Could a war pig really defeat a war elephant? – Amazing history

Horses were commonplace for many years in armies, but their use receded in the twentieth century. Even so, throughout history a variety of other animals have been involved in wars. Here Adrian Burrows shares the incredible tale of a battle between a war pig and a war elephant.

Ever since humans realized that riding a horse into battle was much more effective than running on their own feet, animals have been an effective and potent game changer in war. For Alexander the Great, the horse proved vital in carving out his empire in the ancient world. Alexander’s ‘Companian’ cavalry would charge forward in a wedge formation, their maneuverability allowing them to be the hammer to the foot infantry’s anvil and proving decisive in battles across Asia.

The use of the horse in warfare has continued to been seen in history, transitioning from use as cavalry to the transport of artillery after the invention of gunpowder and increasingly more effective long-range weaponry. But everyone knows about the horse in the use of warfare; what I want to share is the use of slightly more bizarre animals.

A depiction of the mighty war elephant.

Pigs and Elephants

Pigs versus elephants. It would be an odd match up that’s for certain, so first it’s important to clarify why pigs would be fighting elephants in the first place. Around the fourth century BC (no one’s particularly sure when) some bright spark in India decided that fighting while sat on an elephant would be a good idea. Indeed the general thoughts of Indian Kings at the time were that, “an army without elephants is as despicable as a forest without a lion, a kingdom without a king or as velour unaided by weapons.”

The sheer mass and thick hide of an elephant meant that they could not easily be stopped by the spears of infantry (unlike the much smaller horse); elephants can also reach a rather astonishing top speed of 25 miles per hour. Imagine, if you will, fifteen elephants charging towards you at almost the same speed as Usain Bolt (his top speed being 27.44mph) - it would certainly leave quite an impression on anyone in their way, both physically and (if you managed to walk away from it alive) mentally.

This already formidable creature was then enhanced with weapons and armor. In India and Sri Lanka heavy iron balls were chained to the trunk of elephants, which the animal was then trained to twirl and swirl with great dexterity and skill. Kings of Khmer utilized the elephants as mobile artillery, placing giant crossbow platforms on their backs that could fire long armor piercing shafts at the enemy.

So as you had a 4,500 kg mace wielding and arrow firing elephant, what exactly could stop it? The answer was not a lot; the elephant was the tank of ancient times. Even Alexander the Great respected the power of the war elephant, praying to the god of fear before going into battle against them for the first time at the battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC, and ultimately incorporating them into his own army as his campaign continued.

So how could a pig possibly hope to defeat an elephant?

The world found out during the War of the Diadochi, in which Alexander the Great’s generals fought over his empire after his death. The battle in question was the Megara siege in 266 BC, in which Antigonus II Gonatus advanced upon the city with a vast army, including a great number of formidable war elephants. The Megarians had to break the siege at any cost but how could they possibly hope to defeat such a vast and mighty army?

Enter the war pig. Just let that thought settle for a moment.

War pigs.

First question, why even think of sending a pig to go and fight an elephant? Well, the Siege of Megara was not the first time that it happened nor was it originally the Megarians idea to do such a thing. Instead it was Pliny the Elder (the Roman author, naturalist and natural philosopher) who determined that “elephants are scared by the smallest squeal of the hog” which led to Romans utilizing squealing pigs and rams to repel the War Elephants of Pyrrhus in 275 BC. For the Megarians under siege, sending war pigs to attack war elephants didn’t seem nearly bizarre or dangerous enough. Instead they coated their war pigs in a flammable resin and set them on fire. The war pig had just become the incendiary pig. The Megarians drove the flaming pigs towards the massed ranks of war elephants in a screaming, squealing cacophony of angry burning pork. Despite the forceful commands of the mahouts (drivers) sat upon them, the elephants bolted. They ran back through their own ranks, crushing both man and horse and effectively crippling Antigonus II Gonatus’ forces in just a few moments.

The pig had been victorious. In the battle of war pig versus war elephant it was clear who the champion was.

Final Thoughts

So why did the war pig not catch on? Why is it not known throughout the world as an animal used in battles and to takes its place alongside horse, dog, cat, pigeon, and elephant?

Well the problem with a flaming war pig is that they have a relatively short range, about 400 feet, before the flames consume them. The other problem is that once you’ve set a pig on fire it is really rather tricky to tell them where to go (I don’t recommend you try it at home as a barbecuing technique). There was just as much chance that the war pig would dash through friendly forces as enemy forces, causing fires and chaos for both sides.

So, the memory of the war pig has faded somewhat over the last two thousand years. But that’s the wonderful thing about history, it’s all still there waiting to be discovered. And you have discovered it, now you know how a pig came to defeat an elephant.

Adrian Burrows works at Wicked Workshops, an organization that prepares and delivers great history workshops in schools around the UK. Find out more about their World War One: A Soldier’s Life workshop here: http://www.wickedworkshops.co.uk/#/world-war-1/4574301563.

References

http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/human-body/2012/06/how-fast-is-usain-bolt.aspx

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant#cite_note-64

Tudor tales – Was Jane Boleyn responsible for deaths in her family?

Jane Boleyn, the wife of George Boleyn and sister-in-law to Anne Boleyn, is often portrayed as a wicked and jealous woman who was instrumental in the downfall and death of both her sister-in-law Anne, and her husband George. But is that the case? Is she the villainous woman that she is made out to be? There is evidence to suggest that she is not. Jennifer Johnstone explains…

Jane’s life

Jane Boleyn was born Jane Parker, to Henry Parker, 10th Baron Morley, and mother Alice in 1505. She came from a wealthy upper class family. Her father was an intellectual, a lover of books and writing. Little is known about her mother. There is speculation about Jane’s early life in Julia Fox’s Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford, but little solid evidence.

The first documented evidence we have about Jane is when she comes to the royal court as a teenager, and serves Catherine of Aragon. Her exact date of her arrival is not documented though. Unfortunately, we do not know what Jane truly looked like either, as there is no official portrait of her. Fox gives us a portrait in her book of what Jane might have looked like though.

Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford.

Scapegoat or villain?

In Fox’s book, she argues that Jane was history’s scapegoat, rather than an instrumental player in the downfall of her family members. Some other contemporary historians disagree with this, arguing that rather Jane was to blame for the executions of her family members.

As there is limited evidence, we have to work with what few sources we have about Jane. First let us see the evidence for Jane as a villain.

Villain

Jane has always been thought of as the woman who gave evidence to Thomas Cromwell about George and Anne having an affair, or Anne having an affair - depending on the source. There is evidence to say that Jane Boleyn spoke out about her husband during court proceedings. But there is no clear evidence for what Jane actually said, or, what her motivation was for saying whatever she said about her husband. So, if we don’t know what Jane said, we can’t condemn her for this. There is also no record of Jane saying anything about her alleged role in their downfall. Some have speculated that Jane gave this evidence in spite towards her husband for having affairs. But, is there any truth to these claims?

Let’s take the example of George’s alleged affairs. There is a poem called Metrical Visions about a womanizing young man - the young man is said to be George Boleyn. Even if this poem is accurate - that George had extra-marital affairs - there is nothing to suggest that there was friction between his and Jane’s marriage. Indeed, Julia Fox argues that the marriage between Jane and George was not an unhappy one! Of course, if there were affairs, Jane would have had a reason to be jealous, and that could have been her reason to give evidence against her own husband at the court trials. But even if it were true that George had an affair, or a string of affairs, at the time, it was the done thing in this age; it was common for men to have mistresses. So, if he did have affairs, it would not have got George into terrible trouble; it would have got a woman into trouble though.

However, there is evidence to suggest that Jane was instrumental in the Boleyn’s downfall. This evidence comes from the Bishop Burnet. Bishop Burnet claims he had access to primary sources, which show Jane’s role in the downfall of her own family. The source says, ‘’Jane carried many stories to the King or some about him (George) to the King.’’ There was further evidence Jane allegedly gave to the King, and that was that ‘’there was a familiarity between the queen, and her brother, beyond what so near a relationship could justify.’’

There are several problems with this source. One, there is no evidence from anyone else about this source documented, not from the King, Cromwell, or Chaupys. If this was true, it would have been well known within the court, and it would have at least been recorded by one other person – notably Chaupys as he documented many events and was well aware of court activities. A second reason to not believe this source is that it is from several decades after Jane was executed. A third, and final reason why I believe this source is not accurate is because there is little evidence of these primary sources that Burnet claimed to have.

Even people who argue against Jane, who argue she was responsible for the downfall of her husband and sister-in-law, admit that many details are unknown about her. This tells us that because we know so little about Jane, it is unwise to call her names such as ‘vindictive’ ‘wicked’, and ‘spiteful’.

Victim

It is equally plausible that Jane might have been innocent of the accusations that have been placed against her.

There were many noble women who gave evidence at the trials, not just Jane; there is nothing to say that it was her testimony that brought the axe down on her family. The ever reliable Chaupys does not tell us it was Jane who gave the damning evidence. In fact, he does not name anyone. He just says ‘’that person’’, was to blame for the downfall. I think it’s important to take Chaupys as a reliable source here as he championed Lady Mary’s return to court when it would have been in his interests to name and shame a Boleyn, because of the religions fraction between the Protestant Boleyns, and the Catholic Mary. Wouldn’t Chaupys want to stir up trouble for the Boleyns? After all, this was not a man shy of his words - he called Queen Anne ‘’the concubine’’.

It is still disputed today who brought down the Boleyns. Some believe that it is the Seymours, some believe it was the Boleyns themselves, other historians believe that it is Cromwell, or Lady Mary, and lastly, some think that the king himself wanted Anne gone. Whatever the truth, with missing evidence, and court politics and cover-ups, we are likely to never know the answer. We can but speculate.

One last thing…

But, there is one final and interesting point that Julia Fox raises. It is perhaps the most important point - Jane had everything to lose from the Boleyns falling. Why would a woman who had everything to lose, by turning on her own family, bring them down? It doesn’t make sense. She had never been in a better position because she was wealthier and more prestigious than she had ever been when they fell.

Maybe the truth is still waiting to be discovered somewhere…

Did you enjoy this article? If so, do tell others. Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below...

World War One Special – The new issue of History is Now Magazine!

World War One broke out 100 years ago in the summer of 1914. So to commemorate the Great War we have a created a special World War One issue of History is Now magazine. The new issue of our interactive magazine features a wide range of articles about that war, plus a few extra surprises…

The new issue of History is Now magazine is out now.

Click here for information on the iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on Android

Here is what our editor has to say…

It was 100 years ago, in the summer of 1914, when declarations of war were made in the most destructive war that the world had ever known. This war was of course World War One. It was not known in August 1914 that fighting would go on for over four more years and claim millions of lives. Many expected that the war would be over by Christmas, but they were ever so wrong. This issue of the magazine is a Great War special, with a particular focus on personal and original stories. After all, most of us are surely familiar with the political and military history of this war.

We start with a tale that began with a photograph of a soldier and how one historian then traced back her roots. She shares a fascinating story of a band of troops in World War One with us. Then we go further afield to the most powerful woman in the British Empire during the war years, Gertrude Bell. She played an immensely important role in the Middle East in the period. We follow this up with a short article about the roles that the closely linked European royal families of the time may have played in fomenting World War One. It is a quite original viewpoint.

This issue is not just about the Great War though. There is an article on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famed fireside chats and how they helped rouse the US out of the Great Depression and on to victory in World War Two. On a different note, we take a look at segregation in the US and how events turned violent in one particular town following a decision to desegregate schools in 1970.

Then it is back to World War One. We have a podcast on a president who fought in the war, Harry S. Truman, although he was to play a more important role in events some thirty years later. We also consider the motivations that different people had in joining the war as part of an article by an author of a book on the conflict. Finally, we share an original and fascinating exhibition that is taking shape. The exhibition will commemorate the 1916 Battle of the Somme through the letters of one particular soldier.

Click here for information on the iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on the Android

With all of that, I’m sure that you will enjoy this month’s History is Now magazine.

Click on one of the links below to enjoy the magazine today…

Click here for information on the iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on the Android

George Levrier-Jones

Drugs Throughout History: Why We Can’t Kick The Habit

Drug use has long been a controversial issue, but the current debates surrounding it are far from new. Drugs have been a part of society for centuries, though a few in particular have, and continue to, spark disputes and clashes despite being household names - albeit illegal ones… Georgie Broad explains.


Cocaine

Cocaine is the second most used illegal drug in the UK and widely used in other Western countries, and this popularity can be seen through the drugs’ history, having been legal until late into the 19th century and beyond. However, in those times, cocaine was also considered harmless in moderate doses, and even advertised for its apparent medicinal purposes. Victorian pharmaceutical companies promoted their “cocaine toothache drops”.

An advertisement for cocaine toothache drops.

The claims about the alleged safety of the usage of cocaine may seem bizarre to us now in the age of never ending health and safety checks, however in the early 19th century the drug was cheap to come by and sparsely tested for any unwanted side effects (if it was tested at all, that is) and so it was easier, and more lucrative, for companies to claim its safety than to actually prove it. In actual fact, cocaine is one of the most powerful drugs in terms of creating a psychological dependence!

Cocaine was not just used in the powder form we know today. In 1863, Angelo Mariani created Vin Mariani, a wine that, thanks to its ingredients, created a rather potent mixture, producing roughly 6.5mg of cocaine per ounce. Even Pope Leo XIII during the mid-19th century carried with him a “tonic” in a hip flask that he claimed helped to fortify him when prayer wasn’t sufficient, and advocated its use through posters!

Many famous writers turned to the drug when a little lacking in inspiration, including Emile Zola, Jules Verne and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It was not uncommon for the more creative minds of the centuries to turn to recreational drug use – a fallacy and legacy that is still controversially perpetuated by many musicians and writers today. It was also popularized in America by manual laborers as it was believed to increase productivity, and was essentially used in the way we use caffeine today.

As the 20th century progressed, people became wary of ‘innocent people’ being led astray thanks to the effects of the drug. It was seen to be the drug of choice in the lower classes of society and among immigrants, and soon the media began to inflate and exaggerate its effects on African American citizens which at the time caused mass hysteria and invoked vehement hatred – both toward the drug and its users. It wasn’t long before the US government cracked down on the drug and took more stringent and effective legal action.

Cannabis

Cannabis is the most used drug worldwide, and has a colorful history stretching back around 4,000 years, though it was only in the mid-19th century that the drug gained popularity and notoriety in the West. By this time, it could be freely purchased throughout stores in America, and even Queen Victoria was a user, as she was prescribed cannabis by her doctors to help relieve her period pains!

During the 1800s, cannabis was widely used by the artistic and literary community, with many of the great novels we now love having been written by authors who were, most likely, high. So popular was the drug that greats such as Dumas and Victor Hugo began a club in France, “Le Club des Haschischins”, where members would meet up, smoke cannabis and discuss art and life.

Recovering alcoholics were often given cannabis as a way to help them along the road to kicking their addiction, and the drug was much more popular than drink. During the Prohibition era in America, many women advocated the use of cannabis in lieu of alcohol, claiming it didn’t lead to such violent reactions from men who took it. This appreciation of the more mellow results of cannabis can be seen elsewhere, too – for example the Wooton Report of 1968 stated that there was in fact no evidence of “agression or anti-social behaviour” or “conditions of dependence”.

Cannabis was the most used medicinal drug in America during the early 1800s; however advances in medicinal science brought with them injectibal drugs (such as morphine) and asprins, thus leading to a declin in the use of cannabis not just in the USA, but throughout the West. The difficulty of standardising dosages also signalled a decline in the drugs use.

Once again, it was partially thanks to social issues that the eventual illegalisation of cannabis came about. Its usage was tied to immigrant jazz musicians in North America and their unappealing and unconventional way of life. Once again, a smear campaign raised the negative profile of the drug and its users to the point where it almost criminalised itself without any government interference.

Heroin

At the end of the 19th century, morphine was a very popular drug. In 1898, the Bayer Pharmaceutical company began to sell a preparation of diacetylmorphine (which was essentially morphine boiled for several hours). It was a new drug heavily promoted as being non-addictive and very effective for curing ailments such as tuberculosis or bronchitis, as well as allegedly helping people recovering from morphine addictions. This drug was given the name Heroin.

In 1906, it was approved by the American Medical Association for general use, and was even recommended as a replacement for morphine itself. Unfortunately, far from the original desires for the drug, a population of around 200,000 heroin addicts sprung up around America. This problem persisted, leading to the eventual litany of Acts and regulations passed to quell the usage of the drug – along with many others. The Harrison Narcotics Act, for example, was passed in 1914 in an attempt to stop the abuse of cocaine, heroin and cannabis, and it shortly became necessary for doctors to pay a tax on the drug.

By 1924, the Deputy Commissioner of the NYPD claimed that around 94% of all crimes were commited by heroin addicts, and it was not long after that the drug became outlawed for both medical and personal use.

In perspective

The reputaion, usage, and market for drugs today seems just as turbulent as in the past; controversially glamourised by celebrities, surrounded by debate, and yet still undeniably a part of society. Today, arguments on the legalisation of cannabis can be heard around the world, and you often hear the tagline “heroin chic” attached to models and celebrities who have that certain rugged, palid, and slightly ill-looking demeanor.

As we can see, smear campaigns have always surrounded drugs and their users – from the racial arguments in the 19th century to those around us today warning against drug use, painting users as destitute criminals.

Billions of dollars circulate around both the drug market and the rehabilitation programmes set up to combat usage and addiction, but it seems that the fight to find a common ground among society, drugs, and the law is far from being won.


Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world. Tweet about it, share it, or like it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-468286.html

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/heroin-history-1900s.html

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/cocaineandcrack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1632726.stm

http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/chapter-thirteen/

The Unknown SAS? World War Two’s Desert Raiders

The Long-Range Desert Group played a fascinating role in desert operations during World War Two, but unlike the SAS, it is largely unknown. Here, Robert Walsh shares the fascinating story…

An LRDG patrol during the Desert Campaign.

Heavily armed, heavily customized vehicles moving stealthily around the Western Desert, driven by men resembling pirates more than elite soldiers, going deep behind enemy lines to gather intelligence and raid enemy targets. Sounds familiar? You’re more than likely thinking of the original Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment founded and led by Lieutenant Colonel David Stirling. And in this case you’d be wrong. Well, not wrong, exactly. The original SAS were founded for that purpose. But there were other units doing similar work during the Desert Campaign and the SAS weren’t the only ‘desert raiders.’ These units are often overlooked or simply overshadowed by their SAS comrades and many who know the SAS might not have heard of their less famous brethren. The Long-Range Desert Group was one of these units, earning a compliment from their opponents that the SAS themselves would have envied.

They were originally formed in June 1940 at the suggestion of Major Ralph Bagnold, assisted by Captains Patrick Clayton and William Shaw. Bagnold was a pre-war desert explorer and approached General Archibald Wavell, proposing to form a long-range reconnaissance unit to work deep behind enemy lines on covert reconnaissance, intelligence gathering and small-scale raiding missions. Wavell had been a liaison officer with the Egyptian Expeditionary Force during the First World War and doubtless knew of similar operations performed by the ‘Light Car Patrol’. Unlike some of his colleagues (Montgomery, for instance) Wavell understood the concept of what we now call Special Forces and lacked a prejudice common to many generals of the time. Regular British Army officers often had a deep dislike for what they called ‘private armies’, especially when those ‘private armies’ used decidedly irregular methods. Units like the Commandos, SAS and LRDG often found themselves obstructed and hindered by Regular officers and their inflexible attitudes. Wavell not only understood the LRDG’s purpose, he actively assisted in their formation and ensured they were properly supplied and equipped for the job at hand.

Where the SAS tended toward more straightforward sabotage and raiding operations, the LRDG were to adopt a quieter approach, hence the unofficial LRDG motto of ‘Not by Strength, by Guile’ (still the unofficial motto of today’s Special Boat Service, an elite unit within the Royal Marine Commandos). The LRDG did perform raiding operations, but they were mainly to avoid combat and gather information covertly. The SAS might attack airfields, supply dumps, fuels dumps and suchlike, but it was often the LRDG that provided the intelligence and also the transport to get them to and from their targets. Hence the LRDG’s unofficial nickname of the ‘Libyan Desert Taxi Service.’ The LRDG did provide the SAS with transport and intelligence, sometimes joining them in raiding missions. They also ferried secret agents to and from their rendezvous deep behind enemy lines. But they were far more than simply a taxi service for spies and saboteurs. Once the SAS were fully equipped with their own vehicles they were able to mount their own deep-penetration operations and secret agents needed guides who could move stealthily through the desert while fighting if they had to. Hence, the LRDG has sometimes been seen (unfairly and inaccurately) as being merely a taxi service for other units. The LRDG were a small unit, never numbering more than 350 men at their largest, but they achieved results out of all proportion to their numbers.

Specialist Soldiers, Specialized Equipment

The LRDG was a volunteer-only unit. Nobody had to sign up and those that did knew full well the risks of working behind enemy lines. If anything went wrong then they could find themselves stuck hundreds of miles behind enemy lines with very limited supplies and ammunition, large numbers of enemy troops hunting for them, North African desert tribes who might either help them or sell them to the enemy depending on which suited them best, burning heat during the day, freezing cold at night, snakes, spiders, sandstorms, enemy aircraft, ground patrols, impassable obstacles and the ever-present chance of their vehicles breaking down and stranding them in the desert. It was also a multinational force. The first volunteers were from New Zealand, but they were swiftly joined by many volunteers from Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Great Britain. Specialized equipment, vehicles, weapons and training were essential for the LRDG to even exist in the desert, let alone function effectively as a military unit. Fortunately, Major Bagnold was an experienced pre-war desert explorer. He could provide essential knowledge and even equipment of his own invention such as the ‘sun compass’ fitted to all LRDG vehicles. He knew how the vehicles needed to be customized to make desert travel less difficult, how to navigate across the desert, which weapons would be most effective, which tribes were pro-British, pro-German or simply helped the highest bidder at any given time. Without Major Bagnold or someone very similar, the LRDG would never have existed except as an idea.

Two LRDG patrols at a rendezvous with their typical vehicles.

Their vehicles were mainly two-wheel drive jeeps and small trucks, heavily adapted for desert use. Radiators were made larger and condensers fitted to save water and reduce the risk of engines seizing. Special low-pressure desert tires and improved suspension systems made vehicles faster and easier to drive. Every vehicle had a ‘sun compass’ for navigation, a device invented by Bagnold during his pre-war exploring days. Any excess weight and unnecessary parts were stripped and replaced with useful items. Shovels and sand channels were standard for digging vehicles out of sand banks. Excess bodywork was removed to make room for extra weapons and equipment. Everything possible was done to convert LRDG vehicles from ordinary small trucks and jeeps into fast, nimble, heavily armed raiding and reconnaissance vehicles. Ford CMP and Chevrolet trucks were standard issue and the famous Willys jeep also became very popular as a patrol commander’s vehicle. Each patrol had a custom-equipped radio truck and four 6-ton trucks to deliver supplies and set up secret replenishment bases in the desert, enabling patrols to patrol deeper into enemy territory and stay in the field for longer. Communications patrols and LDG headquarters were excellent. Courtesy of each patrol’s specialist radio truck, equipped with the most modern radio equipment and the best radio operators, there were only three occasions during the Desert Campaign where a patrol lost radio contact with their headquarters.

Irregular Warriors

Their personal appearance and vehicles were unconventional. Their choice in weapons was equally unusual and staggeringly broad. LRDG members thought nothing of equipping themselves and their vehicles with captured enemy weapons in addition to whatever they found useful from British arsenals. An LRDG truck might have twin-mounted Vickers or Browning light machine guns at the front, a 50. Caliber Browning machine gun in the back and captured German or Italian machine guns such as German MG42s or Italian Breda M38s mounted at its tail. An LRDG trooper might carry a mixture of personal weapons, British, German, American and Italian. It wouldn’t be unusual to see an LRDG trooper carrying a standard British Commando dagger, a German or Italian pistol (possibly more than one) and a British rifle, an American Thompson submachine gun or a captured submachine gun such as a German MP40 Schmeisser or an Italian Beretta M1934. Light machine guns ranged from British Bren guns to American 30. Caliber Brownings via German MG34s, MG 42s or Italian Breda M37s and M38s. It was expected that all LRDG troopers should be as comfortable with using and maintaining enemy weapons as British or American ones. The LRDG also used hand grenades, landmines, rifle grenades, plastic explosives and specially made ‘Lewis bombs’ (designed by SAS officer ‘Jock’ Lewes) for destroying enemy aircraft on the ground. Couple a mixed bag of weapons with dirty, torn, stained fatigues, Arab headdress, a deep suntan and two weeks of unshaved beard and it is no surprise that LRDG troopers tended to look more like pirates or mercenaries than soldiers, especially to traditional military eyes.

The LRDG cap badge, specially chosen to reflect their military role.

The LRDG’s differing role was reflected even in their cap badge. Where the SAS still have the ‘winged dagger’ representing their airborne capability and the Sword of Damocles that can instantly fall on an enemy, the LRDG had a less aggressive emblem. Their cap badge was a wheel (reflecting their mobility) around a scorpion (a small desert creature with a lethal sting). The rest of their uniform (if you could call it that) usually consisted of torn, stained desert fatigues, sun hats and Arab headdress. The LRDG prided themselves on their unconventional methods and practical effective performance, not on the conventional ‘spit and polish’ smartness of the Regular Army. They looked like a bunch of ruffians, but did their particular jobs as professionally as the smartest-looking soldiers on a parade ground. It was results that mattered, not appearances. The SAS had a similar attitude. Shiny boots and polished buttons meant nothing in the North African desert, hundreds of miles behind enemy lines and knowing that they were as likely to be shot out of hand as taken prisoner if an operation went wrong. For both units this apparent lack of formality and convention frequently caused tensions and rifts with soldiers from Regular units, especially with the more traditionally minded senior officers.

At first a typical LRDG patrol comprised two troopers and 28 non-commissioned officers. Between them a patrol drove one Ford CMP truck and ten smaller Chevrolet trucks. Patrol commanders and patrol sergeants had the option of driving customized jeeps. Each patrol had a patrol medical orderly, desert navigator, radio operator and mechanic. In March 1941 patrols were reorganized into one officer, fifteen to eighteen men and five or six vehicles. Halving the size of patrols gave the LRDG the ability to send more patrols over wider areas while each patrol retained sufficient firepower to fight their way out of trouble if they needed to. Stealth was always preferable to combat and the LRDG soon acquired a nickname from the Italian opposition. The Italians began calling them the ‘Pattaglia Fantasma’ or ‘Ghost Patrol’ acknowledging their ability to evade detection and strike at will.

After The Desert War

When all German forces in North Africa surrendered in Tunisia in May 1943, the LRDG, now having grown to two squadrons comprising around 350 men in all, was at a loose end. They needed to find new areas to operate and so justify their continued existence. They soon found them. The LRDG operated in a number of areas besides the desert although they’re best remembered for their desert operations, especially their work at the Battle of Kufra and their raid on Barce as part of ‘Operation Caravan’. New hunting grounds in the Mediterranean and the Balkans now occupied their time. The Dodecanese campaign, the Battle of Leros, Albania, Yugoslavia and the Italian campaign all featured the LRDG, often operating jointly with other raiding and reconnaissance units such as the SAS, Special Boat Service and the Greek ‘Sacred Squadron’. They adapted their methods to fit the different locations they now operated in and their skill and flexibility made them a valuable asset right up until the end of the war. After the war in Europe officially ended on May 8, 1945 the LRDG’s leaders requested that they be deployed to the Far East and continue performing similar operations against the Japanese. Their superiors declined and on August 1, 1945 the LRDG was formally disbanded. Days after their disbandment the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Second World War was over; the Cold War was about to begin.

Earlier I mentioned the LRDG receiving the highest of compliments from the unlikeliest of people. The unlikely person was Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the legendary ‘Desert Fox’ and commander of the Afrika Korps. His compliment to the LRDG was this:

The Long-Range Desert Group caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength.

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

Sources

Gross, Kuno; O'Carroll, Brendan and Chiarvetto, Roberto. Incident at Jebel Sherif. Berlin: Kuno Gross, 2009

http://www.lrdg.org/

http://www.specialforcesroh.com/browse.php?pageid=lrdg

http://www.lrdg.de/vehicles.htm

Morgan, Mike. Sting of the Scorpion: The Inside Story of the Long Range Desert Group. The History Press Publishing, 2003

The Prussian Crusades – The fascinating story

The Prussian Crusades were full of thirteenth century intrigue and drama. Here, Robert Van Ness follows up his article on Prussia’s early beginnings and tells us the story…

The Teutonic Knights wasted little time once they began establishing themselves in the unstable Baltic region. They came to crusade against the native Prussian pagans, who had a centuries-long history of proving themselves to be unruly, as well being unaccepting of Catholicism. The native Prussians also seemed untrustworthy of anything coming out of the west, and for good reason. Rome had sent envoys to the area, the Danish had sent armies, and the Poles had signaled intent to take lands for themselves. Each instance involved some degree of bloodshed and/or corruption. The Teutonic arrival, in Prussian eyes, would be no different. The Prussians were correct.

After initial wrangling over territorial disputes, Grandmaster Hermann von Salza sent 7 Teutonic Knights and about 100 lesser troops to take Vogelsang in Masovia. A castle had been attempted in the area a year before, in 1229, but the Prussians massacred the builders. After the Teutons arrived, however, the Prussians could not reverse their negative fortunes. The small army established a foothold, and then they completed the attempted castle. A year later a fresh force of 200 arrived to reinforce the Teutonic claim. Though this action may seem innocuous in the grand scheme, it did signal the beginning of the Teutonic Crusades, and thus a great historical shift in Prussian livelihood, that, when the Crusades were completed would set events in motion. When those Crusades were finished, events were set in motion that would affect Central and Eastern Europe for centuries.

The Beginnings

The Teutonic Order began conducting yearly campaigns into the region after their first venture in 1230. These raids represented a historical shift in that they were coming predominately from the west, out of the Holy Roman Empire, instead of out of the east from Polish or Russian lands. Promises from the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor spurred many Germans to emigrate into the newly conquered lands. This occurrence, accompanied with the consistent, yearly campaigns, ensured success, where every earlier attempt met with failure. Further Teutonic success ensured that the Prussian region would become German.

A map of the tribes encountered by the Teutonic Knights during their Prussian Crusades.

Within two years, the Crusaders were warring against Pomesania. A bit of chance aided the Knights when a Prussian commander defected to the Teutons. He helped steer the Crusaders through Prussian defenses toward the main castle at Rogow. Rogow was no match for the attackers, and once it fell, neither were the other area defenses. Thorn was captured, and then the Pomesanian king, Pepin, was tricked into being surrounded. Pope Gregory IX quickly sent 5,000 immigrants to reinforce the Teutonic conquest during the next year, as the Knights continued their Crusade eastward.

1233 witnessed the largest army to march into the region up to that time. A 10,000 strong crusading army was led by the Knights into the remaining Pomesanian regions. They built a fortress at Marienwerder, from which the powerful army launched various attacks against the Pogesanians, who offered a rather stiff resistance. Yet Teutonic cavalry galloped into the fray during a battle along the frozen Sirgune River, and the Pogesanian front disintegrated. Another Teutonic fortress was quickly built at Rehden to ensure Crusading dominance over the newly subjugated lands.

Growing Pains

These successes, oddly, caused a breech between the Teutons and her allies, most notably Konrad of Masovia, in 1235. Konrad claimed land that was not to be given to him, and the Knights refused to cede the disputed lands to him. Eventually Konrad pulled out of any future crusades, while the Teutons began acquiring the remaining faltering knightly orders in the Baltic, such as the Sword Brothers, who were all but decimated by the Livonians further north of Teutonic claims.

A new ally, Henry III, Margrave of Meissen, arrived to aid the Teutons as they marched along the Vistula River in present day Poland. The newly established immigrant towns also supplied ample support, which allowed the Crusaders the freedom to push further into pagan lands. The Teutons hammered the Bartians, Natangians, and Warmians in successive engagements between the campaigning years 1238 and 1240. 

The attack against the Warmians is of special note, because the Warmians slaughtered a Teutonic outfit, which spurred an even larger crusading force onward against the pagan defenders. When the pagan commander, Kodrune, realized that holding out against the numerically superior force was hopeless, he begged his army to surrender and convert. The Warmians would hear none of it, and killed Kodrune before they were, as Kodrune presciently understood would happen, destroyed.

Teutonic successes brought more Papal recognition in 1243. The newly conquered lands were demarcated across four new provinces - Culm, Pomesania, Ermeland, and Samland. What had once not been Germanic lands were now being inhabited by droves immigrating eastward out of the Holy Roman Empire. But the region was not yet pacified. In fact, the gains made during the initial Teutonic Crusades were threatened by a resurgent Prussian uprising beginning in 1242.

First Prussian Rebellion

A former Teutonic ally, Duke Swantopelk of Pomerellia, was spooked by the rapid crusading gains. Swantopelk then switched allegiances, and began funding, supplying, and training the Prussians against the Knights in 1242. The Teutons also found themselves without their Polish allies in the rebellion, because the Poles were warring with each other over domestic issues. 

For two years the Prussians dragged the Teutons into wooded battles, where the heavier armored knights could not maneuver as easily. Defeat followed defeat for the Teutons, but the Prussians lacked engineering skills needed to erect proper siege-works in order to destroy the many Teutonic fortresses now dominating the countryside. Thus a seeming impasse was reached in 1244, which for the most part lasted until 1249. That is until the Germans used another weapon, politics.

German connections swayed Swantopelk away from the Prussians once again. The new Pope, Urban IV, entered diplomatic wrangling, as did the Polish princes, who wanted to take Swantopelk's land. Swantopelk found himself unable to continue the Prussian resurgence, and was forced to switch allegiances once again. Regardless of the change, the Prussians still won further battles after Swantopelk's defection, but by 1253, the Teutons were once again in control, and they could resume their crusade against the Samland region.

The Crusades Resume against Sambia

Their work was not yet complete in the 1250s; in fact, quite a few more campaigns would be undertaken before the Prussian lands were declared ‘Christianized’, but the seeds of future hatreds were brutally sewn during this period. Notably the Germans, who were not native to the region began dominating the Poles and Slavs, who did claim the Baltic lands as ancestral. In order for the early German settlers to make what was later called Lebensraum the pagan, or less-than-civilized, would have to either convert or die. To that end, the Crusades continued in 1252.

The Sambian peoples had not yet been pacified. A new army led by Heinrich Stango aimed to pierce directly through Samland, but was met head on by formidable resistance at Vistula Lagoon. The Sambians routed the Knights, killed Stango, and awaited a Crusading response. The response came in the form of a concerted Dominican effort to raise a massive army for the time, 60,000 men. The enormous army of Bohemians, Saxons, Moravians, and Austrians met the Sambians at the Battle of Rudau. The defenders stood little chance under such an enormous army. The main Sambian army surrendered, and was hastily baptized. The Crusaders then continued to march into Sambian territory, and either baptized or killed inhabitants along the way to conquering the region by January 1255. As normal Teutonic procedure dictated, a series of fortresses were constructed to ensure Teutonic overlordship. Thus fortresses at Memel, Konigsberg, and Wehlau still exist, reminding the onlookers of the hard-fought era.

​

The remains of St. Jacob’s Tower in Wehlau (Znamensk).

The Prussian Crusades Wind Down

The Prussians, however, had one more trick to play. The Livonian branch of the Order continued to reach northeastward into Samogitia, and had some early success. A cease-fire of sorts was signed to end the fighting for two years, but when that treaty ended in 1259, the Samogitians rebelled. They crushed the Crusaders at Skuodas, which sent shockwaves throughout the pagan region. Other Prussians rallied around the Samogitian victory and also rebelled. Together they ran roughshod throughout the largely unguarded regions of Livonia, Poland, and Prussia, because the Knights were mostly away fighting in the Holy Land during this time. After a year of turmoil the Holy Roman Empire concocted an army to assist the remaining Knights in their effort to quell the uprising, and by 1261 the pagans were being unconditionally beaten. Previously subjugated Prussians had enjoyed considerable surrender terms, but the Knights forced the rebels into total serfdom after this uprising. Once again, to ensure control, the Knights dotted the landscape with more fortresses.

The Knights, and Germanic immigrants into the region, were now certain masters of Prussia and the lower Baltic region. All that remained were a few lesser tribes, who still repudiated Catholicism. Minor battles and small uprisings continued to occur for the next 20 years, but nothing could break the increasingly powerful grip the Teutonic Knights held on Prussia. It was theirs, and would be engineered along Holy Roman designs, and the Knights would use their newly won kingdom to launch other crusades deeper into northeastern Europe. Their involvement redrew, and would redraw European boundaries for future generations with painful side effects as will be seen in subsequent posts.

Now, share the article if you enjoyed it! Like it, share it, or tweet about it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

The Cold War: A War without a Winner

“Did anyone really win the Cold War?” was the question that Samantha Jones asked after the recent shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17. After all, many assume that as the USSR collapsed in 1991, the US won the Cold War. Instead, Samantha argues that nobody really won this war. Here she explains why.

With the recent shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine, tensions in some ways similar to those felt during the Cold War are once again being raised upon the world stage. With President Putin’s reaction to the crisis and the obvious Russian military presence between the border of Russia and Ukraine, this hostility links back to events and ideologies that brought about the Cold War. Once again the rivalries between various countries have influenced nations and people worldwide. No longer is this a matter of communism versus capitalism, or socialism versus democracy, but is instead a power struggle that goes beyond two major superpowers. The aftermath and rivalries from the Cold War are still present today. Why? Perhaps it is because the Cold War was a war that had no final end without a final winner.

An East German soldier guarding the newly-formed Berlin Wall in August 1961.

AN UNUSUAL WAR

The Cold War was a war that was never won. Despite the massive cost and time spent on the conflict, little physical confrontation occurred between the super-powers. This was not a normal war. Simply put, the Cold War was a series of cooling, warming and frosty interactions between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United States (US). Although these superpowers are said to be the big players, the hostility between these countries caused a catalyst for revolutionary worldwide events and issues. It involved the Third World, the Middle East and the Western sphere of influence. From the aftermath of World War Two, a vicious rivalry between communism and capitalism arose, bringing the world into a new age of technological warfare with nuclear weaponry. Welcome to the modern world.

It is widely believed that owing to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US won the Cold War by default. But this really is not the case. By analyzing the physical conflicts, technological aspects and scale of this worldwide conflict, one can see the deep layering and complications to this. To have a winner, one must have a loser. But what did the US win? It did not receive any territory, reparation payments or a formal apology from the USSR. It was a war with no surrender or defeat. Yes the Berlin Wall came down and yes the USSR is no longer a communist nation. However, this does not mean the US won the Cold War. In my opinion the Cold War has no winner, which is why remnants of the conflict continue today.

For a world war there was very little physical confrontation in regard to the scale of the conflict. In no way do I mean any disrespect to those that did fight during the Cold War; however in comparison to the world wars, the armed struggle was small. The Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are probably the most noted military contests during this time. Even so, both superpowers were defeated in Vietnam and Afghanistan and retreated after a series of long battles and the loss of many human lives. Also, both superpowers were overcome by an enemy that was not the USSR or the US. Of course the presence of each superpower was evident behind the battleground, such as supplying resources, aid and even initiating certain conflicts. But in a physical sense, it hardly seems reasonable to announce a winner when both the USSR and the US failed to decisively win militarily during the Cold War.

GLOBAL BATTLE, UNCLEAR WINNER

As mentioned before, the Cold War was also a revolutionary conflict in terms of technology, truly introducing the world to nuclear weaponry. The Space Race and the Hydrogen Bomb reveal how warfare took on a new meaning at this time. In this sense, the Cold War was a war that almost happened, or a war that could have been. What I mean by this is that it is a real victory for both superpowers as they decided not to use this form of weaponry against each other on a massive scale. Since neither superpower actually used their nuclear weapons and this war was not fought in outer space, the US does not deserve the title of ‘winner’ in this particular arena.

Lastly it is quite insular and ignorant to believe that the Cold War was only fought between the USSR and the US; therefore to announce one winner is incorrect. The crises in the Middle East, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the rise of Mao’s China, the Korean War, the Berlin Wall, the imposition of communism on Eastern Europe, and numerous nations fighting for their independence can all be connected to the Cold War. Countless personalities and politicians outside these two superpowers were involved in continuing and trying to stop this worldwide division. It was not just an ideological struggle between the democratic capitalists and the dictatorial communists. After World War Two the world entered into a period that broke with traditions of the past, such as colonization. The extreme layering in each piece of the Cold War puzzle does not add up to one clear victory. It is unjust and unfair to only include the US and the USSR in this debate and the question of who won.

As one could write an entire book on this subject, I have only touched the tip of the iceberg here. Hindsight tells us that the Cold War was unlike any other war in history for so many reasons – including that there was no clear winner or loser. Yes the USSR collapsed, but this was not due to any direct action caused by the US, rather domestic issues rotting the superpower from within. And yes the capitalist US did survive when the USSR did not, but just what did it gain? Reagan’s large increase in military spending in the 1980s caused the US to greatly increase its debt as well as use methods that can be argued to be crimes against humanity.

And was it worth it? After all this, parts of the world are still at war, the US and Russia aren’t friends, small nations are fighting for their independence in civil wars, and superpowers continue to dominate those that are weak. It seems that not much was learned from the Cold War.

Do you agree with Samantha’s argument? Did the Cold War not have a winner? Let us know your thoughts below…

A Classical Tale. Odysseus and the Great Unknown

Homer´s Odyssey is one of the classics of ancient literature.Some of the most fascinating parts of the book are Odysseus’ tales of fantastical lands as he travels home. Here Francesca Spiegel explores the book and tells us more.

Travelogues and travelogue-like passages appear in ancient literature in more than a few places. Some of the travel descriptions of ancient Greece which have been transmitted to us, appear to be dedicated to geographical and cultural education of the reader, seeing as to travel very far given the ancient transportation system was a noteworthy feat. Another sub-category of travelogue is the historiographic, in which the military exploits of an army and its men are recounted not only in terms of their skills in battle, but also expanding upon their courage and endurance at making their way to the location of the battle.

Land of the Lotos-Eaters (1863) by Robert Duncanson.

Homer’s Odyssey typifies the saga of the long return, the homeward journey from a faraway place. In the Odyssey, readers are first introduced to Odysseus as an absentee father who left behind his wife and young son in order to take part in the Trojan War, in his capacity as the king of Ithaca. The last part of the book focuses on how Odysseus eventually arrives back home after his long absence and is faced with a barrage of suitors to his wife, his mansions in decay and the city under very bad administration, all of which he has good mind to reclaim for himself. If we are to believe the legend, twenty years have passed since Odysseus was last in his home town: he fought for ten years in the Trojan War, and then took ten years to get back home. When he arrives, the youth has grown, nothing is like it was, and Odysseus himself, after the war and the long road, is quite a different man as well.

Sandwiched in between these scenes from Odysseus’ home at Ithaca, are the surreal and extraordinary tales of what Odysseus saw and did on his ten year long journey, which, as readers are informed, took so long because an angry Poseidon kept sweeping his ship astray – for revenge.

THOUGHTS ON THE ODYSSEY

In the story, Odysseus lives to tell the tale, so that his adventures among witches, ogres and monsters, his descent into the underworld, and visit to Lestrygonians, his shipwrecks, entrapments, and ingenious explorations out in the great unknown, have since become some of the most popular legends. Nearly everyone has heard of the Cyclops, the one-eyed giant who eats human flesh and lives in a cave, and whom Odysseus squarely overpowered by feeding him wine and blinding his one eye with an incandescent wooden beam. Or the beautiful sirens, whose enthralling charm and irresistible singing Odysseus was able to bypass by putting wax in the ears of all of his party.

Interpretations of the Odyssey have traditionally pointed out the strong focus on loyalty that is implicit in the will to take on challenge upon challenge only to come back home, and attached to this loyalty towards his home town and family, is a commitment to the Greek culture, of which the forms and values appear especially in relief by contrast to the strange lands wandered by Odysseus in the meantime. At Circe’s, the witch who can turn men into swine and wants to make Odysseus the king of her little kingdom it is said:

But venomed was the bread, and mixed the bowl,

With drugs of force to darken all the soul:

Soon in the luscious feast themselves they lost,

And drank oblivion of their native coast.

The fear of never making it home is ever-present, and the lure of the sometimes rather enticing propositions made by the fairytale-like creatures in equal parts attractive and revolting seems to intensify at each turning of the road. Here is another passage:

We plied the banquet, and the bowl we crown’d,

Till the full circle of the year came round.

But when the seasons following in their train,

Brought back the months, the days, and hours again;

As from a lethargy at once they rise,

And urge their chief with animating cries:

Is this, Ulysses, our inglorious lot?

And is the name of Ithaca forgot?

Shall never the dear land in prospect rise,

Or the loved palace glitter in our eyes?

BIZARRE CREATURES

The travelogue description introduces many episodes of arriving on strange shores and meeting unknown cultures and hybrid, half-awesome, half-scary species of character beings. The places Odysseus goes to seem to appear at first from a distance, enclosed either by walls, or thick vegetation, or water, so that they are each in their own way a closed universe and a microcosm in a capsule – at times it seems like the Odyssey draws up a map of warped microcosm after warped microcosm before our eyes, and each time, a new breed of phantasmagoric characters hop on the scenery as if they belong to a surreal film set. For example, Odysseus travels to:

A floating isle! High-raised by toil divine,

Strong walls of brass the rocky coast confine.

Six blooming youths, in private grandeur bred,

And six fair daughters, graced the royal bed.

These sons their sisters wed, and all remain

Their parents’ pride, and pleasure of their reign.

All day they feast, all day the bowls flow round,

And joy and music through the isle resound;

At night each pair on splendid carpets lay,

And crown’d with love the pleasures of the day.

This 1873 verse translation I have been quoting from is by T.A. Buckley and in the public domain. The digital media revolution increases the use of public domain books, but these books are often in the public domain by virtue of being 100 years old or more. Looking at this nineteenth century translation, which I very much enjoy for what it is and I hope you have as well, adds a specific flavor to the story. The Odyssey was very popular in the British colonial Empire and Odysseus’ character, by no means one beloved by all ages, had a distinct appeal with his explorer’s nature and experience of the great unknown. A contemporary of this translation was Tennyson, whose famous poem The Lotos Eaters conflates the pleasures of a Victorian opium smoker with the adventures of Odysseus on Lotophagi Island:

And round about the keel with faces pale,

Dark faces pale against that rosy flame,

The mild-eyed melancholy Lotos-eaters came.

Branches they bore of that enchanted stem,

Laden with flower and fruit, whereof they gave

To each, but whoso did receive of them,

And taste, to him the gushing of the wave

Far far away did seem to mourn and rave

On alien shores; and if his fellow spake,

His voice was thin, as voices from the grave;

And deep-asleep he seem’d, yet all awake,

And music in his ears his beating heart did make.

The painting at the top of this article titled Land of the Lotos-Eaters (1863) by Robert Duncanson also epitomizes the conflation of nineteenth century exoticism with Hellenism which is yet another aspect of the same phenomenon. As much as it is important to notice these identifications and projections, the real interest lies in finding out what the Odyssey can mean to ‘us’ now.

This article was provided by Francesca Spiegel from www.via-antiqua.com.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

Re-establishing Anglo-American Relations: John Quincy Adams in London

In 1788, John Adams left London, never to return to Europe. His son, John Quincy Adams, would assume his father’s post at the Court of Saint James 27 years later. While both men represented the United States in Great Britain after wars, JQA had a more successful time in establishing stronger ties between the two nations than his father had. This article by Steve Strathmann follows the first in the series here and details the ups-and-downs of John Quincy Adams’ time in London.

The Experienced Diplomat

John Quincy Adams first came to Europe with his father during the Revolutionary War. In addition to working for his father, he spent three years in Russia serving as secretary for an American mission at the tender age of fourteen. After graduating from Harvard, he was appointed Minister to the Netherlands by George Washington. During his time in The Hague, he travelled frequently to London on business, where he met his future wife Louisa Johnson, the American daughter of a Maryland father and English mother. In fact, the church where they were married, the Church of All Hallows Barking, still stands today near the Tower of London and has a plaque outside marking the occasion.

JQA would later serve terms as American minister to Prussia and Russia. While at St. Petersburg, he was asked to join the American group negotiating to end the War of 1812. After the Treaty of Ghent was signed, he hoped to return home, but was asked to serve as President Madison’s Minister to the Court of St. James. The offer was too tempting for Adams to refuse and he crossed the English Channel in May 1815.

John Quincy Adams by Gilbert Stuart, 1818 (The White House Historical Association).

Official Relations with Britain

John Quincy Adams presented his credentials to the Prince Regent on June 8, 1815. The prince did not seem prepared for the meeting, at one point even asking if JQA “was related to Mr. Adams, who had formerly been the Minister from the United States here.” The new minister established an office on Charles Street and rented a house outside of London in the village of Ealing. While in Britain, John Quincy and Louisa would have their whole family (sons George, John and Charles) together for the first time in six years.

Adams maintained good relationships with both Prime Minister Lord Liverpool and Foreign Secretary Lord Castlereagh. His primary mission was to help negotiate a treaty of commerce with the British. The result of these negotiations would only be a commercial convention, but the Americans did make some gains. These included a prohibition on discriminatory duties, the opening of British East Indies ports to American shipping and ‘most favored nation’ status for the United States.

There were still outstanding issues left over between the two nations after the War of 1812. These included the impressment of sailors, the return of slaves that fled to the West Indies with British help during the war, and the opening of Canadian waters to American fishermen. Castlereagh said in response that these were issues that could be dealt with at a later date when the Anglo-American relationship was stronger. Adams did not press the foreign secretary, especially over the escaped slaves. A life-long abolitionist, Adams only brought up the topic because his diplomatic instructions called for it.

One area where significant gains were made was on the Canadian border of the United States. On January 16 and March 21 of 1816, Adams proposed to Castlereagh that there should be a reduction of arms on the Great Lakes. The foreign secretary agreed and the negotiations that followed led to the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817. This pact reduced the two lake fleets to four ships apiece that were to primarily deal with customs issues. This agreement was “the first reciprocal naval disarmament in the history of international relations”, according to historian Samuel Flagg Bemis. Others have added that it is also the most successful and longest-lasting deal of its kind.

Outside the Office

In addition to his good relations with Liverpool and Castlereagh, Adams struck up friendships with other notable Brits. One was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Though the two men had differing views on certain topics, they became friends due to their appreciation of each other’s intellect. John Quincy and Louisa also were invited to a wedding held at the Duke of Wellington’s home.

Adams enjoyed going to the theater and opera in London, especially to see the works of William Shakespeare. He read Shakespeare often, and his diaries contain reviews of London performances of Richard the Third and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

John Quincy and Louisa were thrilled to have their family together and being able to watch their sons’ growth. George and John were enrolled in an Ealing boarding school, while Charles attended school during the day. While he loved his boys, JQA worried that they did not focus enough on their studies. According to biographer Fred Kaplan, he hoped that someday they “would be his intellectual companions” much like he was to his father.

Unfortunately, Adams did have to deal with some health issues during his London tenure. He injured his writing hand and also had several eye infections. These afflictions were especially hard on a man who was a vociferous reader and writer. Louisa helped during this period by taking dictation and reading aloud to her husband. Adams eventually healed and was able to resume all of his diplomatic duties.

In April 1817, Adams received a message from President James Monroe, asking him to return to Washington and become Secretary of State. Though John Quincy hesitated, the rest of his family were excited about the prospect of returning to the United States, including his elderly parents. He eventually decided that he would accept the cabinet post, and on June 10, 1817, the family left London for the long journey home.

In 1861, Charles Francis Adams would return to take the post that his father and grandfather held before him. His primary duty: keep the British out of the American Civil War. But that’s for next time…

We shall have the next article in this series next month.

If you enjoyed the article tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the links below.

Sources

Kaplan, Fred. John Quincy Adams: American Visionary. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2014.

Remini, Robert V. John Quincy Adams. New York: Times Books, 2002.

Unger, Harlow Giles. John Quincy Adams. Boston: De Capo Press, 2012.

World War One – How did the Eastern Front differ from the Western Front?

The Eastern Front in World War One is often largely unknown to many Westerners. The situation there was quite different to that on the Western Front. Here, Rebecca Fachner follows up on her articles on Royal Family squabbles here and the spark that caused war to break out here.

The 100th anniversary of the first summer of World War One rolls onward, and with it commemorations of battles that everyone in the Western world seems to know instinctively - the Marne, the Somme, Ypres…  The war on the Western Front is very much alive in the Western consciousness, but what is so often forgotten is that it was actually a two-front war in Europe. Germany was not only fighting in the West against the French and British (and eventually the Americans), but also in the East against the Russian Empire.

Russian troops on the move to the front line. From National Geographic magazine, volume 31. 1917.

As a fighting force, the Russian Empire was extremely contradictory. They were a formidable foe, but at the same time a very worrying ally. Their one huge advantage in warfare was the sheer numbers of troops that they had at their disposal. It was truly a staggering amount of men, millions upon millions of Russian troops, a “mass of bodies ready to bleed” in the words of one historian of the period.[1] The main disadvantage for the Russians was everything else. The army had miserably poor leadership, was woefully underfunded and was technologically backward. In the years before the war, the Allies, especially France, had spent enormous sums of money trying to improve Russia’s technological capability.

Railroads had been a particular target, as the movement of troops to the front as quickly as possible was of paramount importance. France knew that German war plans hinged on Russia’s inability to mobilize their troops and so planned on attacking France first, then moving on to Russia only after the French had been defeated. Therefore, if Russia could respond more quickly, and force Germany to divert troops in their direction earlier, so much the better for France.  Their efforts did do some good, but not enough, as was painfully demonstrated in the opening days of the war. It took weeks for the Russians to assemble a fighting force along the German and Austro-Hungarian borders.

DIFFERENCES WITH THE WEST

Russia began the war by invading eastern Germany. It was able to do so as Poland was not an independent country at this time meaning that Russia and Germany were contiguous. The first major engagement of the war was the Battle of Tannenberg, which was a resounding defeat for the Russians. The next week at the Battle of Masurian Lakes, the Russians were pushed back further, and would not fight on German soil for the remainder of the war. Despite the inauspicious beginnings, the Russians did enjoy some success, particularly against Austria-Hungary in the fall of 1914. By 1915, however, the Germans had made the Eastern Front their top priority and began to hurl troops at the Russians, managing to turn the tide of the eastern war permanently in their own favor. Russia never again enjoyed a significant advantage.

The geography of the war in the east was very different when compared to the west. Rather than a compressed front line, the Russians and Germans were eventually fighting over an area of more than a thousand miles. This spread the fighting, placing a much larger burden on military supply chains than in the west, and making Russian transportation problems an even bigger issue as they began to have supply problems soon after war broke out. One small, seemingly trivial problem added to the frustration, namely that Russian railroads were, and still are, on a different track gauge than parts of Europe further west. Railroad tracks in Europe (and almost everywhere else) are 4 feet 8 inches apart from each other, but in Russia the tracks are 5 feet apart. This means that trains from Europe don’t work in Russia and vice versa; to this day, if you are travelling by railroad into Russia it causes delays at the border. This created all kinds of chaos for supplying both armies and moving troops. All told, it generally slowed down the war in the east. Additionally, because the front line stretched over so large a territory, trench warfare, something that is so closely associated with the war in the west, was not a factor in the east. There was no need for trenches, as the armies had so much more room to maneuver.

Another significant and often remarked upon problem for the Russians was the personality of the men making the key decisions. Tsar Nicholas was a weak and largely ineffective leader, and enjoyed far too much command authority for a person with limited military experience. His two top commanders, Grand Duke Nicholas and Minister of War General Sukhomlinov, hated each other and constantly tried to undermine the other, often to the detriment of their command.  One of those commanders, it must be said, Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaievich, was an extremely dedicated and able military commander, frustrated by the duplicity of his counterpart and the ineptitude of his boss.

THE TSAR TAKES CHARGE

This was not a recipe for success, and as the Russians continued to lose, blame was shifted around and around the command structure. Eventually the Tsar, frustrated and exasperated, decided to move to army headquarters to take personal command of the military. He hoped that his presence would inspire both the troops and the command structure and turn the tide of the war. On the face of it, this was not as poor a decision as it turned out to be, and at least the Tsar’s heart was in the right place, so to speak. Unfortunately, Nicholas’ presence had the opposite effect, and he was blamed by many for every single thing that went wrong with the war from that point on. This severely undermined his authority, not just with his army but also with his people, who had previously believed that the Tsar was close to divine, and blamed all the military failures on his generals. With his very visible presence at the head of his army, Nicholas was exposed as ineffective and weak, and the Russian people had no choice but to blame him for the manifest failures of his strategy.

Compounding the Tsar’s image problem was that he had left his wife in control in his absence. Empress Alexandra was dangerously unstable, and extremely unpopular, partly due to her association with the monk Rasputin; it was widely thought that she was under his direct control. Alexandra quickly assumed many of the governmental duties that her husband had left behind, which was very unfortunate, as she had little political acumen and no experience in government. What she did have was an unshakable faith in Rasputin, and a stubborn refusal to grasp how widely he was mistrusted and disliked. Alexandra careened from one disastrous policy to another, dismissing competent ministers and replacing them with self-serving yes men. Events continued to spiral out of control, and after years of war and shortages, poor management and an ineffective monarchy, it is actually extraordinary that the revolution didn’t happen sooner.

The Russian Revolution, at least the first one, didn’t end the war. The first Russian Revolution, in February 1917, deposed the Tsar but the Provisional Government that took his place did not want to end the war. Alexsandr Kerensky, the leader of the Provisional Government, had the makings of a political genius, and it is one of the frustrating what-ifs of the Russian Revolution to wonder what he might have achieved, but he was intent on continuing to prosecute the war. This proved to be the undoing of both the Provisional Government and Kerensky, as they underestimated just how war weary Russia was, and suffered the consequences when the Bolsheviks launched the October Revolution, promising, among other things, to end the war.  The Bolsheviks sued for peace, and the Germans forced them to sign a humiliating treaty, ending the war in the east.

A clip about the 1916 Battle of Lake Narocz on the Eastern Front is available here on the site.

[1] Massie, Robert Nicholas and Alexandra: the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty. P. 302