The Sinking of the USS Maine

If you are not American, you may not be familiar with the Spanish-American war and a principal cause, the sinking of a US warship, the USS Maine. If you are American, there is a term that goes together with the sinking of the ship, “yellow journalism” that may immediately spring to mind. We will be exploring both the sinking of the Maine and the impact the press had on the US government’s 1898 decision to declare war on Spain in the aftermath of the sinking.

In the late 19th century, the United States was mirroring behavior of western European empires but with a focus on its own hemisphere, specifically intervening in affairs in Mexico and other parts of Latin America. This behavior was an extension of the American concept of “Manifest Destiny” or the belief that the United States should and would dominate the North American continent from east to west coast. Once the western frontier was “won” those Americans turned their focus beyond the North American coastline and focused on the Pacific, Central, and South America, including countries and territories like the Philippines, Cuba, Puerta Rico, and Hispaniola. In their way however was the Spanish Empire, who controlled large chunks of the Caribbean and swaths of the Pacific. At the same time, the American press industry was undergoing a dramatic shift. Within the American constitution, the first amendment protects and enshrines press editorial freedom, allowing news corporations to be creative in their delivery of the news if the information being delivered to readers is not libelous towards the subjects of the stories, and in the late 19th century, newspapers started to push beyond the limits of what is factual news. William Randolph Hurst and Joseph Pulitzer, both newspaper magnates, became known for delivering exaggerated, solacious, fabricated, distorted, or sensationalized stories and headlines in their respectively owned papers. This reporting behavior became known as “yellow journalism” in America. Today it is still very much an active practice in use by tabloid journals and magazines in the US, the UK, and around the world.

The Spanish Empire was a dying power in the 19th century, having been heavily weakened by centuries of sustained conflict with other European powers. Further eroding the power of the empire was a century of territorial instability with civil wars and overseas rebellion, crippling the Spanish economy. Lastly, the Spanish now had to contend with a burgeoning power threatening its interests, the United States. With America’s focus on expanding power beyond its borders and Cuba being only 90 miles away from the US mainland, it became a natural target of American expansionists. In 1895 Cuban revolutionaries launched an armed rebellion against the Spanish, kicking off the Cuban War of Independence. This rebellion was not the first, as Cuba had been in a state of on and off rebellion since the 1860s and garnered the sympathy of Americans, who only a century before had shaken off their own colonial overlords. Additionally, American economic interests were tied to Cuba, as they were a leading sugar importer to the US, with increased American government and economic concern growing as the instability in Cuba continued. Further damning against the Spanish was their use of concentration camps (the first use of this term and type of internment) and exploited by the American press for attention grabbing headlines. The United States under President William McKinley, attempt to act as a 3rd party negotiator to end the conflict, but the Spanish would promise reforms and routinely fail to deliver on them, trying the patience of the United States. The American public began to believe that war between the United States and Spain was justified to protect American interests and to aid the Cuban cause.

As the Spanish cracked down in Cuba and no end to the conflict in sight, in 1898 the American government dispatched a cruiser, USS Maine, to Cuban waters to “protect American citizens and interests.” This also served as a signal to the Spanish that the United States was willing to use naval and military power to get their way. The Maine arrived in Havana harbor on January 25th, where it stayed until suffering a large explosion on the 15th of February. The explosion ignited a powder store for the ship’s guns, nearly vaporizing one third of the ship. The explosion killed 261 sailors and marines out of the 355 total crew, only leaving 16 uninjured of the surviving 94.

Conflicting information immediately came out regarding the cause of the explosion, with President McKinley first being told it was an accident, along with numerous high ranking naval and civilian officials being told the same. One initial belief was that coal fire ignited the ship, causing the explosion and this was communicated to the Department of the Navy. Although a different narrative quickly overtook this, that a Spanish mine had caused the sinking of the Maine. The “yellow” press seized upon the percieved Spanish offensive action narrative, printing weeks’ worth of sensationalized headlines demanding revenge for the American deaths or reimbursing the US for its loss by granting Cuba independence. The public, after being bombarded by the overly biased headlines and coupled with often exaggerated news of concentration camps and Spanish atrocities (concentration camps and atrocities by the Spanish did occur but the American press often fabricated or exaggerated key details or incidents), advocated for war between America and Spain. The rallying cry of “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain” entered the national American lexicon and once war was declared two months later, became one of the most memorable American slogans in history, being taught in American textbooks to this day. The Spanish were quickly defeated and humiliated in the subsequent war, with the conflict lasting just 16 weeks. In victory, the US took possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam, with Puerto Rico and Guam still being held as US territories to this day.

The United States and Spain each conducted their own investigations to understand what happened in the interim between the sinking and war, with Spain concluding that an internal explosion - likely from a coal bunker caused the sinking, with the US concluding that an external force, like a torpedo or mine was the cause.

But do we know the actual cause of the explosion over 120 years later? Numerous investigations have been launched to uncover the true cause of the explosion, as the naval mine or torpedo narrative is greatly disputed. The initial US inquiry in 1898 used testimony from the surviving crew and wreck divers to conclude that the ship was struck by a naval mine that ignited its forward magazine, as many survivors reported hearing two explosions. But this study had detractors within the navy who argued that a coal fire was the cause. In 1911, the Maine was raised from Havana harbor in a large operation where she was studied before being sunk again. This investigation concluded that an external explosion had indeed caused damage to the Maine and likely detonated its powder magazine. This investigation also was able to recover most of the sailors who went down with the ship and intern them in the US national military cemetery, Arlington. However, in 1974 another investigation led by US Admiral Hyman Rickover using photographs and wreckage pieces, with a book being released of the Rickover team’s findings in 1976. This study concluded that the explosion was not caused by an external explosion, but instead was caused by an internal explosion due to a buildup of methane and other gasses produced by the US Navy’s switch over to a more volatile coal type, igniting the magazine. To further muddle to the investigation into the Maine’s sinking, National Geographic conducted an investigation of their own in 1998, using computer graphics for the first time. Their investigation was inconclusive, with differing opinions amongst the members even as to the cause. The NatGeo team concluded that a small mine COULD have caused the blast but that an explosion due to coal gas build up could also be the cause. In 2002, an investigation by the US television network, the Discovery Channel, concluded that a coal bunker fire and explosion was the cause, with a design flaw in the metal separating the coal bunker from the magazine showing that a fire could have penetrated the barrier and led to a massive explosion.

The cause of the sinking of the Maine, whilst still disputed to this day, may never be fully known but the ship’s sinking and the American press’ sensationalism of the incident is absolutely a main cause of the Spanish-American war. Although ensuring protection of editorial integratory and news reporting is key in today’s 21st century America and the UK, looking back on the press’ actions around the Maine’s sinking and the subsequent US declaration of war provides us with one of history’s greatest example of government policy being affected by public sentiment and opinion being galvanized by a biased press.

The 1953 Iranian Coup

You will often hear people dispute the importance of studying history, with detractors claiming that it is boring, it focuses on just “great men,” or that studying history means you live in the past and are ignorant of the present. But here at Seeking History, we believe that studying history helps unlock a greater understanding of our current world, and a prime example of this is to explore how a 1953 coup in Iran led to the Islamic hardline regime that is currently in place and has been since 1979. Operation Ajax or Operation Boot, a joint venture by the American CIA and the British SIS/MI6, targeted the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and resulted in Mosaddegh’s ouster as Prime Minister of Iran, in favor of bolstering the Shah of Iran. This western sponsored and orchestrated coup is still resented by Iranians today as many believe it deprived them of a popular leader who could have changed or altered the path of Iran, with an Islamic revolution never occurring if he had not been removed. While Britain has never, and probably never will, admit it’s role in the Iranian coup, the United States publicly admitted to their role in 2023 for the first time.

              Iran, for most of its recent history, was a monarchial state with a king known as the Shah. While by the mid-20th century, most Iranians did not resent or regard the Shah with hostility, they were looking for a more modern Iran. Iran had strong ties to the West, and in return the West pumped large amounts of money into the country to ensure their economic interests and petroleum supply lines were protected and uninterrupted. Numerous companies sprouted in Iran as joint ventures between the Iranians and Western nations like Britain and the United States, leading to a sense amongst Iranians that the West was stealing or siphoning Iran’s natural wealth. One of these companies, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP), and its resistance to Iranian state oversight, became a core cause of the coup.

             The foundations of the coup were laid in the 1940s, when the British and Soviets invaded, and then subsequently occupied Iran during the Second World War to ensure a constant flow of petroleum for the war effort. In the process, the Shah, Reza Shah, was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It is not conjecture to assume that Mohammad Reza, after witnessing the downfall of his father due to his resistance against the Allies, understood that he should hitch his fate to the wagon of Western power, and especially to the newly emergent power of the United States. In the wake of the war, and the eventual withdrawal of Anglo-Soviet forces in 1946, Reza began to radically change the culture of Iran, adopting western ideals and grandiose plans for a westernized Iran as a middle eastern industrial powerhouse that he began to implement through the 1940s and early 1950s. However, nationalists in Iran, whilst nominally backing the Shah, believed that Iran could only achieve this plan with a reduction of reliance on foreign investment and industry, with Iranian domestic industry filling the gap. Foreign investment, especially in the petroleum sector, had been prevalent in Iran since at least the early 20th century, when Britain dominated Iran’s oil industry through multi-national corporations and exclusivity contracts on Iranian oil. However, due to the contracts and these British corporations, Iranian domestic industry was severely lacking and uncompetitive. In order to quickly push Iranian domestic industry forward, a nationalist camp emerged that advocated for the nationalization and seizure of foreign companies operating in Iran, primarily focused on the petroleum industry.

               In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah’s life changed his outlook even further, he started to increase his involvement in politics, amending the constitution to increase his own power and creating a national Iranian senate, filling around half the seats with men sympathetic to the Shah’s goals. This power grab eroded public sympathy for the Shah, initially high in the wake of the assassination attempt, and created opposition to his new political interest. Many believed that he should rule in the style of a constitutional monarchy, reigning but having little direct control over the standard political process. A new political party emerged within the Senate, called the National Front, that adopted the ideals of nationalization of industry and increased industrial control by Iranians - not foreign investors or companies. The debate around the role of the Shah and the future of Iran’s oil created a dangerous and violent political process, culminating in the assassination of the Prime Minister, Haj Ali Razmara, in 1951. Razmara was against the nationalization desire and backed the Shah in his goal to westernize Iran, making him a target of hardline Islamists and nationalists. The National Front was able to secure enough votes to replace Razmara with Mohammad Mosaddegh, a widely popular politician who was heavily in favor of nationalization. Fadaiyan e-Islam, the hardline Islamic faction within Iran at the time and responsible for the assassination of Razmara, aligned themselves with Mosaddegh. The combination of the National Front of Mosaddegh and the Fadaiyan movement, caused widespread disruption in the Iranian political world. Mosaddegh was aiming to remove British and foreign investment, while the Fadaiyans used masses of religious zealots to attack those against nationalization and the National Front. Unlike the Fadaiyans and Mosaddegh, the Shah and Mosaddegh did not see eye to eye for three main reasons: Mosaddegh had ancestral ties to the previous ruling dynasty of Iran and considered the Shah to be a usurper of the Iranian throne, that Mosaddegh was too popular, and that Mosaddegh was a strong believer in the Shah ruling as a constitutional monarch, although both believed in an Iran that should be modern and progressive. This belief by Mosaddegh that Iran should be progressive and a secular state, led to a cooling of ties between the Fadaiyans and the National Front by 1952.

               Tensions came to a head in 1952 when Mosaddegh and the Shah began to fight over the Shah’s role in Iran. Mosaddegh used the National Front, and his popular support, to make blocking attempts at the Shah’s political power. Mosaddegh’s public support of oil nationalization (something the Shah also supported, but less aggressively) led to Mosaddegh becoming so popular amongst the people that the Shah was limited in his ability act against him or the United Front. The Shah learned this the hard way when he decided to fire Mosaddegh later in ’52, but was forced to quickly reinstate him after widespread public outrage.  

               With Mosaddegh’s power cemented, he took on the British and their control over Iran’s oil, demanding better contracts. In these new contracts, countries like the United States would receive a share of Iranian oil, reducing Britain’s share. Additionally Iran wished to divide profits by 50/50. Of course Britain resisted this measure with great gusto, even against the strong advisement by its ally, the United States. Realizing that Mosaddegh was becoming a legitimate challenge to British interest, they began planning to overthrow his government. Further negotiations between the British and Iranians, with the United States acting as a third party, ensued but those failed, and the British seized their main oil field (but not the refinery) from Iranian management, the Abadan Oil Fields, in response. The British then enacted an embargo of Iranian oil produced with the remaining refinery.

               Due to the effectiveness of the British embargo and the collapse of his support from the Fadaiyan (this occurred because the Mosaddegh was a firm believer in separation of church and state and resisted Fadaiyan pressure to pass more religiously hardline policies), Mosaddegh found himself in a challenging position. To shore up his support Mosaddegh entered into an unofficial alliance with the communist party of Iran, the Tudeh, replacing the Fadaiyan. With economic uncertainly and political turmoil enveloping Iran, Mosaddegh clung to power using emergency measures, generating even more controversy, and alienating political allies. The support from the communist party, Mosaddegh becoming more autocratic as his power waned, and the political upheaval began to cause the United States to worry that a communist takeover of Iran was possible. A further blow to Mosaddegh occurred in 1953 when supporters in parliament resigned in mass due to Mosaddegh leveraging emergency powers. In response, Mosaddegh passed a referendum to dissolve parliament and instead give him powers to make laws himself, causing an uproar and accusations of treason.

               The United States, up to this point, had actively resisted Britain’s persistence in bringing the US on board for a coup. President Truman had other concerns, namely the Korean War, but when Dwight D. Eisenhower took over the British were successfully able to convince the United States that a communist takeover was possible and that the Soviets were really behind this push for nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. While this claim was mostly false, it played on the growing American fears of a Soviet controlled world. HThe US took over from Britain as the chief planner of the coup and approached the Shah for his support. Initially, he was reluctant, but was convinced when the CIA informed him that he would also be removed from power if he did not back their efforts. The CIA representative who handled most of the communication and conversations with the Shah was the grandson of former President Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt Jr. Roosevelt was instrumental in convincing the Shah to back the plan and for him to issue royal directives, or firmans, to start the coup, and cultivated a large network of military and civilian supporters for the Shah.

               Now that MI6 and CIA had the backing of the Shah, selection for a replacement for Mosaddegh began, landing on General Fazlollah Zahedi. Zahedi being a loyalist to the Shah and having support of the army made him a natural choice. The plan drawn up would unfold like this, due to Mosaddegh’s dismissal of Parliament, the Shah would issue a royal decree firing Mosaddegh and replacing him with Zahedi, using the army to block any dissent. The Shah and his wife left to go on “vacation” in northern Iran in anticipation of the coup. The coup was approved by Eisenhower and set to commence in mid-august. On August 15th, when the commander of the imperial guard arrived to inform Mosaddegh that he was being dismissed, Mosaddegh, who had advanced knowledge about the coup, ordered the commander arrested. Mosaddegh’s supporters, upon hearing the news, took the streets to protest the army’s actions, resulting in mass demonstrations. Fearing an overthrow in the wake of the Mosaddegh’s defiance of the dismissal order, the Shah and his wife fled to Baghdad then to Italy. Meanwhile a standoff occurred between Zahedi and Mosaddegh, with each side attempting to order the arrest of the other and claiming to be the rightful prime minister, with Mosaddegh succeeding in arresting dozens of coup plotters. Mosaddegh, believing the coup to have failed, ordered his supporters to head home and the CIA to leave the country. However, Roosevelt received the order to leave well after it was delivered, likely slowed by MI6, and went to work to plan a second coup to quickly follow the first.

               Four days after the first coup failed, Zahedi was still on the run but popular opinion began to turn against Mosaddegh due to his banning of all demonstrations, arrest of political opponents, and his lean into autocratic tendencies. Fears of communism also spurred upper class Iranians to turn against him and religious fundamentalists rallied in defiance of his rule. Large street demonstrations began (likely first organized by the CIA) that turned into street fighting between the Tudeh and anti-Mosaddegh supporters. More and more citizens took to the streets against Mosaddegh, believing rumors that he was attempting to seize the throne (also likely spread by the CIA), and armed themselves against the Tudeh and Mosaddegh supporters. Zahedi, ordered the parts of the army still loyal to him to leave their barracks and put an end to the chaos. The army stormed Tehran, drove off the Tudeh, seized government buildings, and secured Mosaddegh’s arrest after firing a tank shell into his home that forced him to come out. Upon hearing the success of the second coup, the Shah returned from Rome (with the director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, on his plane) and Zahedi took his position as prime minister.

               Mosaddegh was tried and sentenced to death but had his sentence commuted to prison then house arrest for the rest of his life. In the aftermath of the successful coup, the United States (and Iran) agreed to restore the status of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and reverse its nationalization but also broke their monopoly in favor of American and French oil companies, along with Shell Corporation. The tactics that Kermit Roosevelt Jr and other CIA operatives used to launch the second coup would be replicated in other countries where the United States had interests. Resentment of American influence over the country and the Shah grew in the coup’s wake culminating in a difficult 1970s for the Shah. Nearly thirty years after Mosaddegh’s removal, the Fadaiyan movement’s successors would launch the 1979 Islamic revolution and one of the core tenants of the revolution would be reversing the “damage” of foreign and American interference of Iran’s internal affairs, namely the support for the Shah and meddling in Iran’s political process, partly referring to Mosaddegh’s ouster. Mosaddegh, while controversial during his tenure as Prime Minister of Iran, has become a symbol of Iranian democracy, even to this day.

The Easter Rising of 1916

The history of Ireland is not for the faint of heart, the island has a past that is so tragic and depressing, few nation states can compare. From Oliver Cromwell’s brutal subjugation, numerous English invasions, to genocidal famine, Ireland has been the subject, or target, of almost any historical category of catastrophe that can be applied. However harsh its history though, the Irish spirit has never diminished and tales of resistance and hope can be found peppered between the tragedy and repression. While not a tale of hope, the Easter Rising of 1916 is one of resistance against the English 700-year occupation. Although the uprising itself failed, it can be argued that it convinced the powers in London that it was time to sunset its domination over the Emerald Isle. No longer able to see the benefits of control in the aftermath of the uprising, London eventually agreed to relinquishment of a majority of the Island to the “Irish Free State” in 1922, finally granting Ireland its independence (after a war of independence). This article will detail the failed 1916 uprising, its aftermath, and how it fits into the broader struggle of Irish independence.

To understand the uprising of 1916, one must also understand that this was far from the first uprising against English dominance, nor was it surprising to those who were aware of the feelings in Dublin at the time. Three rebellions in just the 19th century proceeded the 1916 event, also all failures. But with each rebellion, England was reminded of the cost it had to pay in order to maintain its hegemony over the island. What made the 1916 action different was that it arrived at a time of a global war, a war that England was a leading participant in, tying up British resources and manpower away from its dominions both close to home and remote. The British Empire’s armies, made up of subjects and citizens from its domestic and colonial possessions – including Ireland, were suffering tremendous casualties in the First World War, stoking factions that advocated for independence from Britain in Ireland and in other colonial nations. The longer that Britain fought in WWI, the more Irish independence and republican factions used the mounting casualties to advocate separation from their colonial overlords, calling attention to the irony of Irish men dying for a British government that actively repressed their homeland. These factions, seeking to use the distraction of WWI to their advantage, made the bold step of asking Britain’s enemy in the war, the German Empire, for its help.

The planning for the rebellion began in 1915, principally led by a teacher and lawyer named Patrick Pearse, and a lifelong Irish revolutionary named Thomas J. Clarke. While far from the only leaders, Pearse and Clarke are the most commonly known names associated to the event but other leaders include James Connolly, Eamon de Valera (future president of Ireland), Seán Mac Diarmada, Eamonn Ceannt, and Joseph Plunkett – amongst others. Most of the men involved in the uprising were from the Irish Volunteers, essentially a precursor to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) - a more radical group within the Irish Volunteers, and The Irish Citizen Army. The Rising of 1916 also saw the involvement of a radical republican political party and group called Sinn Féin, which would go on to be a household name in British and Irish 20th century history. The IRB advocated for full independence of the entire island of Ireland and aimed to achieve it through armed means while the Irish Volunteers were more focused on only resorting to violence if the situation called for it, like a full conscription movement by the British of Irish men to bolster their ranks in WWI.

The IRB had begun secret talks with the German Imperial government in as early as 1914 to determine German appetite towards support of the Irish cause, and successfully convinced the Germans to declare their support behind Irish Independence. The IRB drafted plans to recruit Irish POWs from the British ranks being held by the Germans into a unit, calling it the “Irish Brigade.” This brigade was to launch an assault of liberation on Ireland, supported by a German “expeditionary force” (GEF) to take Dublin, with IRB and the Volunteers rising up from within the island. Of course this Irish Brigade, nor a German expeditionary force, ever materialized or came to fruition but the Germans did agree to supply arms and ammunition to the IRB and the Volunteers. Additional support was courted from groups of American sympathizers, Irish expats, and descendants of Irish immigrants, securing about $100,000 from one of these groups. With the promise of arms and ammo from Germany, the amassing of Irish domestic arms and ammo, and monetary support from American sympathizers, by early 1916 it was decided that a rebellion would be launched on Easter Sunday that same year.

Patrick Pearse, as one of the principal leaders of the Irish Volunteers and IRB council member, declared that three days of parading (after a period of increased training) would begin on Easter Sunday. Those IRB members within the Volunteers aware of the plans knew this meant the rebellion would begin, while those without knowledge of the plans would take these parading orders as no more than what they appeared to be. At the same time, in early April, a German ship disguised as a Norwegian vessel, set sail for Dublin with 20,000 rifles, over a million bullets, and a large number of explosives. One of the Irish revolutionaries that had been negotiating with the Germans since 1914, Roger Casement, was separately dispatched to Ireland aboard a German U-boat, however he had intentions of trying to delay or stop the rebellion due to the lack of an Irish Brigade or GEF.

British Intelligence had suspected an action could occur for some months, realizing that tensions were extremely high in the Irish capital. They had been able to find out about the German ship, the planned rising date, and the return of Roger Casement through radio cables between Ireland and Germany. When the German ship, the SS Libau, arrived in late April off the coast of Ireland, it was intercepted by the Royal Navy, causing the captain of the Libau to destroy or scuttle the ship, with Roger Casement captured when he landed in Ireland. With the loss of the German arms and the capture of Casement, the uprising was cancelled for the time being. After reviewing the situation further and realizing that, due to British knowledge of events, their window to act was rapidly closing, the military council within the Volunteers (made of up almost all IRB members) informed the IRB and the Volunteers again that the rebellion would move forward but now for the Monday after Easter, using the arms they had available.

When Easter Monday, April 24th, arrived, the call to muster went out to the IRB, The Irish Volunteers, and the Irish Citizen Army. 1,200 men and women responded and mustered at several locations, dressed in various uniforms and civilian attire, and armed with rifles, revolvers, some semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and explosives. This 1,200 was less than anticipated due to the changing of orders and the short notice. The plan involved taking this force and occupy the main city center of Dublin, with groups spreading out and hitting different locations simultaneously.

A large group of about 400 Irish rebels, led by Pearse, Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, and Joseph Plunkett, targeted and occupied the General Post Office (GPO), making it their new headquarters while the rebellion unfolded. Other groups of rebels dug trenches and created defensive positions, set up check points and barricades, captured various buildings, bridges, communication, and government structures such as a telegraph station, using the station to declare that an Irish Republic has been created. A small group was able to secure the city hall of Dublin and attempted to capture Dublin Castle but were unsuccessful, killing a British solider in the process. While rebels were able to size key locations quickly, due to a lack of man power they were unable to gain full control of the city center and failed to cut off communications in its entirety, leaving the British government able to contact loyal forces within the city and elsewhere. Another failure on the rebel’s part was that they did not cut off transportation routes into and out of the city center, with rail lines and bridges remaining open.

Combat began in pockets around the seized areas, such as gun fire exchanging between the soldiers remaining in Dublin Castle and the captured buildings around it, leaving one rebel dead. Civilians also tried to resist some of the rebels, with Volunteers killing multiple civilians after they attempted to overpower barricades. But a coordinated British response was lacking, even though they were aware of planning and an imminent rebellion. It is now considered a tremendous intelligence failure that the British assumed that any real threat was delayed due to the seizing of the Libau. Due to a lack of offensive action by the British, combat was light on the first day, with isolated fighting breaking out between scattered Unionist (British or Irish loyal to the Crown) and rebel forces, killing small numbers on both sides, as well as some innocent civilians and unarmed police officers. Unionist forces didn’t push back further for the remainder of the day.

Tuesday, April 25th, saw British forces in the area starting to take offensive action to retake the buildings seized. Their first efforts were focused on securing the area around Dublin Castle, which they believed the rebel headquarters to be near, successfully retaking Dubin city hall in the process. However, the British were unable to advance in some areas, being pushed back by heavy rebel fire as they tried to advance from the railway station, with some British soldiers captured. The British brought in artillery and began to shell rebel positions, forcing a rebel retreat from some of the previously established barricades. On Tuesday evening, martial law was officially declared, with Unionist reinforcements being called to muster from Belfast and other parts of Ireland and England, using the rail stations that the rebels had failed to secure. Pearse was able to speak to a large gathering of Dublin residents and implored them and all Irish to rise up in support of the rebels and the newly declared republic.

On Wednesday, April 26th, British artillery moved into position and fired on rebel positions around the city center, shocking the rebel command staff who did not believe that the British would actually shell Dublin. The British began to either shell or advance on rebel positions scattered all over, with some positions surrendering to the British after heavy fighting or burning their occupied buildings as they retreated, rather than let the British take them. More British forces arrived from England, now with thousands of unionist forces either in Dublin or arriving shortly. The rebels, while surrendering in some areas, were able to successfully resist in others, inflicting heavy casualties on the British, with one British unit suffering 240 casualties as they made repeated attempts to cross the Grand Canal, with just 4 rebels being killed in that fighting.

Over the next three days, from Thursday, April 27th to Saturday the 29th, the Brits steadily captured rebel position after rebel position. However, the urban fighting was brutal, with the British having to employ the use of armored cars, machine guns, and artillery to make gains against the entrenched rebels, at some points only able to secure buildings by tunneling through the walls of neighboring buildings to break into occupied structures. Innocent civilians trapped in the city center were caught in the crossfire, with groups being killed and outright executed by the British army for suspected assistance to lthe rebels.

Finally, the GPO was evacuated by the rebels on the 28th, after heavy shelling and gunfire made the position untenable. The decision to surrender was made by Pearse and the rest of the IRB council (except for Clarke) on the 29th, realizing rebel forces were surrounded and outgunned, ordering all rebel positions to give up. By the surrender, 260 civilians, 143 Unionist or British soldiers, and 82 rebels were dead, with thousands of civilians and hundreds on each side wounded. Nearly 3,500 people were arrested, some for looting in the chaos of the rebellion, but around half were rebels. The British tried just under 200 people in secret military courts, against British law, with conflicts of interest being outright ignored. 29 of the around 200 were sentenced to death, some of which were not leaders or did not kill anyone. Due to tension and growing outcry, bordering on levels of further rebellion, the British executed only 16 out of the 29 by firing squad or hanging, commuting the rest to prison, in an attempt to quiet the dissent. Of the 16 executed, most of the leadership of the Rising were among them, including Pearse, Clarke, and the rest of the aforementioned leadership, except Eamon de Valera due to his possessing of American citizenship.

While the British hoped to crush anti-unionist sentiments with the execution of the Easter Rising leadership, the opposite effect occurred. The Irish people were originally outraged by the violence and disruption of daily life caused by the uprising and turned against the rebels but as British atrocities during the rebellion, like massacres of unarmed male citizens, the use of human shields, summary executions, and the executions of the leadership after secret trials with no chance of defense came to light, public opinion shifted towards the rebels with massive public outcry occurring after the executions. Post execution of the leaders, support for republicanism and independence in Ireland grew, instead of declining like the British intended. These growing political feelings in the aftermath of the Rising, further stoked by the massive loss of Irish born soldiers in the Battle of the Somme later that year, are credited with leading directly to the Irish war of Independence in 1919-1921, which resulted in Irish victory and full independence from the British after 700 years.

The Children’s Crusade

What comes to mind first when you think of the Crusades? Is it a knight clad in chainmail or plate armor covered in a white tunic with a bright red cross? You wouldn’t be wrong to think of a Templar knight first, they are ubiquitous with the pop cultural ideal of the Crusades. However knights played a small part of these crusades, forming a small but important core of any medieval crusading force. In reality, a Crusade was a confluence of people from many walks of life within Europe. During the Medieval period, it was all the rage to pledge oneself to a crusade, from elderly people, high born nobles and knights, kings and princes, all the way down to common or destitute people, and even children taking up “the cross.”

               But what is a crusade? A crusade in this context, is a Roman Catholic religious movement in the form of a military expedition, to retake or conquer territory held by non-Christian groups. Officially, a movement can only be called a crusade when it was called into existence or sanctioned by the Pope himself. There were officially eight crusades from 1095 to 1291, focusing on the capture and securing of the Holy Land or Outremer (today made up of mostly Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) for Catholics, but crusades also focused on North Africa, specifically Tunisia and Egypt. However, there were many “popular” or unofficial crusades that cannot be excluded from what historians now call collectively “The Crusades.” In this collective, you have popular movements and military expeditions focusing on the modern states of Poland, Lithuania, Spain, France, Czechia, and Germany, as well as the traditional target of Outremer. The Children’s crusade was two movements that have been combined into a singular example of these popular but unofficial crusades.

               Let us first start by stating the Children’s crusade may not have happened at all, and if it did happen, it may not have been led or made up of children. There is debate amongst historians regarding translations of medieval sources on whether these were religiously fanatic children or just common people. This debate hinges on the words infante and parvuli which some historians translate as “wandering poor,” not children. Additionally, the sources we do have are hostile to the popular movements, with concern from the Church at the message and methods of the children crusaders. But the majority of primary and secondary sources contest that children led two large mass movements, which we are going to explore in depth.

               In 1212, two separate movements emerged that would collectively come to be known as the Children’s Crusade. The first was led by Stephen of Cloyes, a French shepherd boy, and the second by Nicholas of Cologne, a German youth. Both claimed to have received divine visions or messages urging them to lead a crusade to the Holy Land.

Starting with the French movement, Stephen of Cloyes was a 12 year boy who claimed he met Jesus Christ. In this meeting with Jesus, who was appearing to the boy as a poor pilgrim begging for bread, Stephen was given a letter from Jesus to give to the King of France, Phillip II. This claim attracted the attention of people and he quickly surrounded himself with a large group of like-minded youth and impressed adults. Some of these young people claimed to also possess spiritual and religious powers from God and could work miracles. Eventually, a total of 30,000 began to follow Stephen on his journey to deliver the letter to Phillip however, Phillip would not receive the crowd and implored the people to return to their homes. Stephen, with the vigor of youth, refused to give up and began preaching and traveling around France, losing over half his flock by the time he declared they were going to Jerusalem via Marseilles to convert Muslims to Christianity. The travel through France was tough on many of the followers, who were forced to survive by begging for food, convincing most that they were better off returning to their homes, as Phillip originally requested. Those left in Stephen’s crusade were able to secure passage from Marseilles to Tunisia but met a disturbing fate upon their arrival: they were sold into slavery by the merchants who had ferried them across the Mediterranean, ending the movement.

               The second movement, either starting in the spring or summer of 1212 was led by a German boy, Nicholas of Cologne. Like Stephen of Cloyes, Nicholas claimed to have received a divine vision or message from God, instructing him to lead a crusade to the Holy Land. The exact nature of this revelation is not well-documented, and much of what we know comes from later accounts that may blend fact with legend. He reportedly attracted a significant following, including many children and young people who were drawn by his message and the promise of a divine mission. Nicholas’ crusade had peaceful aims, intending to convert the population of the holy land through message and scripture. Nicholas and his followers, after massing in Cologne, split into two groups in order to reach the Holy Land, with both traveling through different parts of Switzerland. The journey through the alps for both groups was brutal, with 2 out of 3 people on the journey dying or returning home. Nicholas had assured his followers they would not have to take ships to the Holy Land as the sea would divide for them and clear the way, however when the remaining 7,000 people arrived in Genoa, the were bitterly disappointed when the sea did not part as promised. Some left, accusing Nicholas of being a fraud and betraying them, while others implored patience that God would divide the sea and support them. Of course the sea never parted and the group remained in Genoa, although the local authorities were so impressed by the faith of the group that they offered Genoese citizenship to the remaining followers. Most of the remaining “crusaders” took up this offer but many others refused to give up, including Nicholas. He traveled with those who refused the Genoese offer first to Pisa (where some claim that a few ships departed for the Holy Land) and then onto the Papal States, with the group splintering further with each stop. In Rome, Nicholas met with the Pope, Innocent III, who asked him and his remaining followers to be good Christians and to return home. Unfortunately for Nicholas and his followers, the journey back proved to be just as perilous as the first, with Nicholas himself and many of his remaining members, dying in the Alps. The family members of those who perished in Nicholas’ crusade were so enraged that they found his father and lynched him as retribution.

               An image of thousands of children marching to Jerusalem is conjured when one hears the name “Children’s Crusade,” but more than likely it was a movement of adults, elderly, and children caught up in the religious fervor of the Crusading period, if it even happened at all. With both of these histories ending in such dramatic fashion, involving slavery and or death, one should absolutely approach this topic with skepticism. However, if they are accurate in their basic telling, the Children’s Crusade is a fascinating example of religious fanaticism gone wrong.

The U-2 and the 1960 Shooting Down of Francis Gary Powers

In the wake of The Second World War, the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union quickly fell apart, leading to tension and mistrust. This tension and mistrust developed into outright hostility by the close of the 1940s, with the world’s two superpowers locked into a struggle for world dominance and influence known as the Cold War. Due to the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) the two powers undertook actions to gain an edge on one another in the event an actual “hot” war broke out but resisted direct confrontation. These actions included the heavy use of spies, supplying sympathetic governments and groups to curry favor, launching coups in neutral countries to topple governments siding with one power over the other, and the use of surveillance activities. While direct confrontation was avoided, this doesn’t mean it did not happen at all, with Soviets and Americans having direct interactions throughout the Cold War. One of these direct confrontations involved the United States losing a pilot deep into Soviet airspace. This article details that incident and the plane involved.

               The Soviets tested their first atomic weapon in 1949 and from then on, the Cold War began in earnest. In the 1950s, the United States was desperate to gain an edge on their new nuclear armed rival, especially hoping to determine where the Soviets were stashing their missiles. To try to locate these launch sites in an era before satellite imagery, the only option (other than running spies directly in Moscow) that was viable involved the use of surveillance flights directly over Soviet territory. But flying a plane into the airspace of another state could be seen as an act of aggression, so the United States had to find a way to undertake these flights but not get caught in the process. Surveillance flights had proven their worth during the Second World War, with camera equipped bombers flying thousands of flights over enemy territory to take pictures and establish locations for aerial, artillery, and ground targets, as well as determining capability and layout of defenses. However, these planes were often vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, suffering losses of personnel and valuable equipment. With the creation and adoption of anti-aircraft surface to air missiles and jet engine fighter planes, the risk for a bomber or other slow flying aircraft to fly surveillance missions was even higher. In fact, in 1958, the United States suffered the loss of a US Air Force (USAF) C-130 reconnaissance plane over Soviet controlled Armenia when the Soviets attacked and shot down the aircraft after it strayed into their airspace at 25,000 feet. The attack resulted in the loss of 17 USAF airmen, although the Soviets denied attacking the plane and claimed that it “fell” on their territory. In order to avoid a similar incident, the United States employed a new plane, the Lockheed U-2. The U-2, a single seater jet but with glider like wings, could fly at an altitude of 70,000 feet at nearly 500 mph, enabling it to avoid the most advanced Soviet fighter jets and put it out of theoretical range of surface to air missiles (SAMs).

               During the testing process, several USAF fighter pilots were selected as test pilots along with some foreign expat pilots from Greece and Poland. However, by the end of the testing period, only the American pilots were left due to language issues and flying experience. Once the adoption of the U-2 in 1956 was complete, the United States was still wary of flying military personnel over a peer adversary and President Eisenhower was adamant that civilian CIA pilots be the ones to crew the aircraft. This meant the pilots originally selected to fly the U-2 had to resign their military commissions and become civilian pilots under CIA’s purview. Eisenhower, after being shown that the U-2 was flight worthy and capable of recon flights, originally authorized 10 flights under the belief (as told to him by his intelligence community, or the IC) that the high altitude of the U-2 meant the plane would not be detectable by Soviet radar. Some live test flights occurred over East Germany and Poland, then controlled by the Soviets, and while the U-2 flights were visible to Soviet radar, the Soviets could not track the plane continuously. With the knowledge that the Soviets could track the U-2 and Eisenhower worrying that penetrating Soviet airspace could spark a war, he cancelled further flights. Finally, after successful flights in the Middle East, Eisenhower approved direct overflights of Soviet territory for reconnaissance. These flights would continue into 1960, even after CIA and other IC organizations, were aware that Soviet SAM technology had developed enough to potentially hit the U-2, even at 70,000 feet. In all, Eisenhower approved 24 “deep penetration” flights into Soviet territory to take pictures of missile sites, bomber and aircraft locations, military installations, and important industrial sites.

               Eisenhower approved one last Soviet overflight in the spring of 1960, and the most experienced U-2 pilot, Francis Gary Powers was selected. The flight was to start from Pakistan and fly over modern-day Kazakhstan and Russia, with a landing in Norway. This would be the first flight to fly over the Soviet Union, photographing cities and sensitive sites along the way, and exiting Soviet airspace over a “neutral” country. Previous flights that penetrated Soviet airspace exited from nearly the same point as entry. On May 1, 1960, Powers was shot down at 70,500 feet over Soviet airspace, after Soviet SAMs detonated directly behind his aircraft. CIA and USAF technicians believed that surviving a shoot down incident at 70,000 feet to be impossible, even with a safe ejection and the aid of the astronaut-looking flight suit that U-2 pilots wore, however Powers survived, and he and the U-2 were captured relatively intact. Some individuals and agencies within the United States IC did not fully believe Power’s version of events on how he was shot down, as detailed above. There are still classified reports that indicate the U-2 may have descended from 70,000 feet to as slow as 35,000 feet before being downed, but the official version of events follows Power’s account. This would go on to complicate the United States’ response to a later prisoner exchange for Powers, as some believed he may have attempted to defect or at the very least was not being truthful about his capture.

               The shootdown of a U-2 was a total disaster for American aerial spying efforts. At first, four days after Powers was downed, the US explained that the plane was a NASA high altitude weather plane that had been lost over Turkey. Further, the Americans were prepared with a plan to say the pilot drifted, unconscious, into Soviet territory. The Americans even went to the efforts of showcasing a U-2 painted in NASA colors to bolster the story. The US then repeated this story until Nikita Khrushchev revealed a spy plane had been captured but did not let on that Powers had been captured, had admitted to spying on the Soviets, and the true nature of the U-2, allowing the Americans to further tell their false story. Finally, on May 7th, Khrushchev revealed the information that Powers was alive and in Soviet custody, and released pictures of the crashed U-2, exposing Eisenhower’s NASA story as a cover up. This revelation severely embarrassed the Eisenhower administration and caused a crisis both domestically in the US and abroad, with Eisenhower even considering resigning from the American Presidency. Due to the involvement of Norway and Pakistan, they also received pressure and public relations issues from the Soviets. Khrushchev even threated to drop a nuclear bomb on Peshawar, Pakistan, due to its alliance and assistance to the Americans regarding the U-2.

               Francis Gary Powers did admit to his mission and the purpose of penetrating Soviet airspace, but this was per his instructions in the event of a shootdown incident, although he attempted to limit the information that he gave his Soviet captors. He pled guilty to espionage in a Soviet court and was sentenced to nine years of hard labor. The US media portrayed Powers as a hero until learning that he admitted to his mission, pivoting to accusing him of cowardice and undermining US foreign policy. He was further accused of dereliction of duty for not destroying the U-2’s camera equipment, the plane itself, its classified equipment, and even for not killing himself with his cyanide poison device supplied to him by his CIA bosses. Powers would go on to serve nearly two years in a Soviet prison before being exchanged for William Fisher, a captured Soviet spy being held by the Americans. However, after extensive debriefs and congressional hearings, the belief of the US government changed and Powers was cleared of wrong doing and held up as courageous pilot who did his duty to his country.

               The U-2 spy plane program continued to be used by the United States but without direct flights over Soviet territory, although another U-2 spy plane was shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 in use while photographing Soviet missiles on the island. The U-2 is actually actively flown by the United States and several allied nations such as the UK and Taiwan today, and saw extensive use throughout Cold War conflicts like Vietnam. Francis Gary Powers subsequently worked as a helicopter pilot for a Los Angeles news station, tragically dying in a helicopter crash in 1977 while on the job.

The Disappearance of William Cantelo

Generally, there are few missing person cases that would capture the mind of historians as most are in the realm of true crime or not historically notable. There are a few cases though that captivate historians: the Princes in the Tower (we will probably do an article on this topic in the future), Amelia Earhart, The Roanoke Colonists in America, and Ambrose Bierce to name the top cases. There is one instance however that particularly catches the eye here at Seeking History and that is the disappearance of William Cantelo and his potential “reappearance” as noted automatic weapons inventor, Hiram Maxim.

               Around this time, military innovation was a focal point for those interested in mechanical engineering. Several inventors were rapidly advancing the firearms world with quick firing “machine” guns. These automatic weapons first saw use in the American civil war and started an arms race amongst the European powers to also have guns of their own that could give them an edge in the next European war. Enter in now our two inventors, William Cantelo and Hiram Maxim.

               William Cantelo was born on the Isle of Wight in 1830 and by 1870 owned an engineering firm, employing around 40 people in Southampton, England. He had numerous ties to his community and a wife and 3 children. He also owned an inn called the Old Tower Inn that connected to an old defensive tower constructed by the Normans. In the early 1880s, Cantelo, using his engineering background (along with his two sons, themselves engineers), joined the race to produce a homegrown automatic weapon for Britain, testing his weapon in the tunnels beneath his inn, working to perfect a recoil driven automatic mechanism. Although the family was closely guarded about what they were developing, they couldn’t hide the noise of a gun firing in quick succession from their neighbors and accounts of Cantelo developing a new “rifle” were repeated by locals. Sometime later (dates are unclear in this story) but still in the early 1880s, Cantelo declared his weapon perfected. The next part of Cantelo’s story is difficult to piece together, there are conflicting sources on what exactly led to his disappearance. One states that when he declared his weapon completed, he wanted to take a holiday or vacation to celebrate his success, leaving his family to never be seen or heard from again. Another account states that Cantelo, upon completion of his gun, left to market it to the world and find a buyer but both are consistent that he was to be gone for three months. There are other additions to the mystery with reports that a large sum of money was withdrawn from his bank account, but records can’t say when or where this happened. The disappearance of Cantelo was out of character enough that his family hired a private investigator to find him and traced to him America, but from there, the trail died. Here we will temporarily leave Cantelo and go to our next inventor, Hiram Maxim.

               Hiram Maxim, an American born in Maine in 1840, was an inventor also trying to develop a recoil operated automatic weapon. Hiram, while born in the USA, moved to England in his 40s and became a naturalized British subject, possibly to escape a reputation of being problematic in his dealings with other inventors. Maxim was a prolific inventor, securing patents for steam pumps, curling irons, and claimed to have invented the lightbulb, amongst other items. His interests even extended into powered flight and medical inhalers, although he had a reputation for “stealing” ideas and plagiarism. This reputation is documented in letters stating that inventors were shy to debut new products to him due to fear of intellectual theft. Maxim created an arms company with Edward Vickers and developed his “Maxim” gun around the same time that Cantelo was developing his. Maxim completed his recoil operated automatic gun in 1884 whilst living in London and started to market his weapon to British imperial expeditions, such as the relief expedition of 1886 headed by Henry Morton Stanley, where it was used several times during a retreat. The weapon was adopted widely during the colonial wars of the late 19th century and variants of the design saw heavy use in the First World War and has remained in production. It has even been used in the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2022-present.

               Ok, so there two inventors living relatively close to one another in Britain, and both working to develop a machine gun at the same time. Interesting, but not necessarily remarkable. What is remarkable though is the claim that Maxim and Cantelo could be the same man, so we are going to break down the case for this and the case against this claim. Let us start with the case for Cantelo and Maxim being the same person.

               First off, the biggest point in the “pro” camp, is their appearance. Maxim and Cantelo not only invented similar weapons at the same time, in the same place, but also looked remarkably similar, with similar hair and identical large beards. So similar was their appearance that after Cantelo’s disappearance, his sons being on the look out for any mention of him in the papers, saw a picture of Hiram Maxim and were convinced it was their father, further encouraged by the weapon invented by Maxim sounding eerily similar to the one they worked on with their father.  They were so convinced that they tried to confront Maxim while in the UK but were unsuccessful, tracing him to a train station but not able to speak with him prior to the train’s departure. The newspaper they saw his picture in even captioned the image as Cantelo and not Maxim. Maxim also arrived in England around the same time that Cantelo disappeared. Could Cantelo have changed his identity, at a time when it was more possible to disappear than today, to escape some financial or personal difficulties, then remerged in England shortly after as the American born inventor?

               Now the case against: Maxim obviously existed in the United States 40 years before Cantelo’s disappearance. There is documented evidence of this and numerous mentions of him in papers and through personal letters. If Cantelo went to America (per the private investigator’s trail) then shortly returned to England as Maxim, the real Maxim either had to be dead or silenced in a way to never re-emerge. However, Maxim was aware of someone posing as him back in America, while he was in England, even notating this in his autobiography, claiming a double was impersonating him back in the States. Beards that Cantelo and Maxim both wore were very common at the time and the men were of a similar age, which could lead to a visual confusion even by those who knew Cantelo best. Additionally, Maxim is documented as visiting Southampton, where Cantelo was last seen. Someone trying to hide with a new identity probably wouldn’t take the risk by visiting the town he lived in, potentially being spotted by people he knew. Lastly, inventing a weapon that would essentially change the way humans fought each other would draw huge amounts of attention to its inventor, which is not something that someone trying to hide would be interested in.

               The more likely scenarios of what happened to Cantelo is that he met a grisly fate while marketing his new weapon, committed suicide, or purposely vanished to dodge personal or financial problems. The case of William Cantelo’s disappearance has unfortunately gone cold in the 140 or so years since his disappearance and continues to fascinate historians and true crime enthusiasts today.

The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great

One of history’s most enduring mysteries, and one I am particularly obsessed with, is where is Alexander the Great buried? Obviously, Alexander has been dead for a very long time, since 323 BCE in fact, and the likelihood of losing his tomb to history was high, but there are historical attestations of individuals viewing his resting place as late as the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, and even some (suspect) accounts into the 16th century. Although some of these attestations can be considered dubious or repetitions of previous writings, there have been over one hundred attempts to find the lost tomb just since the 19th century, using whatever source materials that are available, no matter the reliability. We are going to detail what happened to the tomb throughout history and what are the potential locations for his final resting place.

Alexander died in Babylon on either the 10th or 11th of June in 323 BCE at the age of 32, leaving behind one of the largest empires in history. Alexander, while a great conqueror, did not have the same skill when it came to setting up his empire for continued success, failing to name a clear successor. Instead, while dying, he told his companions that his empire should go to the “strongest.” Of course, this led to fighting amongst his generals and companions, resulting in the fragmentation of his realm. Part of this fighting involved Alexander’s body being used as a tool for holding power, whomever had the body could use it to attempt to claim legitimacy. Alexander’s body remained in Babylon for two years, (stories vary on the preservation methods, either in a barrel of honey or embalmed by the Egyptians) while a proper funeral cart could be constructed for his return to Macedonia. Ultimately, one of his generals, Ptolemy, the future King of Egypt, intercepted Alexander’s body on the way back to Macedonia. Ptolemy diverted it instead to Memphis, Egypt, against Alexander’s wishes, which he expressed to be buried or interred in Siwa, Egypt. Once Alexander’s corpse was removed from Babylon, Ptolemy met the funeral procession in Syria, and most likely either kidnapped the body or convinced the people in charge of the procession, to give him possession of Alexander’s remains. What leaves us to believe it was a hostile acquisition of the corpse is that another one of Alexander’s generals and the man effectively in charge of the remaining empire, Perdiccas, sent troops in pursuit of Ptolemy, and even launched a failed invasion of Egypt to recover the remains.

With that point, we will start with the most likely location of his tomb, Alexandria, Egypt. Alexander’s body sat in Memphis (possibly in an empty sarcophagus made for the last native Egyptian pharaoh, Nectanebo II), temporarily interred until either 298 or 283 BCE, when it was moved to Alexandria. Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, created an actual tomb structure for Alexander, around 280 BCE, this is known to scholars as the first site but very little is known about this first site. Finally, under the reign of Ptolemy IV, Alexander was moved to his final resting place (supposedly) in a communal tomb connected to the Ptolemaic burial complex and potentially connected to the palace complex, known as the Soma or the Sema, until he disappears from history, either in the 4th or 5th century CE. Alexander had his own regally built sarcophagus with varying accounts saying his mummified body was either covered in gold plating or a see-through crystal-like material. Numerous well-known people viewed Alexander in the Soma, such as Julius Caesar, Augustus, Caracalla, Strabo, and Hadrian. The emperor Augustus has one of the best insults in history around viewing Alexanders body: when asked by an aide if he wanted to see the tombs of the Ptolemies that surrounded Alexander’s sarcophagus, Augusts replied “I came to see a king, not corpses” showing his disdain for the Ptolemies compared to the aura of Alexander.

So, what happened to the tomb? We are going to only explore the mostly likely theories, which has two parts. First, the tomb was destroyed by a natural disaster in the 4th or 5th century CE. A 365 CE earthquake in Crete, caused a tsunami to hit Alexandria, sweeping deep into the city and destroying or damaging numerous high profile ancient sites. One of these sites destroyed or beyond repair could have been the Soma, but no record of this exists. A second part to this theory, if the tsunami didn’t destroy the Soma, then overzealous early Christians could have. Around 400 CE, an early Church leader, John Chrysostom, gave a homily sarcastically imploring the people (rhetorically) to tell him where Alexander’s tomb is, indicating that it was destroyed earlier. He did this to demonstrate that great pagan sites of worship or reverence were no longer standing, and Christian churches were replacing them. This indicates that during the late 4thcentury, like many ancient temples and sites throughout the Western and Eastern Roman empires, the Soma could have fallen victim to a Christian mob pulling it down and plundering the remains. Usually, once a site was plundered or damaged, it was then pilfered for its building material and used to build homes or new structures, essentially leaving little or no trace of its former existence. A third theory, the Soma is destroyed somehow, and that early Christians/Muslims may have chopped up Alexander’s mummified remains, and the parts worn as talismans or relic like objects.

You may wonder, “well Alexandria still exists, why cannot we locate the former site?” If only it was that easy! However, Alexandria’s fortunes have shifted dramatically over the years, sometimes nearly being abandoned then regaining its population. The city faced flooding, earthquakes, and fires through the years, leaving very little of the Ptolemaic and Roman city standing and has since been rebuilt numerous times. This makes putting together a map of ancient Alexandria extremely difficult and finding the location of a single structure next to impossible. There have been numerous attempts throughout the millennia though, with a large increase in activity in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some scholars even claim that Alexander’s body was moved out of Alexandria to places like Siwa and Memphis, maybe even Greece or Macedonia, even Venice. Dubious stories ranged from digging into the basement of a mosque (illegally) and spying a gold covered or crystal covered body through a hole in the wall, finding an (empty) green and regal sarcophagus that must be Alexander’s (it wasn’t), his body resting under St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice (probably not), to finding him buried in Siwa, Egypt but refusing to show anyone the actual body (there was no body).

One of these “tomb locations” we are going to detail to provide a little context on why the archelogical community takes any new claim of a find with skepticism. Leo Africanus, a traveler in the in the 16th century to Alexandria, described a mosque that had a strange chapel like building in its courtyard, without giving its exact name or location. He claimed that this chapel contained a sarcophagus holding the body of Alexander the Great and he was worshipped by Muslims as a prophet in this spot, attracting visitors from “distant lands.” This account was repeated by several other travelers, almost word for word, in the next century, until another visitor, known only as Evilya Celebi, repeats this tale but claims he was able to study the sarcophagus and that hieroglyphs covered all four sides, indicating its age as ancient Egyptian. He also claims that the sarcophagus was empty and being used as a ritual bathtub by the local community in their religious rites. At this time hieroglyphs were not deciphered and would not be until the Rosetta Stone was translated in 1822, so Celebi could only guess at the meaning of the symbols on the sides of the sarcophagus. A common theme of travelers visiting or breaking into mosque grounds to spy a richly decorated sarcophagus, would be based on this tale for the next few centuries, with local mosques using props to take advantage of a slow economy in order to charge for viewing. Remarkably, however, a green sarcophagus recovered during the Napoleonic conflicts in Egypt during the late 18th century, fits the description of what Celebi describes, being covered in hieroglyphs and drainage like holes drilled into its sides. This sarcophagus would be recovered by the British (along with the Rosetta Stone) and sent to the British Museum, where it would be on full display as Alexander’s sarcophagus for the next 20 or so years. To this day, it still is located in the Museum, only mere feet from the Rosetta Stone, but is mostly overlooked. The reason for this that the translation of the Rosetta Stone allowed us to realize the sarcophagus is not Alexander’s but is most likely the empty sarcophagus created for the last native born Pharaoh, Nectanebo II. Thus ends 300 years of visitors claiming to have visited the tomb and put archeologists back on the hunt, launching the increase in activity to find the tomb in the 19th and 20th centuries.

There you have it, while archeologists are still trying to find the remains to this day, Seeking History has little hope that, while the tomb structure may be one day found, the mummified body will be found with it. Hopefully, some remains of the structure can be found or there will be concrete evidence that will emerge one day as it would be a huge win for history to have an idea of what the Soma looked like, what happened to it, and where the body ended up/how it was destroyed.

Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires?

If you have been paying any attention to current events in the last two decades, Afghanistan has been a topic of almost daily conversation in the 24/7 news cycle. With the United States withdrawal in 2021, the topic turned once again to Afghanistan’s uncanny ability to shrug off and resist invasions by larger and immensely more powerful nations from around the world. The reputation stems from powers and individuals like Alexander the Great, the Persians, the Parthians, the British, the Soviets, and now the United States of America, suffering episodes of misadventure of empire involving the Afghans. Or have they? This article will explore the narrative, accurate or not, that Afghanistan is the “Graveyard of Empires” and is either too costly to conquer, or the subduing of the territory results in weakening and a devastating resource drain of the invading state. To be clear, this will not be an extensive exploration of Afghan history, as we are covering thousands of years, but will be a summation of the different periods and invading state’s relation to Afghanistan.

You may wonder, why are these empires invading an area such as Afghanistan? Through most of Afghanistan’s history the answer is the Khyber Pass. The Khyber Pass allowed travel along the famous silk road and connects the Middle East to India through what is now modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was established as the safest and easiest way to travel over land and has been used for thousands of years. Anyone who controls this pass also controls the movement and trade through it, making it an immensely valuable piece of territory. This all began to change during the 15th and 16th centuries when sea lanes between Europe and India started to dominate the primary method of trade and travel.

First, we must start with the chronologically oldest conqueror to head into Afghanistan, Alexander the Great. Alexander is often included on the list, just like we did, when Afghanistan is called the “Graveyard of Empires,” but Alexander actually had remarkable success in subduing the area, mostly as it was just not that populated. Controlled by the Achaemenid Persians and called Bactria at the time, Alexander swept into the region and was able to subdue it, albeit with some of the hardest fighting of his reign, by c. 327 BCE. Alexander even married a Bactrian princess named Roxana and had a legitimate child (Alexander IV) with her, establishing a Hellenistic tie to the region that lasted beyond Alexander and into one of his successor kingdoms, the Seleucid Empire.

From here we have a series of Empires controlling the region successfully, the Seleucids control it until they lose it to the Maurya Empire (bringing Buddhism and Hinduism to the area), then the Parthians take it in the second century BCE, the Sassanids from the Parthians, and the Sassanids losing it in the 4th century but then reconquering it in the 6th. All this to show that the while these empires are controlling the territory, its gaining a reputation as a battleground, shown to be a valued piece of territory worth fighting over and coveted by rival states.

The 7th century Islamic conquest of Afghanistan proved to be a bit trickier than Alexander’s adventure, the Arab Islamic forces kept to the urban areas and didn’t fully venture to conquer the whole of the country, due to troublesome mountain tribes, leaving the eastern half independent for 200 years. Cities previously conquered and converted would rise in revolt and return to the old faith, only to be subdued again. One example is the attempted conquest of Kandahar, sending in a force of 20,000 men, returning in defeat with 5,000. This would last until the Ghaznavid dynasty, with their capital being in Ghazni, united the area with parts of Iran, Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Now we come to the Mongols, in 1221 CE the Mongols invade Afghanistan, facing steep resistance, especially in the Bamiyan valley, even suffering the ignominy of the grandson of Genghis Khan being killed in the campaign. The Mongols in response, unleashed total war upon the inhabitants, killing large percentages of the population and devastating the infrastructure. We will also include Tamerlane here too - Timur or Tamerlane, considered himself a successor the Mongols and caused equal devastation in Afghanistan from 1383 to 1385, with the Timur empire falling by the 16th century. The next power to control Afghanistan, the Mughal Empire, actually was founded in Kabul and went on to conquer from Afghanistan to Southern India until the 19th century, being replaced by the Sikh Empire, under a very well-known figure to history, Dost Muhammed, in 1837.

Dost Muhammed, unfortunately for him, was caught between the superpowers of the time, the Russian and British Empires. In the 19th century, Afghanistan became the playground (along with other Asian territories and states) for the “Great Game.” The Great Game is a euphemism for what only can be described as a cold war between Russia and Britain. Britain feared that a Russian invasion of British India could come through the famous Khyber Pass in Afghanistan. While at one point planning an invasion of India, the Russians never really gave it serious consideration, but that did not stop the British from invading Afghanistan three separate times through the 19th and early 20th century. The first Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842) was specifically aimed at removing Dost Muhammed and curbing Russian influence in Afghanistan, while reducing border raids into India from the territory. The British lost the First Anglo-Afghan war and were subsequently expelled after numerous military disasters and suffering around 40,000 KIA. The Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880) was launched for similar reasons but the British, instead of aiming to conquer like their first foray, mainly aimed at forcing a friendly buffer state between the Russian Empire and British India. The British in this Anglo-Afghan War: Part Deux were successful and resulted in a British victory. Finally, a third invasion was launched in 1919, to prevent the Afghans, while nominally independent, from asserting true foreign and domestic policy independence from British influence, resulting in a British tactical defeat.

Afghanistan transformed into a fully-fledged kingdom in 1926 and existed in this state until a 1973 coup d’état established a republic, which then was replaced in 1978 by a communist state, known as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA). Facing a fierce insurgency known as the Mujahedeen, the DRA requested Soviet forces to support them, leading to a 10-year war. The Soviets infamously got bogged down in the area fighting an insurgency that was near impossible to fully stamp out due to the mountainous terrain and military support to the Mujahedeen from the American CIA and Pakistan. As one of the many proxy wars during the 20th century cold war between the Soviets and the USA, Afghanistan suffered greatly, experiencing up to 2 million of its civilian population killed, with the Soviets suffering around 26,000 killed. The Soviets were eventually forced to withdraw fully in 1989, with the DRA falling in 1992.

The Taliban, a hardline fundamentalist Islamic group, took power in 1994, using the chaos of the power vacuum created by the collapse of the DRA. In 2001, following the September 11th attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. in the USA, the United States (along with NATO allies) invaded Afghanistan, accusing the Taliban of giving resources and safety to Al-Qaeda, the group responsible for the attacks. The Taliban were quickly defeated by US forces and shifted to an insurgency for the next twenty years, eventually regaining power in 2021 following the US withdrawal. With new information still coming to light on the history and conduct of the US War in Afghanistan, we will avoid a full summation but the US suffered a total of 2,459 military members killed in action and the Taliban are estimated to have lost nearly 53,000.

Ok, all of this was to give you the ability to understand the highlights of Afghan history and to make your own assessment on Afghanistan’s place in numerous Imperial stories. The criticism of the nickname “Graveyard of Empires” can be summed up as this: While Afghanistan has a history of seeing numerous imperial invasions throughout the millennia and centuries, it has never been fully responsible for the downfall of an empire and mostly has been successfully conquered throughout its history. While it is too soon to understand its place in the future of US foreign policy, we can point out that the British Empire did not “fall” until post World War II, the Soviet Union was in the midst of a slow collapse, even with victory or defeat in Afghanistan, and empires prior to the 20th century, mostly were able to subjugate and control, albeit sometimes with extreme difficulty and resource drain, Afghanistan for the majority of the region’s history. We will let you decide if it is truly the Graveyard of Empires, but I think we can all agree that any nation invading Afghanistan will have the odds stacked against them and should be prepared for a long and costly war, regardless of defeat or victory.

The Nika Riots

Do you know what is considered to be the largest and deadliest sports riot in history? You would be forgiven for believing it was a large football hooliganism incident in the 1970/80s, or a baseball riot in Philadelphia. In truth, the largest sports riot occurred in 532 CE, during the height of the Byzantine Empire over chariot racing and is known to us as the Nika Riot. These riots almost brought down the government of the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian I, and destroyed large swaths of Constantinople.

              The Romans were obviously obsessed with sporting events, just look at the ruins of large arenas that still stand, dotted around the former Roman world. However, the Romans (and the later Byzantines) were not just about gladiatorial games, but were also ravenous chariot racing fans, at one point having four major teams, during the West and the Eastern Empires. The races occurred at arenas known as Circuses, or Hippodromes. The two most famous, and largest, being the Circus Maximus in Rome and the Hippodrome of Constantinople. By the time of our riot, in the 6th century, these teams had consolidated into two, the Greens and the Blues, named after the uniforms that the charioteer teams would wear to differentiate themselves from one another, with each faction representing different sides of society, the Greens having more support from wealthy citizens and the Blues with the working or middle class, although the factions had followers from all walks of life. To make things even more interesting, these fan groups acted like something more akin to violent grassroots political groups that were also sports fanatics. They would frequently shout from the stands their feelings on politics, religion, taxation, and current events, usually directed at the emperor, who was often in attendance. The two groups became so powerful (helped along by political backing from high powered senators and other officials) in their control of their populace, that the Imperial security apparatus had to cooperate with Blues and Greens to maintain order. There were frequent but limited “incidents” between the two fan bases or between fans and authorities, often resulting in the arrest and sometimes execution of leaders (usually if deaths occurred due to the riots). One of these executions (and its botching) was the catalyst for the Nika Riot. But what set this riot apart from previous incidents, was the political tension at the time.

              At the time of the riots, Justinian I (a former Blue supporter), was facing a period of disapproval due to his recent reform of the civil service, higher taxes, a recent lost war to the Persian Empire, and his implementation of significant legal reforms. Justinian himself was also seen by some an illegitimate emperor due to his perceived lack of class and pedigree from the nobility, being regarded as an upstart. The previous emperor, Anastasius, died without arrangements for a successor and while he had three nephews, none were considered a viable candidate. Justinian’s uncle, Justin, used support amongst the military to proclaim himself Emperor. Justinian served as his uncle’s advisor, replacing him upon his death, nine years later. On top of these exacerbating issues, Justinian also attempted to clamp down on the influence the Blues and the Greens had. The Greens felt this was a tyrannical action while the Blues felt betrayed due to Justinian’s previous support of the Blues. Usually, Emperors would back one of the two factions, but Justinian, while a former blue supporter, tried to stay impartial, hence the cracking down on both groups. Three days prior to the main riot beginning on 13 January 532, a smaller riot resulted in the imprisonment and subsequent execution of members from both the Greens and Blues, but two of the condemned, survived their hanging. Taking the opportunity now presented to them, they fled into a nearby church, barricading themselves within. During later races that day, the two factions chanted for 22 out of 24 races and requested Justinian I, who was present at the races from his imperial booth within the palace (the palace was next to the hippodrome), show the two survivors mercy but there was no response from the Imperial booth. The crowd, now incensed, flooded out of the Hippodrome (trampling many people in the process) and broke into smaller groups with some surrounding the palace and attempting to take it, putting the palace under siege. Others spread out amongst the city, starting fires that engulfed large parts of Constantinople. Some of the crowd arrived at the City Praetorium, the location of the official overseeing the hanging of the prisoners that kicked the whole thing off, demanding the release of the two surviving prisoners. When no response was received, they burned the building down, probably freeing the prisoners in the process – no more requests are made for their release after this event. 

              On the second day of the riot, Justinian attempted to calm the riots by announcing additional races, but this did nothing to placate the crowd, who continued to riot and now set fire to the Hippodrome itself, causing damage. The crowd then turned their anger on those they blamed for preventing the emperor from previously releasing the two prisoners, demanding the resignation of three unpopular ministers, which Justinian conceded. However, the crowd, now sensing blood in the water, pressed their luck and continued to riot, starting more fires. At this point, some of the crowd were armed and it became obvious they supported wider political machinations. Senators opposed to Justinian, took the opportunity to influence the crowd and the focus changed from releasing of prisoners to total regime change of the Byzantine throne. One of the nephews of the previous emperor Anastasius, was proclaimed by the mob as the new emperor either on the third or fourth day (the chronological events of the riot are hard to piece together). This nephew, Probus, did not accept their proclamation. The crowd continued to set fires, eventually catching the Hagia Sophia on fire and destroying the buildings around it in the process. Finally, Justinian made the decision to call in soldiers to quell the riots, calling troops from Thrace to enter the city, arriving the next day.

              The soldiers engaged the rioters in a pitched fight within the streets but failed to put down the riot by the end of the day. Although previously damaged due to fire, the Hippodrome became the main center of operations for the Blues and Greens, who’s prominent individuals still sat in their respective sections, even as they directed the riots. On 18 January, Justinian entered the Hippodrome and appealed to the crowd there. Justinian brought copies of the Gospels with him and apologized for not agreeing to the demands right away and offered a pardon of the rioters. While some in the crowd received these words warmly, others hurled insults at him, causing him to withdraw again to the palace. After Justinian’s withdrawal, the crowd declared another nephew of the Anastasius, Hypatius, as Emperor. Hypatitus was taken by the crowd, having been adorned in improvised regalia, to the Hippodrome, drawing more and more people to the arena. Justinian, receiving word of what was happening, ordered the palace sealed off entirely and prepared to flee the city. However, Justinian’s wife Theodora famously convinced him to hold his ground and remain in the capital. Historians debate on whether Justinian planned to outright flee or just leave Constantinople, knowing the violence that was coming (no matter who won the struggle for Emperor) and wished to not be present. Oddly, Hypatius, still wishing to show his loyalty to Justinian, informed the palace that most of the mob was now in the Hippodrome, but was told that Justinian had fled (even though he had not), clearing the way for his taking of the throne. Initially hesitant, Hypatius now started to engage with the crowd calling for his reign. Armed members of the Green faction also had arrived in the Hippodrome, preparing to force their way into the palace in support of Hypatius, a fellow green supporter.

              While this was happening, Justinian realizing that violent confrontation was required, ordered the military to seal off the Hippodrome. He also ordered an advisor into the Hippodrome to divide up the factions and arrange support from the Blues, playing on Justinian’s previous support for them and reminding them that Hypatius was a green supporter, causing some Blues to leave the arena. The great Byzantine general Belisarius (who we may do an article on in the future) then entered the arena, after having other commanders seal of the entrances. Once Belisarius arrived, the slaughter began. The soldiers killed everyone in the arena they could, Blues and Greens, slaughtering indiscriminately. When the killing stopped, around 30,000 people were dead, officially ending the Nika Riots. 

              Justinian realized that although the riots were over, he had to solidify his authority that was now badly shaken. He ordered the execution of Hypatius, confiscated the property of Senators supporting the rioters, and hunted down any remaining agitators. Never again would the Blues and Greens unite with one another, except in times of war. Justinian would rule until 565 CE, rebuilding Constantinople and the destroyed Hagia Sophia.

The Boston Molasses Disaster

What is one of the worst ways you can think of dying? I bet you didn’t have drowning in syrup on that list. 21 people of Boston, Massachusetts, USA didn’t either in 1919, but unfortunately, they still met this sticky fate. So how did 21 people die in the molasses flood? Believe it or not, fermented Molasses is used to create ethanol, a key component in creating alcohol and munitions. Molasses was a hot commodity during the First World War and with the impending implementation of Prohibition in the United States, Boston had storage tanks of molasses in the North End of the Boston to keep the valuable syrup safe. A tank of this molasses, built in 1915, burst on the 15th of January 1919, causing a title wave of molasses to spill into the Boston Street. This wave of syrup, reported to be about 8m (25ft) high, moved at a speed of around 56 km/h (35 mph) destroying whole buildings by sweeping them off their foundations. The wave flooded several city blocks with about 2 feet (60 cm) of molasses, drowning or killing 21 people and injuring 150. How did this happen and what was the aftermath? Let us get into it.

              Molasses, as previously stated, was instrumental in the munition production process due to its ability to create ethanol when fermented. The First World War made storage along the water instrumental, with ships regularly depositing more molasses in the storage tanks. The tanks used to store this syrup in Boston’s North End wharfs were massive, standing at over 50 feet tall (15 meters). The tank that burst stored up to 2.5 million gallons of molasses and was built and managed by a subsidiary of The United States Industrial Alcohol (USIA), the Purity Distilling Company. From the very beginning, residents and workers near the tank had concerns, claiming the tank was built too quickly, with leaking and noises emitting from the tank. Although the war ended in 1918, USIA, with a continued focus on alcohol production, continued to use the tank due to the impending implementation of Prohibition. The belief on why the tanks burst is due to rising temperatures in Boston on Jan 15, 1919, coupled with a transfer of more molasses at higher temp the day before. In the previous days, the temperatures were below freezing, but on Jan 15, the temperatures climbed into the 40s Fahrenheit (4 Celsius). Molasses is thick and thickens the colder it gets. Owing to warmth, the viscosity decreases, causing expansion and with rapid expansion, structures like quickly built tanks, burst. To increase this expansion, a ship had deposited its load of molasses into the tank on the 14th, at a higher temp to facilitate the transfer, adding to the rising temperature in the tank. Finally, at 12:30 on the 15th, the tank burst. People nearby the bursting tank reported hearing noises like a loud rumble, similar to a train passing overhead on tracks, automatic weapon fire (the rivets bursting), and the ground shaking. The air rushing out of the burst tank picked up and threw people, hard and far enough to cause injury. Once the tidal wave of molasses spread out, causing chaos and destruction, destroying cable cars, automobiles, and sweeping buildings away, the molasses started to thicken being exposed to the cold Boston air. This thickening of the molasses severely hampered the rapid response efforts, dooming people, and animals alike, swallowed up in the wave. Some were killed instantly when debris swept by the wave hit them, but most drowned or suffocated in the sticky liquid. The more people and animals struggled, the more they became entombed. Rescue efforts were quick, with Red Cross nurses, naval cadets, military personnel, and police officers arriving on the scene minutes after the tank burst. Despite these efforts, some people were too buried to be helped and some were swept out to sea, with their bodies only being found months later.

              In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the cleanup took weeks, and occurred all over the city, not just at the harbor, as bystanders traveled to see the disaster, then trekked molasses all through the city as they went home. The harbor itself was stained brown for months after and even some residents reported that the harbor smelled of molasses for decades on hot days. A class action lawsuit was filed against USIA, claiming that the poorly built tank was responsible and that USIA should pay a large sum to the victims. USIA instead, and we are not making this up, claimed that a terrorist or anarchist climbed on top of the tank and dropped a bomb into the fermentation vent. They of course had no evidence to back this claim up, and the judge ruled in favor of the victims. USIA was forced to pay over $650,000, equivalent to $11 million in 2023. The lasting legacy of the flood is the improvement in construction safety that we enjoy today. The tank explosion led to new constructions being inspected and made sure that the construction met code in Boston, which eventually spread to other parts of the United States (sped along thanks to other disasters).