oxford to Derbyshire, visionofbritain.org.uk/travellers/Moritz/12

(4) Celia Fiennes, Through England on a Side Saddle in the Time of William and Mary, (The Leadenhall Press, 1888), 1697 Tour: London to Yorkshire, visionofbritain.org.uk/travellers/Fiennes/12

(5) John Byng, The Torrington Diaries: Containing the Tours Through England And Wales of the Hon. John Byng (Later Fifth Viscount Torrington) Between the Years 1781 and 1794, (Henry Holt and Company, 1938),  A Tour of Kent, 1790, visionofbritain.org.uk/travellers/Byng/3

Simply D-day – Image of the week

Our image of the week is from D-Day.

June 6 1944 was the day of the famous D-Day landings. They were of course the start of the Western assault that would help to topple Hitler. And in commemoration of the 70th anniversary on Friday, our image of the week is of those landings.

The image above shows British troops landing on the beach in Normandy, France on June 6, 1944. It somehow captures the drama of the day – troops dashing about and moving on to the beach amid a scene of seemingly organized chaos. The image is from the MOD and is available here.

Now, please share the image by clicking one of the buttons below!