Out of the trenches: An exploration of the final months of the First World War

Though the dominant image of the First World War is of shivering soldiers in muddy trenches fighting across barren, shell marked landscapes this doesn’t capture the complexity of the conflict. In 1918 the stalemate on the Western Front came to an end and a far bloodier chapter began.

When Europe went to war in 1914 it was with the echoes of the Napoleonic Wars ringing in their ears. Soldiers met each other across open fields as generals prepared for great campaigns and pitched battles; French soldiers even sported the brilliant blues and reds of La Grande Armée. These opening exchanges were incredibly costly as outdated tactics met the huge advances in military technology and soldiers fell to rapid rifle and machine gun fire. In response the armies began digging trenches, sheltering in the ground while the enthusiasm for war was left to wither on the battlefield.

This began a prolonged period of responsive adaptation as the Germans, French, and British Armies sought to break the deadlock along the Western Front. Miners tunnelled toward each other to lay massive mines while scientists and engineers worked on bizzare and effective projects at home. In 1915 the Germans launched the first large scale gas at Ypres, creating a hole in the British lines so vast their army was unable to secure it, yet a few months later damp cloths and gas masks massively reduced the weapon’s effectiveness. Even the mighty tank proved unable to massively tip the scales in favour of either side, though its influence would increase as the war dragged on.

This scene of innovation and response was repeated numerous times across the Western Front, yet the end to the Great War never seemed to grow any closer. That was until the United States’ declaration of war in 1917. This change in the balance of power precipitated the bloody German Spring offensive of 1918.

The Western stalemate stood largely in Germany’s favour. Though Germany did launch a number of offensives, most notably against the fortress of Verdun, their firm foothold in Belgium and France meant the pressure was on the Allies to expel the Germans from their trenches and not vice-versa. This all changed with the US entry into the war in 1917.

There was little doubt about the outcome of the war as American troops and armaments began to make their way across the Atlantic; defeat for Germany was now a matter of when, not if. The only chance left to Germany was to defeat the Allies before the US forces could be brought to bear.

Ideally, from a German perspective, the Russian appetite for war had waned by 1917. Though peace wouldn’t be finalised until March of the following year, Germany could largely count her eastern borders secured with Lenin’s ascension to power on the promise of peace, land, and bread as well as the aid of an armed coup. This allowed German High Command to begin planning for a huge offensive in the spring.

This push would prove wholly different from earlier efforts by all sides, thanks largely to the grizzled veterans of the Eastern Front.

While those in the west enjoyed the shelter afforded by extensive trench networks and defensive works, the soldiers in the east had no such protection thanks to the sheer size of the theatre they fought in. The resulting fluid battle lines forced the German armies in the east to fight a more mobile and violent war than their entrenched peers.

The arrival of these troops also allowed the Germans to withdraw troops from the front for training as stormtroopers. The concept was a relatively simple one; use well equipped and highly trained assault troops to attack vulnerabilities in the enemy lines, then send regular infantry to secure these gains while the assault troops move on to the next trench.

Though developed early in the war by both sides, these tactics had never been properly implemented on the Western Front; thanks largely to the pressing need for bodies to hold the line. By 1918, however, technical and tactical advances, coupled with the availability of men, meant that Germany was finally able to properly employ these stormtrooper tactics. It was these tactics, and the sheer weight of numbers, that would finally break the Allied lines.

On the 21st of March 1918 the Germans launched what would be their last major offensive with the largest bombardment of the war. In the space of five hours the Germans launched 3,500,000 shells at the Allied lines. As Winston Churchill himself described it: “exactly as a pianist runs his hands across the keyboard from treble to bass, there rose in less than one minute the most tremendous cannonade I shall ever hear…It swept round us in a wide curve of red leaping flame…quite unending in either direction.”

Sheltered behind a creeping curtain of shells and poison gas the German stormtroopers advanced across no-mans-land before falling on the British positions near St Quentin. Despite the ferocity of the bombardment and the tenacity of the German troops many of the British positions held for the first few days.

By the 24th of March, however, the line had become incredibly fractured and the fighting took on the mobile elements that had dominated the Eastern Front. This allowed the Germans to push towards their main goals; the transport hubs at Amiens and Arras.

Retreating across the Somme’s shell-scared landscape, that had taken so many deaths to secure, the Allies fought to delay the German advance for two bloody weeks. At Villers-Bretonneux the fighting finally paid off as the German advance ground to a halt. Exhausted and overstretched the German soldiers were simply unable to press further.

Though they had captured 3,100 km² of enemy territory the Spring Offensive was ultimately a failure and spelled the end for Germany. The two weeks of fighting had seen both the Germans and Allies lose around 250,000 men each. These were numbers that the Germans simply could not replace, meanwhile US troops flooded into Europe to bolster the Allied forces.

Worse still for Germany was the fact that so many of the dead and wounded were hardened veterans of the Eastern Front. When the eventual counterpunch landed in August of 1918 it landed on a demoralised German force. The trenches were again abandoned as the fighting broke out into the European countryside and the casualties soared again.

The war dragged on for three more bloody months before the inevitable German surrender arrived. Though 1918 would be the year that finally brought peace, it was also one of the bloodiest and the open and aggressive stormtrooper tactics that marked it out would again be felt across Europe 20 years later.

The history of Jamaica as told through its music

Though it’s easy to frame great moments in music history as revolutionary, they are usually the culmination of decades of change. So, while it is easy to see the great reggae wave that emerged from Jamaica in the late ‘60s as a seminal moment in musical history, which it certainly was, it was also part of an ocean of cultural change that has continued to rise and alter the musical landscape.

For Jamaica, as with many other nations, the Second World War was a watershed. The veneer of the British Empire, already cracking by 1939, had been shattered by the war and waves of decolonisation followed fast on the heels of the Axis Powers’ surrender. Jamaica were among those nations who began clamouring for independence in 1945; a campaign which would bear fruit 17 years later with independence granted in 1962.

Music played a massive role in shaping Jamaican culture over this 17 year period, and beyond, with the traditional mento style acting as the bedrock for this transformation.

Like most of the Caribbean islands, Jamaica’s modern history was shaped by slavery. Occupied by the Spanish in 1494, the lack of gold meant the island was of little economic consequence. Though the Spanish used native, and later African, slaves to work the land these numbers remained relatively low and the island was never of much consequence to the Iberian empire awash in American bullion.

This lack of interest and investment made Jamaica a tempting target for the invading English; who conquered the island in 1655 after an unsuccessful campaign against the neighbouring Hispaniola. This change of ownership was of significant consequence for later Jamaican populations and culture.

First England began to ship copious numbers of indentured Irish to the remote island, so much so that they made up two-thirds of the European population in the 17th century. These numbers alone weren’t enough to work the land, however, and, after securing peace with Spain in 1670, England brought in thousands of African slaves; who could better survive the Caribbean’s tropical climate and diseases.

These slaves, mostly captured from West Africa, brought with them their religions, superstitions, traditions, and music. The indentured Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and English did likewise and, as in other American colonies, a unique creole culture emerged in Jamaica as these people mixed together.

The melting pot wasn’t incredibly diverse, however, thanks to segregation policies and racism. Yet even as the ruling class subjugated and isolated the African slaves they injected their communities with European culture.

Many plantations used slaves to provide entertainment and those with musical ability could find themselves encouraged to play the latest in musical trends from Mother England. This was a much better fate than what waited out in the sugar fields and refineries. This music travelled home with its players and, over time, the two musics came together to form the unique Jamaican sound, mento.

In the wake of the Second World War mento came to the fore as Jamaica underwent a cultural revival that fueled, and was in turn fueled by, its move toward independence. One of the biggest drivers of this independence movement was the pan-Africanism that stretched to the early 20th century and figures like Marcus Garvey.

Part of a wider global trend of cultural nationalism, Garvey founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association “to do the utmost to work for the general uplift of the people of African ancestry of the world”. Much like the Finnish, Irish, and Slavic cultural revivals, this movement helped to promote and solidify a Jamaican nationality based around its African heritage.

Mento was one of the great beneficiaries of this movement and its fortunes rose with those of Jamaican independence. By the end of the 1940s mento had become popular for dances and parties across the island. This popularity was mirrored in the rise of other Afrocentric musical styles like rhythm and blues and calypso, so much so that the styles began to merge together, along with jazz, in the 1950s.

This gave rise to new forms of music like ska and rocksteady, which similarly emphasised the drums and bass. Though relatively popular, these styles wouldn’t hit the cultural heights of their successor, reggae; but then these styles didn’t enjoy the support of a religious movement.

The coronation of Haile Selassie as Emperor of Ethiopia in 1930 kicked off a new religious movement in Jamaica when some missionaries declared him to be the Second Coming of Christ. This Rastafarianism brought together the religiosity and Afrocentrism of Garvey and other pan-Africans and welded the two firmly together. Yet, as a new religion, Rastafarianism often clashed with the dominant Protestant sects of Jamaica and remained unpopular for most of its history.

This changed with the emergence of reggae and Bob Marley and the Wailers.

A new variation of mento, reggae differed from its precursors, ska and rocksteady, by aligning itself closely with the funk emerging from the southern USA. This difference didn’t stop reggae from capitalising on the popularity of these older styles, though, which allowed it to reach a wide audience. Yet the most important element to reggae’s success was its timing.

Arriving toward the end of the 1960s, reggae emerged in a world awash in the great countercultural wave that was pushing back against tradition and authority. This gave reggae a great boost in the American and British music scenes where young audiences embraced the pan-Africanism and Rastafarianism of Bob Marley and others. Reggae would peak over the next decade or so and influence the likes of the Beatles, Eric Clapton, and Paul Simon.

The close links between Jamaica and the UK meant the reggae wave would crash hardest on British shores.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 extended citizenship rights to the populations of the Commonwealth. This allowed for easy migration from the West Indies to Britain and Caribbean neighbourhoods soon popped up around the country. These migrants, like their enslaved ancestors, brought with them their culture, traditions, and music; which flourished in their new homeland.

New distinct British hybrids of Carribean music quickly emerged. Blending the drum and bass of ska and reggae with the dancehall rock and roll, and fueled by blazing anti-establishment sentiment, British punk was born and a whole new epoch of music began; though if you look closely you can see its roots stretch back for centuries.

Though lacking the drum and bass focus of mento, ska, or reggae, Redemption Song is one of the most most culturally important tracks to emerge from the shores of Jamaica. Composed by Bob Marley in the final years of his life, this often covered track reflected on the harsh history of the Caribbean while acting as a muted anthem for the Pan-African movement. A year after releasing Redemption Song Marley died and reggae’s popularity began to wain.

Yet reggae, like the styles that went before it, would live on in the bedrock of the music that emerged from Jamaica and elsewhere. The history and culture of Jamaica continues to be felt in the ripples its music makes.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory on January 13th, 2018

The Roman Dream – A brief exploration of citizenship in ancient Rome

Citizenship is the foundation of every democracy. While autocrats rely on power derived from divine proclamation or the force of arms, democracies depend on the support of people who are invested in the success of the state. In this way a state’s citizens enjoy special privileges in exchange for promoting the flourishing of the state and defending it, should the need ever arise.

This is just a vague outline of a complex political theory and the definition of citizenship has varied wildly depending on the time, place, and people involved. But the fundamental idea has largely stayed the same since ancient times and much of the core theory, that will still draw on today, was laid out by the Romans millennia ago.

While many experiments in citizenship predate the Roman Republic few delved into the intricacies and theory as much as this nascent empire. Citizenship in ancient Rome wasn’t a singular state, but rather a catch-all term for those who enjoyed any in a buffet of privileges; from being able to marry and vote, to the right to a fair trial. This totem pole of rights ran from full male citizens on top through to freed slaves at the bottom.

This tiered system began in the early days of the Republic when the new ruling class sought some way to avoid a return of the Roman kings. By investing the plebeians with rights in the Law of the Twelve Tables, circa 450 BCE, the patrician class secured the loyalty of this erstwhile defiant populous. Though this proto-constitution enshrined segregation between patricians and plebeians, it also made both citizens of Rome and opened the door to securing future rights.

As the Republic developed and expanded so too did the litany of rights that the servants of Rome could secure. The most notable of these were the Latin Rights.

In 338 BCE Rome secured victory over the coalition of neighbouring Latin peoples. While many of the conquered lands were totally Romanized, great swathes became colonies. These lands remained largely under Latin control but received a transplanted population of Roman citizens. These citizens would act in place of a military garrison; hopefully ensuring obedience to Roman rule and curtailing any possible insurrection.

So that these colonies could function properly the free Latins therein were given the right to trade, marry, and migrate. These Latin Rights, though not on par with full Roman citizenship, encouraged assimilation and fostered trade and growth of the Republic. They also, inadvertently or not, offered those who enjoyed them the opportunity to rise within the growing Republic.

One of the effects of these staggered legal rights was to create an appetite for social progress among Rome’s citizens and subjects. Though few could ever hope to vote or hold office, the promise of being able to secure greater rights through feat of arms or service to the state encouraged active participation by Rome’s citizenship.

One of the most remarkable of these steps on Rome’s social ladder was a slave’s ability to become a freeman.

Like so many civilisations both old and new Rome relied on slaves to provide the bulk of its labour force. Considered their master’s property, slaves had no rights and lacked legal personhood. Yet the path to freedom was not widely barred and slaves were routinely freed in their master’s wills. Roman slaves were even paid wages with which they could, eventually, buy their own freedom.

Once a freedman there was little legal distinction between a man and his peers. There were, however, some rights unavailable to former slaves, such as holding public office. Importantly, these barriers weren’t in place for their children. While a slave couldn’t dream of voting himself, he could dream of his son doing the same.

As the American dream helped propel the incredible economic growth and expansion of the USA, so too did the dream of Roman citizenship help fuel the Republic’s march toward imperial glory. This became increasingly true as more and more barriers to full citizenship were done away with.

The only constant exception to this dream was Rome’s women. As with practically every other ancient civilisation, Roman women were treated as secondary to their male counterparts. So, while women could enjoy some rights and stand further down the totem-pole, even the most powerful daughters, mothers, and wives.

Toward the end of the second century BCE the right of conubium was given to those provinces of Rome who already enjoyed the Latin Rights. This granted legitimacy, and thus citizenship, to any child of a Roman father and provincial mother.

The dream of being a full citizen of Rome and wielding the vote had welded the plebeians to the budding Republic. This same dream now saw the once hostile Latins throw their support behind Roman expansion. Yet expansion and success brought with it a nativism that is all too familiar to many nations today.

Though the outward march of Rome’s frontiers had brought great economic and imperial gains, it had also seen her non-Roman population swell in numbers. While these subjects were free to trade, marry, and move unmolested throughout the Republic, they were barred from ever holding the vote themselves. This inequality in right became a growing point of contention as non-Romans made up more and more of the population and army. By 100 BCE only a third of the Republic’s soldiers were Roman and, by extension, could ever hope to vote.

Yet, fearful of any dilution of their own power, Rome’s patrician and plebeian class fought to oppose opening citizenship to the Republic’s non-Roman provinces. In 91 BCE this conflict erupted into the violent and bloody Social Wars when many of Rome’s allied provinces turned against her.

For three bloody years the war raged with Rome often on the defensive against her disparate neighbours. Yet the veteran soldiers of Rome’s legions were able to hold out and slowly whittle their enemy armies away. Though the soldiers in the field had won the battles, victory in the war was secured by granting full citizenship to the provinces who had remained loyal and to any soldier who had acquitted themselves well.

The years following the Social Wars would be the pinnacle of Roman citizenship. The Republic, which prided itself on its voting population, had welcomed into the fold all those who had loyally served Rome; citizenship had become a right that was earned, not simply inherited.

Yet within its own success lay the destruction of Roman citizenship.

Born in 100 BCE, Julius Caesar lived through the Social Wars and saw first hand just how destructive such civil strife could be. As dictator for life, he extend citizenship to the Roman subjects in Spain and Gaul. Whether or not the irony was lost on Julius Caesar is unclear but, under his rule, Roman citizenship peaked and was destroyed. The subsequent emperors cared little for democracy and, though the vote still existed, it was an empty voice.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory on December 3rd, 2017

A brief history of United Nations peacekeeping

Peacekeeping has never been an easy undertaking. Deployed far from home these soldiers, policemen, and civil servants operate under incredibly strict restrictions designed to preserve the forces impartiality and effectiveness. Yet these very restrictions have seen UN missions criticised as ineffective and unable to act.

This criticism was sharpest in the wake of the Rwandan genocide and Srebrenica massacre, when the UN forces were unable to act while human atrocities were being committed. Why are UN peacekeepers so hampered in their actions? And what is the point of such forces?

The roots of UN peacekeeping

The formation of the United Nations offered those powers who had promised an end to global violence in 1918 another bite of the cherry. The first incarnation, Woodrow Wilson’s grand League of Nations, became an abject failure when, lacking US backing or any tangible power, it proved to be a paper tiger against Italian and German aggression.

Learning from the mistakes made by the League, World War Two’s Allies looked to ensure their new United Nations would be able to act with consequence on the world stage. Economics would be the UN’s main weapon, using investment and sanctions as carrots and sticks to promote peace and discourage violence and human rights abuses. Without the ability to put boots on the ground though the UN would remain as toothless as the League that came before. To this end the Security Council was formed with the aim of preserving international peace and, importantly, was given the power to use military force to do so.

But what exactly the military force of a cooperative international body would look like was quite unclear in 1945.

The first peacekeeping missions

While the League of Nations had deployed a force to the Saar Basin in 1935, this was a relatively minor mission and provided few learning experiences. The same could not be said for the UN’s first official excursion into the peacekeeping experiment when it sent a force to monitor the truce between Israel and the surrounding Arab territories in 1948.

Dubbed the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), this force was designed to preserve peace in the region and support UN Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine into two independent states with Jerusalem remaining under international control. While its mission has adapted to changes in the region, UNTSO has remained in operation since the 29th of May, 1948. As the UN’s first, and longest, peacekeeping mission UNTSO has proved a fertile learning ground for policy makers, most notably on the limitations of such endeavours. Unable to act as an aggressive force or push their own political ends, UNTSO has had to watch various UN resolutions fall to the wayside in the face of conflict and local political opposition.

Yet UN peacekeeping could have developed in a wholly different way had it not been for the intervention of two men: Dag Hammarskjöld and Lester B Pearson.

The Korean War

In 1945 Japanese rule in Korea ended with Allied victory in the Second World War. Much like Germany, the Korean peninsula was divided into zones that would be administered by the western Allies, this time just the US, and the Soviet Union, with the 38th parallel acting as the demarcation between the two.

Though the original plan sought to peacefully unify the peninsula, the onset of the Cold War made this all but impossible as each half of Korea allied themselves ever more with the political model of their patron powers. The likelihood of conflict built in the years following Japan’s ousting with guerilla action and minor cross border military skirmishes. By 1950 reconciliation was an unlikely and distant hope.

This final hope was shattered when North Korea, with the support of the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China, invaded the South on the 25th of June.

The North swept southward, threatening to take control of the entire peninsula. In response the UN Security Council passed resolutions green lighting member states and the Union itself from supporting the South Koreans. This was only possible because of the veto wielding Soviet Union’s boycott of the Security Council.

The UN’s intervention, made up mostly of American forces and arms, had a dramatic effect on the conflict and the North Korean forces were pressed back toward the Chinese border. The eventual armistice and continued existence of South Korea was thanks in no small part to the UN backed intervention.

This sort of military action risked politicising the UN and undermining its core mission of securing world peace. Unless the Soviet Union and China could be convinced of the UN’s impartiality, the whole undertaking would be undone.

The Suez Crisis and defining Peacekeeping

In 1956 Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt in response to President Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal. The UN, with strong US and Soviet support, condemned the invasion and pressured the three belligerents to withdraw. This conflict offered the UN a chance to refine just how a peacekeeping force would be deployed and operate.

After the UN General Assembly secured a ceasefire the UN was forced to develop a means by which such a peace could be monitored and maintained. Into the breach stepped Canadian Foreign Minister Lester B Pearson and UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. In the space of a week these men were able to negotiate the creation of an armed force made up of troops from a number of UN members that would be deployed to keep the peace on both sides of the newly negotiated armistice line.

Though Israel opposed the deployment of this new United Nations Emergency Force in its land, Egypt welcomed the troops and their mission to oversee the peaceful withdrawal of French, British, and Israeli troops from Egyptian territory. Central to the success of the UNEF mission was the fact that they were armed and they were present in Egypt at the behest of the Egyptian government.

This approach, which became the UN model for peacekeeping, helped to divorce the UN from perceptions of political loyalty and grow the UN’s international prestige and effectiveness. Being reliant on the welcome of their host nation brought massive limitation on UN peacekeepers, however, as was discovered when Egypt ordered all UN forces out of Sinai less than a month before the Six Day War.

Since Suez

In the years since the first UNEF troops were deployed the UN has embarked on dozens of peacekeeping missions. Many of these are acclaimed successes that have helped or are helping to foster peace and tackle terrorism and human rights abuses. Others face serious issues and accusations; from failing to provide security for civilians to allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation, with the UN reporting 31 new allegations against peacekeepers and civilians this week.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory on November 11th 2017

The Catalonian Revolt – A look back on the rebellion of 1640 in light of today’s controversial vote

Catalonian independence has long been a thorny issue, one that has risen its head once again as the region looks set to hold a vote on independence this Sunday, the 1st of October, amid divisive circumstances.

Spain’s constitutional court has suspended the legislation on which the referendum relies while it rules on the legality of the vote. Yet Catalonia’s regional government has insisted the vote will go ahead. Meanwhile the national government has taken steps to disrupt the logistics needed to execute an effective referendum.

This is just the latest in Catalonia’s long history of conflict and opposition to central Spanish rule. One of the earliest chapters begins in 1640 when, with French aid, the region revolted against the increasingly draining and dogmatic rule of Spain’s Hapsburg kings. 22 years earlier Philip III had thrown Spain’s might into the burgeoning Thirty Years War.

Beginning as a war between Protestant and Catholic German states, this conflict became one of Europe’s bloodiest as it spread and engulfed most of Europe in sectarian and political violence. In 1635 Catalonia was thrust onto the frontlines as France declared against her southern neighbour, and disquiet began to fester.

Internal pressures in Spain had been building for some time though. Decades of war had placed massive financial strain on the Spanish treasury. Worse still her former Dutch territories had gained the upper hand in the long running Eighty Years War and the flow of wealth from trade and the New World had been stymied. As a result Madrid had tried to spread the cost of her Empire, carried mostly by the crown until now, across Spain. This was an economic burden the people did not shoulder happily.

It was the presence of Castilian soldiers on Catalan soil that proved to be the flashpoint though and, in May 1640, peasants revolted against the quartering of soldiers on their land. The rebellion gained momentum when Pau Claris, the President of the Generalitat of Catalonia, called the political bodies from across Catalonia to form an estates general. This body quickly began to enact its own laws and policies, which were to become the first steps towards independence.

Engaged across Europe, and with further rebellions in Portugal and some of her Italian territories, Spain found herself caught unawares by the Catalonians’ actions and unable to muster any swift response. This inaction emboldened Barcelona and the rift with Madrid grew as France wooed her newfound natural ally. With the promised protection of the French crown the Catalonians felt bold enough to declare themselves a republic on the 17th of January, 1641.

The response from Madrid to this move toward open rebellion was swift and a new Viceroy, Pedro Fajardo, was dispatched with 26,000 troops to bring the region to heel. Though resistance was met on the march to Barcelona it was easily overcome. Villages and towns, pacified through violence and the execution of rebel prisoners, were left in the wake of Fajardo’s passing, tracing a path toward the costal Catalonian capital.

Though shocking today, such violence was routine at the time. Armies at the time were mercenary in nature and had little interest, or provisions, to spare for prisoners. The protracted wars of religion, raging for more than a century by this stage, had also fostered a tolerance for violence. In the Germanic north, where sectarian war raged between Protestant and Catholic enclaves, more than a quarter of the population died during the Thirty Years War.

The Catalonian Revolt formed a part of this tapestry of violence and many ordinary people suffered as Fajardo’s troops marched to meet the army of the Catalan Republic. The armies eventually met outside Barcelona, in the Martorell region, where the forces of the young republic suffered defeat. The violence inflicted on the country, and the threat to their capital, only served to entrench the Catalonian separatists further and they struck back in late January on the heights of Montjuïc.

Fajardo targeted the castle that dominated the heights, seeking to dislodge the forces within. The Catalonians fought ferociously against the larger Spanish army, however, repulsing every attack. The day firmly turned against Fajardo when a force of rebels sallied out from the capital below, scattered his army and forcing them to retreat along the coast for safer shores.

The Catalonians were unable to capitalise on this momentary advantage, however, as they struggled to come to grips with internal strife and conflict. Fajardo’s march to Barcelona had added fuel to the peasant revolt, which had ignited the rebellion itself the year before. The Catalonian Generalitat struggled to contain and direct this increased discontent, that began to be directed toward itself and the local nobility.

Worse still for the burgeoning republic was the death of its first president, Pau Claris.

Just a little over a month after declaring the Catalan Republic, the 55 year old Claris fell ill and died. Though he had been sickly for a year or more, suspicions of foul play immediately surround Claris’ death. A strong willed and popular politician, Claris provided an ideological backbone to the Catalonian Republic. His death left a vacuum that France’s King Louis XIII readily filled, thanks in large part to his military commander Philippe de La Mothe-Houdancourt; who had fortuitously arrived the day Claris fell ill.

With the military support of their new French liege, the Catalans pressed their advantage against their Spanish neighbours. It soon became clear though that France had little interest in the Catalonia beyond its strategic location, and support for the French began to wain in the war weary region.

Though they had set out seeking independence the Catalans found themselves, again, relegated to a theater of war for the French and Spanish kings. For over a decade the two powers fought for control of the region with fortunes swinging back and forth between the two. The Peace of Westphalia brought peace between Spain and northern Europe, leaving her free to concentrate on France.

With the balance of power firmly in Spain’s favour she was soon able to retake most of Catalonia, with Barcelona eventually falling in 1652. The Pyrenees proved an impenetrable border, however, and the Spanish were never able to retake Roussillon, the region north of the mountain range. The Treaty of the Pyrenees brought peace between Spain and France in 1659 and established the border between them that has lasted to this day.

National identities are incredibly complex. Shaped by geography, language, history, culture, politics, and religion the idea of “us” can often lead to violence and suffering as people seek to carve out their own national homelands, or hold onto regions that threaten to secede. This was the case in Catalonia in 1640, and in countless other places since.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory on October 1st 2017

Why do we marry? – The history of mankind’s oldest institution

As we learned from our show on Attila the Hun, marriage is a complicated and often dangerous affair with the nuptial bed seeing as much politics and intrigue as love and tenderness.

But which is stranger: marrying for love, for power, or for money? Or, more importantly, marrying at all?

With the Constitutional Convention strongly supporting a referendum on gay marriage Ireland will have to take a long look at this ancient institution, what it means to us, and how it should be enshrined in our law.

This discussion, however, only focuses on our recent ideas about ‘traditional marriage’ and ignores the complex history of recognised relationships and why we marry in the first place.

Beginnings

Though marriage pre-dates recorded history its form has varied so widely depending on time and place that even today the term confusingly covers all forms of formal monogamous and polygamous relationships. Most interestingly is that there was a felt need to formalise and make official these complex relationships in the first place.

Legitimacy seems to be the main driving factor in creating marriage as men tried to ensure their efforts and resources were being spent on their progeny alone. The evidence for this is the global trend of monogamy and polygyny as marriage practice, with polyandry and group marriage being a rare exception to the rule, and Semitic religious texts’ stipulating punishment for the adulterous wife and her lover.

This would seem to indicate that marriage was, from its earliest beginnings, a social tool created not for the expression and enshrining of love but as a means of regulating relationships between humans who were becoming increasingly socially complex and intelligent because of extended childhoods.

Marriage attempted to ensure that the great effort and resources needed to raise a child would not be spent on another man’s young. This definition of the union, however, only holds true in the majority of cases and across the world a myriad of familial units and complex marriages have been recorded.

Though practical in origin marriage probably began its days as a loving union as a lack of wealth disparity or individual accumulation in hunter gatherers meant a partner would be mainly chosen on mutual attraction and emotion and not dictated by potential gain or loss.

With the advent of settled society and material hierarchies, however, love slipped from marriage as people could now marry above or beneath their station and men and women were exchanged to increase their family’s standing.

While hunter gatherers may have used with marriage to forge and bolster trade links and alliances it truly came into its own as a political tool as people laid claim to land and title. The uniqueness of Prince William’s marriage and the restrictions on his ancestors shows how important marriage as a political tool was to this day; in many societies and cultures marriage, including who and when you marry, is still governed by established rules and traditions.

Love v politics

Though romantic love has often been praised and immortalised, most memorably by Romeo and Juliet, the reality was far removed and every level of society, from farmer and artisan to king and lord, discouraged the idea of love and used marriage as a means to an end, from securing peace to getting a good cook or farmhand.

While some lovers eloped, in monogamous societies romance and passion in matrimony was largely discouraged, with some cultures openly encouraging the taking of mistresses. While some polygamous marriages may have been for love these would have been little more than official mistresses as marriage had been politicised across the world.

While these extra-marital affairs exacerbated the issue of illegitimacy the international rise of patriarchy ensured that polygamy was predominantly a man’s game and affairs involving another man’s wife were discouraged.

While this ‘legitimate progeny’ view of relationships and marriage has dominated human societies and cultures polyandry has been found in many regions. While these relationships are just as likely to be driven by benefit and not romance, the concurrent existence of so many relationship types proves that marriage is not as black and white as we often make out.

Marry for love

The liberation of marriage came at the end of the 18th century when centuries of ideas about individuals’ rights and freedoms became enshrined in the newly created United States of America. From now on, in the West at least, people felt empowered to marry, and divorce, for love instead of bending to the will of their family and society.

While John B. Keane’s Sive shows that this revolution didn’t touch the whole of the world the love revolution marched on and by the end of the 20th century marriage was unrecognisable.

Driven by the work of people like Jung, Freud, Sabina Spielrein, Kinsey, and Anthony Clare sex and its importance in human psychology and society began to be understood. With this, and massive advances in contraception, gender roles in marriage began to change as suddenly a marital union was not primarily defined by its offspring.

With the US overturning all laws against interracial marriages in 1967 some of the final taboos surrounding marriage came crashing down.

Marriage today is as varied as its long history, with the current international trend of legalising gay marriage the most recent addition to this intricate tapestry. While formal joining of partners have varied throughout time and space depending on cultural, religious, economic, and societal norms the only constant definition of marriage I can find is that it is a union of people before the eyes their peers, it seem that love has always been optional.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory in 2013

“England expects that every man will do his duty” – The life and legacy of Horatio Nelson

In 1805 Europe lay in the shadow of Napoleon and his newly minted French Empire. The, as yet, unmatched Grande Armée had brought most of the west of the continent to heel and were poised to do the same to the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire in the east. Little stood between Britain and her ancient enemy France but water and boats.

This vulnerability is key to why Horatio Nelson became the hero of Britain.

Despite its vast empire, Britain could never hope to match the French army in the field. Napoleon had amassed an incredibly strong body of soldiers who were well armed and well led. Compared to this force the derided British redcoats were of little consequence.

For all their martial prowess, though, the Grande Armée couldn’t float, nor could they conquer London from Calais.

To silence Britain, and her funding of any and all opposition to French expansion, Napoleon would first need to subdue the English Channel and its guardian, the Royal Navy. This was no easy task as Britain, reliant on the oceans for protection and to knit her empire together, had developed a fleet the envy of all other nations.

While the British ships tended to be better equipped than their continental counterparts, what truly distinguished them were the men. Though many men were pressed into service most who sailed under the union jack did so for the chance to secure bountiful reward. Many of these came from coastal towns and villages where sailing was as much a part of life as walking.

This maritime familiarity wasn’t restricted to the Jack Tars swinging through the rigging either and the officer class was filled with men who called the ocean home. This was particularly true of Admiral Nelson, who took to sea at just 12 years of age.

The nephew of an influential naval officer, nepotism secured Nelson his first posting and ensured the first rungs in a naval career were within easy reach. Nelson did not rise on name alone and proved himself an able seaman as he rose through the ranks during periods of relative peace. It was in war that Nelson thrived though and in which he would make a name for himself.

Tactically sound and insanely brave Nelson won the admiration of officer and seaman alike by leading his own bold missions from the front. While Napoleon made a name for himself during the French Revolutionary Wars, Nelson did likewise at sea. By the time the brilliant Corsican officer was crowned Emperor of France, Nelson, already an Admiral, had become the hero of the Nile and a thorn in France’s side. Napoleon’s mastery of war on land seemed mirrored in Nelson’s ability at sea.

The British superiority in ships and men did not ensure mastery of the waves, which would be boasted about for the following century and beyond, and the combined French and Spanish fleets still offered some threat to the larger British force in 1805.

This would all change utterly on the 25th of October, 1805 when Nelson sailed 33 ships into history and the muzzles of 41 French and Spanish ships off Cape Trafalgar on the Spanish coast. Determined to engage the enemy in a “pell-mell” battle Nelson launched his ships into the enemy lines in two columns.

Once engaged Nelson could have little influence on the proceedings. Trusting superior British gunning and sailing would carry the day, he sent his last message to the fleet, “England expects that every man will do his duty”, before plunging his flagship, HMS Victory, into the fray at the head of one of the columns.

By the close of battle Victory lay in ruins, yet the day was firmly carried by the British. 21 French and Spanish ships had been captured and their dead outnumbered the British ten to one. Yet King George III confessed “we have lost more than we have gained” on hearing that victory had come at the cost of Nelson’s life.

Striding across the deck of Victory, Nelson was hit with a musket ball in his left shoulder which passed through his spine and lodged just below his right shoulder. Nelson knew the wound was fatal and was carried below decks where he died three hours later.

Though Nelson did invite death by making himself so conspicuous, standing in the open in his officer’s regalia, it was not more so than any other officer; he had been shot while walking alongside his flag captain Thomas Hardy. In the vicious fray of naval battle officers on all sides were expected to comport themselves with bravery and honour, cover was eschewed to provide an example to the men. Though Nelson is seen as an exemplar of this bravery many other officers lost their lives in similar fashion.

Though the cost of victory was the loss of Britain’s greatest naval commander, it was a truly fitting end. Nelson excelled in war and, with such a stunning victory at Trafalgar, he had ensured that Britain would rule the seas unopposed for more than a century. In the face of such dominance large scale naval battles were impossible, and Nelson could never flourish in such a world.

The timing of Nelson’s death was also fortuitous for his legacy. Napoleon’s success on the continent would continue largely unchecked until his ill fated invasion of Russia in 1812 and, despite her safe shores, Britain felt isolated and cold. Nelson offered a great reprieve during these troubling times and a beacon around which the British could coalesce.

Returned to England in a cask of brandy, aboard the aptly named HMS Pickle, Nelson received a welcome befitting a British Achilles. 32 admirals, over a hundred captains, and an escort of 10,000 soldiers escorted his coffin from the Admiralty to his final resting place at St Paul’s Cathedral, where he enjoys a preeminent position among the celebrated dead to this day.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory

The life Gertrude Bell and the birth of Iraq

The geopolitical map of the modern Middle East was carved out in the wake of the First World War. In 1918 the once vast Ottoman Empire had crumbled, leaving the victorious Allies to carve new nations and spheres of influence from its carcass. Having carried most of the fighting in the region Britain took control of Mesopotamia and began the process of breaking the region into autonomous subjects, many of which we can still point to today.

One of the key figures in creating the new map of the Middle East was the writer, spy, archaeologist, and polymath Gertrude Bell. Born to a wealthy and politically successful family in 1868 Gertrude enjoyed opportunities open to few of her peers. While most women were forced to play supporting role to their husbands or fathers Gertrude saw the doors of Oxford and the paths of the world open before her.

While this was largely thanks to her family’s wealth and connections Gertrude’s own ability saw a girl with opportunities transform into a woman with a legacy.

After studying history in Oxford, one of the few subjects open to women at the time, Gertrude visited her uncle who was a British minister in Teheran. This was the beginning of her lifelong affair with travel and adventure as she began to explore Arabia and conquer mountains across Europe and the Middle East. During this time she came close to death many times, became a highly regarded archaeologist, and learned Arabic, Persian, French, German, Italian, and Turkish.

These skills and languages came to serve Gertrude well when war broke out in 1914. After a brief stint serving with the Red Cross in France she was approached by British Intelligence to help with the war effort in the Middle East. From 1915 until the end of the war she served as one of the most important figures in the desert campaign against the Ottoman Empire. The planning, information, and politicking of Gertrude, T.E. Lawrence, and others helped Britain mobilise local resistance, capture Baghdad, and eventually defeat the Ottoman Empire in the east.

As the foremost authority on the region and commanding the respect of the tribal and political leaders in the region Gertrude was tasked with analysing the situation in Mesopotamia and formulating Britain’s strategy in the region. ‘Self Determination in Mesopotamia’ became the blueprint for the formation of the Iraqi state. Gertrude was asked to remain as Oriental Secretary and help with the transition of power from British forces to the incoming king Faisal bin Hussein.

The deposed king of Syria it was hoped that Faisal’s lineage from Muhammad and Sunni background would make him amenable to Iraq’s Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurdish populations. Though the transition was tougher than expected the new Iraqi state soon became reasonably economically and politically stable, thanks in large part to Gertrude’s efforts.

In 1926, however, Gertrude’s younger brother died of typhoid. Gertrude herself had just recovered from a bout of pleurisy herself following a trip back to England in order to address family issues and her own failing health. On the 12^th of July 1926 she was found dead, from an apparent overdose of sleeping pills.

Though Gertrude had suffered periods of depression and risky behaviour since her mother’s death, when Gertrude was only three years old, she had also asked to be woken by the maid; leading many to speculate whether her death was suicide or accident. She was laid to rest as one of the most accomplished women in the world. She had commanded the respect of the British authorities, tribal leaders, and kings and helped to shape and mould the new Middle East.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory

The life, writings, and legacy of Jonathan Swift

As fierce a beak and talon as ever struck—as strong a wing as ever beat, belong to Swift – William Makepeace Thackery

Ireland boasts its fair share of literary giants. Beckett and Wilde stand immense in stage and theatre while figures like Joyce and Yeats cast imposing shadows in the world of poetry and prose. More than 250 years after his death Jonathan Swift remains a star amongst this cast of literary genius. Born in Dublin in 1667 Swift’s sharp wit and mastery of the English language has seen him immortalised as one of history’s greatest satirists.

Though born into a well respected and wealthy family Swift’s youth was not without hardship. His father had died seven months before the boy’s birth and, as the child of a widow, Swift was reliant on the generosity of relations and family friends growing up. While his uncles ensured the child received a good education it was his move to England in 1688 and the patronage of the great diplomat Sir William Temple that would do most to shape Swift.

It was while serving as Temple’s secretary and assistant that Swift was exposed to the politics of Westminster. Except for a short stint spent as a priest in the Church of Ireland Swift remained in Temple’s service until the latter’s death in 1699. The normally harsh Swift had nothing but gentle words for his patron. With little to no support forthcoming from England Swift returned to Ireland to take up the mantle of minister and chaplain once again.

This post-Temple period also saw Swift establish himself as a writer and political mind of some repute. Over the following decades he used his literary skills to create fictitious worlds and influence the politics of reality. He became one of the greatest champions of the Irish and their causes. He wrote against the harsh penal laws and risked the wrath of the Government with works like ‘Drapier’s Letters’ and ‘A Modest Proposal’.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory

The history of Ukraine

In 2014 violence consumed the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, as protests against the incumbent president Viktor Yanukovych erupted into civil unrest. The EU and Russia had been vying for influence in the Ukraine since this massive nation declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Yanukovych’s decision to shy away from the EU in favour of closer ties with Russia had instigated the protests in late 2013, which only grew worse when tough Anti-Protest Laws were brought in in January 2014.

As the anti-government protests gained momentum demonstrations began to be held in the pro-Russian regions of eastern and southern Ukraine supporting Yanukovych. With 98 people dead, 100 missing, and thousands injured Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych at the end of February 2014. In a snap-election in May the pro-EU Petro Poroshenko was elected president, retaining the position in more formal elections in October of that year.

While Yanukovych’s fall from power brought the unrest in Kiev and the west to an end it worsened tensions in eastern and southern Ukraine. In some of these pro-Russian regions armed men, claiming to be local militia, seized strategic buildings and held unrecognised referenda to establish separatist republics. These insurgencies occurred in tandem with Russia’s annexation of Crimea after the peninsula voted to join the Federation in a controversial referendum in March 2014.

Crimea had always been somewhat distinct from mainland Ukraine though. Only made part of the Ukraine in 1954 by decree of the Soviet Union, its population was majority Russian and it had limited political autonomy since 1992. This, coupled with the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s anchorage at Sevastopol, gives weight to claims for Crimean independence and their joining of the Russian Federation. The regions in eastern and southern Ukraine, however, have long historical ties to the rest of the Ukraine and didn’t enjoy the same political independence as Crimea following the fall of the Soviet Union.

After almost a year of fighting a ceasefire was signed between the Ukrainian government and the separatist forces in February of this year. Though peace reigns for the moment Poroshenko’s promise to pursue the return of Crimea and move toward EU membership mean the future of the region is uncertain. The Ukraine remains caught between Europe and Russia, ideologically, geographically, and economically.

This article originally appeared on Newstalk.com/TalkingHistory