1066 and the Battle of Stamford Bridge

There is no battle in the English-speaking world that captures more attention than the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but Hastings may not have been successful for William, Duke of Normandy, if another battle had not happened in the preceding weeks. That battle, at a bridge in Yorkshire, laid the ground work for the nascent King of England, Harold Godwinson, to be defeated on 14 October, 1066 at Hastings. This article will explore the Battle of Stamford Bridge, its key players, and how it doomed Harold Godwinson, even as victor. When the English king Edward the Confessor died without heirs in 1066, several prominent men sprung to seize the throne for themselves. These contenders, Harald Hardrada, Harold Godwinson, and William I, all had both equally strong and spurious claims to the throne, throwing the realm into chaos. Starting with the (spoiler alert) eventual victor of this tripart war, the claim of William, we will briefly breakdown each faction prior to exploring the battle itself.

William, Duke of Normandy, is easily one of the most recognizable figures in medieval history but by his more commonly used name, William the Conqueror, or his derisive nickname, William the Bastard. William became Duke of Normandy at the age of 7-8 in 1035 as the only child of the prior duke, Robert I. His illegitimate birth, the by-product of a romance between Robert and William’s mother, Herleva, that did not result in marriage, made things complicated for him early on but had the support of powerful nobles in Norman, English, and French politics, helping him be recognized as the only true choice. He spent the early years of his rule shoring up his position, being pulled between vying factions taking advantage of his youth, until his position was finally secured around 1050-1051 with the defeat and exile of rival lords. The core of William’s claim is as follows: according to one of the versions (version D) of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William visited England to see his relative, Edward the Confessor in 1051. William was the grandson of Edward’s maternal uncle, Robert II of Normandy, and as Edward had no children of his own, chose William as his heir, with William’s visit securing the succession. The prevailing historical opinion of today doubts that this trip ever took place but there is primary source evidence (with muddled chronology) that claims Edward offered the crown of England to William in 1051 as Edward’s heir. Harold Godwinson, one of our other contenders for the throne, was also rumored to have sworn to uphold William’s claim as Edward’s heir in 1064 while participating as an ally of William in his campaign against Brittany, but this too is doubted as potential Norman propaganda. However, regardless of the true story, William believed he had a rightful claim enough to press it and invade England in 1066 after Edward’s death and Harold Godwinson’s seizure of the English crown.

Our next contender, Harold Godwinson, was born around 1022 as the oldest (legitimate) son of Earl Godwin of Wessex and Gytha Throkelsdottir. The Godwins were a powerful, if not the most powerful, noble family in England, from the old Anglo-Saxon heartland of Wessex. As an ally of the late King Cnut the Great of England, Godwin was made the first Earl of Wessex in 1020, making him a major power-player and advisor to the English king. Edward the Confessor married Edith, Godwin’s daughter and sister of Harold, in 1045, cementing their ties to King. However, this did not prevent Godwin’s family from running afoul of Edward on several occasions, one even resulting in the exile of Godwin to Flanders in 1051 after Godwin refused a royal order to punish the people of Dover. Godwin eventually was allowed to return to England in 1052 but died shortly after, and his son Harold succeeding him as Earl of Wessex. Harold, although now the most powerful noble in England and a strong claimaint to the throne as brother-in-law to the King if Edward and Edith remained childless, was still was not secure in his position due to his troublesome brother Tostig, Earl of Northumbria. Tostig’s reign in Northumbria was far from popular, as Tostig violently suppressed challenges to his position, killing several prominent Northumbrian lords through murder, assassination, and treachery. Tostig also did little to stem the raiding of Scots into his earldom and employed unpopular and expensive Danish mercenaries. Although Harold Godwinson was the brother-in-law of King Edward and a well respected English noble and leader, he had no royal blood himself, undermining his eventual claim to the throne. To further complicate matters, Harold was also said to have sworn fealty to William, Duke of Normandy after he was shipwrecked there in 1064. Why he was traveling to northern France is hotly debated, with sources claiming that he was sent to swear his fealty to William, to secure the release of some family members being held in France, or that he was on a fishing expedition blown off course. Harold helped and fought alongside William in his war against the Duke of Brittany, and the famous Bayeux Tapestry claims that he supposedly swore upon holy relics to support William’s claim as King of England when Edward died, before returning to England. In 1065, Harold convinced Edward the Confessor to exile his brother Tostig from Northumbria to end a rebellion there against the Earl. Tostig fled England to Flanders and then made contact with our next contender, Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, convincing him to invade England and seize the throne as King.

Our last claimant of the throne, Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, lived an extraordinary of adventure, traveling, and fighting in places ranging from Eastern Europe, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, Italy to his eventual defeat and death in Northern England. Frankly, we will have to gloss over much of Harald’s life because recounting his adventures could be an article itself. Harald was born around 1015 in Norway, to a powerful Norwegian family and half-brother to King Olaf Haraldsson. In 1028, Olaf was driven into exile by Cnut (Cnut the Great) but made an attempt to return for his crown in 1030. At only 14-15, Harald assisted his half-brother but was defeated at the Battle of Stiklestad that same year. Olaf was killed in the battle and Harald was badly wounded, forcing him into exile. Harald traveled through Norway and Sweden for a year to recover, eventually arriving in the land of the Kievan Rus of Eastern Europe. Harald was made captain by the Grand Prince of Kiev due to his desperate need of forces and his relation to Olaf who had also spent time in the Kievan Rus kingdom. For several years Harald fought campaigns against the Poles, the Eastern Romans, tribes in Estonia, and against nomadic people from the eastern Steppes. In either 1033 or 1034 Harald took 500 men to Constantinople to join the renowned Varangian Guard of the Eastern Roman Empire. Harald, in this service and as eventual leader of the Varangians, fought in many different campaigns for the Eastern Romans and against many different people such as Arab pirates, Turks in Anatolia, Arabs in Iraq, against peasants in Bulgaria, and may have even fought around Jerusalem. He is claimed to also have fought alongside Normans in Sicily and against Normans in southern Italy. Harald eventually found himself out of favor at court in Constantinople during a dynastic struggle, was imprisoned and either released or escaped in 1041. Harald returned to Kiev Rus in 1042 an immensely rich man from his campaigns and married Elisiv, the daughter of the Kievan Rus Grand Prince, showing his status as man of great importance. In 1045, Harald returned to Norway and became co-ruler of Norway in 1046 and then sole ruler in 1047. Harald set his sights on England in the 1050s, which he believed was rightfully his due to an agreement made by the Kingdom of Norway and Harthacnut, King of England in 1042. Conveniently for Harald, he was approached by Harold Godwinson’s exiled brother, Tostig, inviting him to take the crown of England from Harold. This would settle Harald’s claims to the English throne as well as securing revenge for Tostig, so Harald took him up on the offer and invaded Northern England in September of 1066.

Edward the Confessor died childless on 5 January 1066 and was buried in the newly completed Westminster Abbey the next day, with Harold Godwinson also being crowned by the English Witan as Harold II on the 6th. After hearing of Harold’s ascension to the English throne, William began invasion preparations in Normandy, securing the support of Pope Alexander II for his press as rightful King of England. Anticipating this move, Harold raised an army and marched to the Isle of Wight, where they waited for a Norman seaborn invasion. William’s forces however did not leave port for almost seven months for an unknown reason. Due to lack of food and ability to continuously supporting his army sitting in place, Harold disbanded his forces and marched for London on the 8th of September, the same day that Harald Hardrada’s forces landed in England at the mouth of the River Tyne. Harald’s invasion force consisted of around 7-8,000 men but was further enhanced by Scottish and Flemish forces recruited by Tostig, swelling to as much as 11,000. Harald secured an early victory against English forces quickly raised to resist him outside of York, capturing the city. Hearing of Hardrada’s invasion, Harold rescinded his disbanding order and forced marched his army of 12-17,000 185 miles north, reaching Yorkshire in an almost unbelievable four days, catching Hardrada and Tostig by surprise.

While the exact location of the wooden bridge where the battle was fought has been lost to history, the beginning of the battle is recorded by several near contemporary sources. Their recording is as follows: on 25 September, a single man rode up to the Norse invaders, meeting with Hardrada and Tostig. He stated that the earldom of Northumbria would be returned to Tostig if he turned on Hardrada, with Tostig asking what Hardrada would get for “his trouble.” The rider responded by saying “seven feet of English soil, as he is taller than other men.” Hardrada asked Tostig who this bold rider was, and Tostig replied that it was Harold Godwinson himself, with the English army suddenly appearing on the hillcrest behind the rider. While this article’s author doubts the unfolding of the pre-battle parlay in this way, it’s a remarkable story and the Hollywood like details don’t end there. When the terms were refused, the English forces swept down the hillside they were positioned, taking the Norwegians by complete surprise, even catching the Norwegians without their full battle armour. It is said by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that a single Norse warrior delayed the English army, by meeting them on the bridge itself with an axe, killing up to 40 men, only being defeated by an English soldier swimming under the bridge and spearing the warrior from below through the wooden bridge’s slats. The Norwegians used the delay to form a shield wall and resisted the English battle line for hours. During the battle, Hardrada fell to an arrow hitting him in the throat and Tostig was killed in the fighting at some point. A reinforcement of Norwegians rushed up from defending their longboats (with many dying of exhaustion trying to reach the battle) but it was to no avail and the Norwegians were defeated. Casualties are estimated to be 5,000 on the English side and up to 8,000 on the Norse side.

Whilst this was a great victory for Harold Godwinson and the English, it weakened his forces and his ability to resist a Norman invasion considerably with William finally invading England only three days after Stamford Bridge. Harold once again had to force march his army, this time south to meet the Normans where he was defeated at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October. It is recorded by the Bayeux Tapestry that Harold Godwinson was killed during the battle by an arrow hitting him in the eye, ending the Anglo-Saxon period of England’s history. William ascended the English throne as William I, better known to us as William the Conqueror, and his dynasty ruled England until 1135.

The Myth of Prester John

For over 500 years medieval people, from all powerful kings down to the lowly peasant, repeated the story of a Christian king somewhere in the world that would eventually summon his armies to save Christendom from the onslaught of pagans, heretics, and other religions. This king, known as Prester John, had a different location depending on the individuals telling the story, with versions placing him in India, China, Africa, and others. However, Prester John never summoned his armies to help the crusades or rescue besieged Christian cities because he didn’t exist. This article will explore how the myth of Prester John spread, its origin, and its eventual transition from supposed truth to myth.

The story of Prester John begins in the 12th century but is rooted in biblical and early Church history. The New Testament records that the Apostle Thomas traveled to “India” to spread Christianity and is credited with starting numerous churches along the way in places like the Roman province of Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Kerala (South India). Europeans held the belief that these communities converted by Thomas were still out there somewhere in Asia or India but where exactly was unknown, as “India” was a vague concept to the Western Europeans and could mean what we call India today or even could mean modern China, Africa, or southeast Asia.

In 1145, a Bishop named Hugh of Jabala gives us the first recorded telling of Prester John. A chronicler, Otto of Fresing, records that Hugh, in his role as emissary to Raymond of Antioch, described to a papal court in Italy that a dual king and priest of Nestorian Christianity took control of the city Ecbatana from Persian monarchs. This “presbyter” king, or priest king, then set out with his army to help reclaim Jerusalem from the Muslims but was stopped at the River Tigris due to high waters, returning to his own kingdom. Hugh stated that this king is descended from one of the three (or all of them) Magi of the biblical Three Magi fame. This tale spread to the various European courts for one main reason, it gave hope to beleaguered Christians losing ground in their fight to conquer the Levant. Those fighting in the crusading kingdoms were buoyed by the belief that if they held on long enough, Prester John would come with his massive army and save them from the onslaught. In reality, the story that Hugh of Jabala was telling was more likely the distorted retelling of a battle between the Western Lao people (also known as the Kara/Qara Khitai) against the Seljuk Turks who ruled Persia. In 1141 a battle was fought at Samarkand (modern day Uzbekistan), which the Seljuk Turks lost and suffered massive casualties. The Western Lao people were Buddhist, not Nestorian Christian, but many of the vassals serving the Lao were Nestorian, even having a tradition of using Christian names. When Prester John did not arrive to save the besieged Crusader States, that did not deter the belief that a great Christian king or kingdom was still out there in the unknown eastern world.

In 1165, a letter arrived addressed to the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel I Komnenos, claiming to be from King John of a Christian kingdom in Asia. John described himself as wealthy, powerful, a king with 72 other kings in fealty to him, and that he ruled the “three Indias.” The author of the letter further claimed to be bordering the literal garden of Eden, home to the most beautiful women, and a land full of wild fantasies, like a river of moving stones. The author also claimed that he will retake the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and that he guarded the '“Shrine of St. Thomas.” The letter is almost certainly a forgery, probably concocted by a monk but their motivations are unknown. This letter was said to be written originally in Arabic, translated into Greek, then translated in Latin. However now scholars believe the letter was originally written in Latin and the tale exaggerated by claiming to be written in different languages, to make it feel more mystical as the news spread around medieval Europe. To add further muddling, gaps in the story were filled in by the merchants and emissaries retelling the story to the various courts and towns. These differing details did not stop the letter from being taken literally and translated in the various European languages, eventually even being translated into Hebrew. The land that the letter described immediately grabbed the attention of Europeans and the hunt to find this kingdom and its king began. The details described in the letter fed into the biblical and fantastical tales that India was a land of wonders, mystery, and riches. Later travel novels by Marco Polo, the mythical John Mandeville, and others further enforced the idea that the world beyond Europe and the Near East was magical, strange, and dangerous but teeming with riches and wealth.

In 1221, the Bishop of Acre, Jacques de Vitry, claimed he brought good news to Europe out of the woeful Fifth Crusade, that a king named David of India, a descendent of Prester John, finally had arrived from the east to defeat the Saracens or Muslim forces, conquering Persia and attacking Baghdad. This greatly bolstered the hope that all was not lost as thought in the Holy Land and that soon Jerusalem would fall to this David of India. While Jacques de Vitry was correct in describing recent Saracen losses to an unknown force, this force was not Christian or a King from India, but was in fact Genghis Khan and his army. Although it quickly became apparent that King David of India was not the monarch arriving from the east, Christian emissaries were sent far east to find this King now that the Mongols were in control of areas that were previously off limits to Christians. As the 13th century went on, the legend morphed into that Prester John or his kingdom was real and on the far eastern border of the Mongols but had been defeated and vassalized by the Mongols. Marco Polo in his Travels records that Prester John did exist at one point but had been vanquished by Genghis after a devastating war caused by the refusal of Prester John to marry his daughter to Genghis himself. Polo was probably confusing a real historical early vassal of the Mongols that was defeated after a dispute with Genghis. When Prester John or evidence of him in the Far East could not be found, Europeans instead began searching elsewhere rather than disbelieving the legend.

By the 15th century, the hunt for Prester John turned from Asia to Africa. While India was placed as the location for his kingdom from the start, India was a vague location at this time to Europe and meant everything from South East Asia to parts of Africa. Ethiopia became the new likely land that the King existed in, discarding the previous supposed “facts” that a monarch had been stopped at the River Tigris in 1145. Polo again in his Travels described Ethiopia as a great Christian land and that Orthodox Christians told stories that Ethiopia would one day conquer Arabia. in 1306, Ethiopian envoys arrived in Europe and Prester John was listed as a bishop or Patriarch there by European chronicles for some strange reason, kickstarting the hunt for him in Africa.

In the very early years of the Age of Exploration, finding Prester John and his rich lands described in the 1165 letter became a motivating factor to explore the world. In 1487, two Portuguese ambassadors were sent to travel through Africa to find a new trade route to India but to also find Prester John. Although they were obviously not successful, other early explorers claimed that the Emperor of Ethiopia was called Prester John, despite the people of Ethiopia never calling the title holder that. Ethiopia became one of the favored locations of John’s kingdom (or the origin of the myth) even up to the 18th century, with various explorers searching Ethiopia and Africa for the fabled Prester’s kingdom. Eventually as the world became more well known to Europeans and the Americas were discovered, the legend shifted to the New World with various Spaniards claiming that Prester John could exist in North America.

It was not until the 17th century that academics began to point out the flaws in the Prester John story, and coupled with the lack of evidence found through world exploration and colonization, the myth of Prester John became just that, a myth.

Project Azorian

At the height of the Cold War, a press statement was released that stated a purpose-built ship was dispatched to the Pacific for “manganese mining” by its eccentric billionaire owner. In reality, the American ship, with its iconic crane taking up the majority of the deck space, began the hunt for a sunken Soviet submarine on the ocean floor north-west of Hawaii. The ship’s goal was to find and raise the sub to the surface before the Soviet government could, allowing the U.S. a peek at secret Soviet submarine, missile, and cryptography technology. Whist this sounds like the plot of a pulpy spy novel you would buy in an airport kiosk; this secret mission really did happen and is known to us as Project Azorian. The extraordinary mission, undertaken by the American CIA with the assistance of famous billionaire Howard Hughes, occurred in 1974 using the ship USN Hughes Glomar Explorer built just for the recovery of the missing Soviet submarine K-129.

On 24 February 1968, the Soviet sub, K-129, started its third patrol, with an expected completion date in May of ’68. After completing a successful test dive, the submarine radioed in that everything was functioning normally and began its patrol. This is the last communication that K-129 would ever send and by the end of march, Soviet naval leadership declared the sub missing after it repeatedly missed scheduled radio check-ins and failed to respond to communications relayed directly to the sub. After a failed search for the sub using surface, arial, and underwater methods, the soviets called off efforts and declared the sub lost.

The Soviet search efforts in the north Pacific attracted the attention of the Americans who correctly surmised that the Soviets were searching for a missing sub and began to conduct their own search. The Americans had set up underwater acoustic listening devices to detect submarines or other strange activity and were able to triangulate a likely sinking event and its location to a search area of only five nautical miles in the north Pacific using recent acoustic events that were recorded by these devices. This location was over hundreds of miles away from where the Soviets were looking but at a depth of 16,000 (4,900 meters) making it nearly impossible to recover using current technology. An American submarine, the USS Halibut was able to officially identify K-129 and photographed the wreck on the ocean floor after a three-week visual search. Based on these photographs, the Americans were able to determine the likely presence of surviving nuclear torpedoes and missiles that made recovery of K-129 very tempting.

However, there was no way to reach the sub, as it was nearly 3 miles below the surface. In 1970 a group of advisors within the US government, led by Henry Kissinger, got together to solution a way around this. This group, after receiving approval from President Nixon, reached out to a company owned by Howard Hughes, called Global Marine Inc (the Glomar in Glomar Explorer is a composite of Global Marine), who specialized in deep sea drilling and mining to develop a ship that could house and support the recovery operation. The operation was named Project Azorian. While Global Marine was “building” the ship, in reality Hughes and his senior staff had almost zero involvement in the project and it was spearheaded by the CIA and had involvement from other contacted companies, like Lockheed. The ship was outfitted with a huge claw that the crew nicknamed “clementine” that was designed to be lowered to the ocean floor, grabbing the sub, and raising it from the depths into the ship’s moonpool, never allowing the sub to be seen or give any indication what the ship was doing. Once the ship was built, the CIA had it undertake a test run which was successful and the Glomar Explorer set off on in 1974, arriving on the sub wreckage site on July 4.

From the start, the ship was shadowed and watched by the Soviet Navy who were tipped off about the operation. The Soviets did not believe the Americans had found the sub and even if they did, recovery would be impossible. They further ignored intelligence that indicated the Americans developed a recovery ship just for this purpose. However, the CIA crew on board were nervous about potential boarding action from the soviets, raising the alert to the point that the crew instructed to be prepared to arm themselves and to burn documents at a moment’s notice. The CIA also stacked numerous containers on the helipad of the ship in order to prevent any Soviet helicopters from landing on it. However, and rather anti-climatically, the Soviet vessels departed after about two weeks of shadowing the American operation.

 When it finally came time to raise the sunken K-129 from the ocean floor, the claw, Clementine, suffered a catastrophic failure. Global Marine staff on board reported the steel on the claws used to stabilize the sub, not just Clementine, failed due to the conditions of the operation and the sub split into sections, falling back to the ocean floor. Only the bow was recovered, which contained nuclear torpedoes, but the missiles and the cryptography equipment were all lost, along with most of the crew remains. Six soviet sailors were recovered, and the Americans buried them at sea using Russian burial manuals to make sure they were buried with respect. In order to prove the corpses were not mishandled, the Americans even filmed the burial, which can be found online today. Overall, the recovery was considered a failure, even though part of the sub was recovered, including the ship’s bell which was returned to the Soviets as a diplomatic gesture.

Project Azorian, while not achieving the majority of its objectives, was immensely embarrassing to the soviets, who did not even respond once the project was eventually revealed by the press. The fact the Americans were able to find the sub so quickly and so far away from where the soviets were looking for added insult to injury, without even addressing that the Americans also probably recovered soviet secret documents and insight into secret tech used onboard Soviet submarines. The project also has spawned an extremely famous phrase in English for when the CIA was asked about the existence of the project, a CIA representative responded with “I can neither confirm nor deny” the existence of documents related to the project which is now known as the Glomar response. The press was able to get wind of the project when a break-in of another Hughes owned company revealed its existence in documents that were then leaked to the press, with the story going public in in 1975. To this day however, the exact location of K-129 and details of exactly what was recovered from the submarine are kept secret, despite classification efforts. The Glomar Explorer was eventually actually used for mining and then years later sold off for scrap. As for the sinking cause of K-129, it is still disputed but the official cause is that the sub went below operating depth while in snorkel mode, causing the sinking, compounded by crew and mechanical failures.

The Pancho Villa Expedition

The United States and Mexico historically have not been the best of friends with numerous full-scale wars and smaller incursions, invasions, raids, border skirmishes, and interventions peppering their history as neighbors. The Pancho Villa expedition is but just one of these incursions from the United States into Mexico and fits in the broader history of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). This article will detail the U.S. “Punitive Expedition” led by General John “Black Jack” Pershing and its place in the wider legend of Pancho Villa’s life.

Pancho Villa was born José Doroteo Arango Arámbula in 1878 in the northwest of Mexico. Much of Villa’s life is contradictory and is debated, mostly due to Villa himself telling different stories for his early life. Supposedly he first turned to banditry after his sister was raped by the owner of a Hacienda, leading Villa to track down and kill the man. Through the late 1890s, he roamed the hills of northern Mexico with a bandit gang, stealing goods and livestock. In 1902 he was arrested and sentenced to death but was spared due to political connections he had cultivated through black market dealing of his stolen goods, instead being conscripted into the Federal Army. Villa deserted the army at the first chance he saw, leaving the ranks within just a few months and fleeing to the Mexican state of Chihuahua. It was around this time he adopted the name Francisco “Pancho” Villa and again turned to full time banditry. In the early 1900s, he attempted more legitimate pursuits like becoming a butcher and mining but supplemented his income with his bandit habits.

In 1910, the Mexican Revolution kicked off, with maximum chaos as a result. Mexico experienced a series presidents come and go through coups from 1910-1915. During this initial revolution in 1910, Villa became politically active, joining the revolution against President Porfirio Diaz in support of Francisco Madero. He believed his banditry activity could be used to hurt the rich Hacienda owners and saw himself as a Robin Hood like figure, undertaking performative acts of stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor, making him a folk hero in Northern Mexico. Pancho Villa fought on several sides during the revolution, at times supporting or fighting against various winners of power. Of note is Villa fighting the forces of dictator like President Victoriano Huerta, who despised Villa. Villa led the most powerful revolutionary army against Huerta, giving him sizable influence and prestige in his march to oust Huerta, alienating some ambitious allies or forcing an uneasy truth with others. Villa was accompanied by famous American journalist and writer, Ambrose Bierce, in his fighting against Huerta. Bierce was present at the battle of Tierra Blanca, which Villa won in 1913. The American press fed into and helped portray the image of Villa as a larger-than-life folk hero, a rag to riches, or a robin hood figure. Villa was elected provisional revolutionary governor of the state of Chihuahua by his fellow combatants in the fight against Huerta and was regarded as a good tactician and political operative. By 1915, Venustiano Carranza, a former ally of Villa turned vitriolic enemy, had ascended to the presidency in the wake of Huerta’s defeat - the 3rd president since 1910. Villa sided with Emiliano Zapata, another larger-than-life revolutionary figure, against Carranza in the struggle for the direction of Mexico. Both Villa and Zapata resented the power and influence of wealthy landowners like Carranza and feared he would become a dictator. After a struggle that looked like Villa and Zapata would come out on top, even occupying Mexico City at one point, they were defeated by superior tacticians aligned to Carranza.

Villa, now on the wrong side of the revolution, found himself isolated in the north and unable to raise substantial enough forces to challenge Carranza properly, instead turning to his usual bandit like behavior with raids, horse stealing, and other means to make money. Villa’s reputation began to shift from a folk hero to a sociopathic bandit who only cared about his image and enriching himself and his followers, thanks to a PR blitz by Carranza helped along by some dark incidents of murder, kidnapping, and rape committed by Villa’s forces throughout Northern Mexico. It seemed, at least publicly, that Villa had ditched his previous method of only targeting the rich, to targeting anyone that he felt was against him. The United States, which previously supplied arms and material to Villa, revoked their support in the wake of Carranza’s victory and Villa’s bad press, enraging Villa. In response, Villa and his men stopped a train traveling through northern Mexico, ordering foreign workers off the train, finding 18 Americans amongst the foreigners. Villa ordered the execution of these 18 men as retaliation for the loss of American support and throwing their weight behind Carranza. Villa began to plan a raid on U.S. soil, coupled with the previous execution of American citizens, that would have drastic consequences for Villa.

In March of 1916, Villa ordered several hundred soldiers aligned to him to cross the border with the U.S. and attack the town of Columbus, New Mexico. The goal of the raid was to acquire American arms and equipment to keep his men supplied in their fight against Carranza, but some historians believe it was more of an idealistic move against the U.S. who he saw as betraying him and meddling in Mexican affairs. Further, there was resentment amongst Villa’s men who blamed the Americans for previously selling them “defective” ammunition that they attributed to being a major factor in a previous defeat against Carranza forces.

On 9 March, Villa and his forces attacked a group from the U.S. 13th Cavalry Regiment, burned large chunks of the town of Columbus, seized around 100 horses, and captured ammunition and machine guns. Around 19 (this number is disputed amongst sources, even papers of the time report different numbers) Americans were killed in the raid, but Villa took substantial losses of around 70-80 men KIA. It is not known if Villa himself was present at the attack on Columbus or even if he ever crossed over into U.S. soil for the attack. There at least three other raids that took place on US soil between march and July 1916, but they cannot be definitively attributed to Villa, but added to the furor in the U.S. The U.S. responded in a way that Villa was not expecting, cross border raids were relatively common by Mexican bandits, but the reputation of Villa meant the U.S. could not let this one slide. President Woodrow Wilson ordered a “punitive expedition” launched to go capture Pancho Villa and bring back to the U.S. for trial, or kill him if necessary. The man tipped to the lead the expedition, General John “Black Jack” Pershing was privately told that he could declare “victory” even without the capture of Villa, if Villa’s forces were crushed.

Pershing put together an “expeditionary” force that was mostly made up of horse-mounted soldiers and artillery but were outfitted with some of the U.S. latest weaponry like the famous M1911 Semi-auto pistol and the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifles. Around 5,000 men in all were dispatched to Mexico to capture Villa, with a variety of infantry, cavalry, mechanized, and arial units participating. It was one of the first instances of the U.S. using airplanes in a military expedition, primarily using them as reconnaissance aircraft.

Villa had a six-day head start on the U.S. forces, breaking his men into smaller bands to evade the large groups of U.S. forces with ease. Villa and his forces knew the terrain intimately, so they were able to slip American groups by using their knowledge to devise escape routes if cornered. This was used with effectiveness after Villa was nearly caught by a large force of around 400 American cavalry at the town of Guerrero (400 miles deep into Mexican territory), where Villa had been celebrating the successful attack of a nearby garrison loyal to Carranza. Villa, who had been wounded with a shot to the kneecap in fighting the day before, was caught off guard by the rapid appearance of the American flying column of cavalry. The Americans quickly surrounded Guerrero and executed a large cavalry charge (with some historians calling this the last true cavalry charge) that inflicted substantial losses on Villa and his forces, killing 56 of Villa’s men to the loss of no American forces. Amongst the dead was Villa’s good friend, General Elicio Hernandez. Villa himself was able to escape by slipping into the mountains with a small group of his men and the Americans came so close to his hiding position that he could hear the soldiers singing a marching song as they passed. This would be the closest the Americans came to capturing Villa during the year-long expedition. Villa was able to hide out in mountain caves whilst his wound healed, and plot the rebuilding of his forces along with his next move.

As the year went on, Villa’s forces continued to be cornered and break up into smaller bands to avoid large scale engagements with the Americans, as they correctly realized they would be outgunned and out maneuvered by the American’s use of advanced weaponry and tactics. Several skirmishes would unfold that would inflict casualties on Villa’s forces, but they rarely came close to a large-scale engagement like the skirmish at Guerrero and Villa would remain elusive. Politically the expedition began to run into problems with the new Carranza government. Carranza, although actively fighting Villa and supported in this by the U.S., was alarmed at how deep the Americans were pushing into Mexico and decided to fight back. In April 1916, a group of 500 Carranza forces attacked a much smaller 128-man group of Americans as they withdrew from the town of Parral (500 miles into Mexico), resulting in the deaths of two Americans and up to seventy Carranza soldiers. This engagement forced the Americans to withdraw closer to the U.S. border and begin extensive diplomatic talks with Carranza’s government to limit further bloodshed, buying Villa and his forces more time to rebuild and breathing room, although the Americans would continue to inflict casualties on Villa’s forces in skirmishes, sometimes with devastating effect to Villa and little to no losses for the Americans. The Americans wouldn’t stray so far south, allowing Villa and his forces to have an easy way to evade trouble when they encountered it, essentially kneecapping the success of the Expedition from spring 1916 to its conclusion in February 1917. To add a further complication, although diplomatic talks were occurring at the highest levels between the Americans and the Mexicans, there continued to be bloody engagements between Mexican Carranza government forces and U.S. soldiers, resulting in men KIA on both sides.

Pershing, after being unable to launch any meaningful offensive actions in Mexico beyond May 1916, was ordered to withdraw from his base in Northern Mexico in February 1917, declaring success at the break-up of Villa’s forces and limiting his ability to wage war. The Americans killed or captured around 300 of Villa’s men, capturing 650 weapons, and 140 horses. Villa mocked the American’s failure to capture him saying that “Pershing came in like an eagle and leaves now like a wet chicken.” Pershing privately complained that his expedition failed as President Wilson placed too many restrictions on his forces. But the one success for the Americans is that the expedition helped ready it’s military apparatus for its entry into the First World War eight months later. It allowed the U.S. Army to test its readiness, equipment, and weapons, along with implementing new rapid movement tactics and the use of airplanes on the battlefield. It also gave the chance for army officers, who would eventually become leaders in the next World War, to lead men in combat, with officers like 2nd Lieutenant George S. Patton seeing action for the first time. In fact, Patton lead the American’s first mechanized combat action, using three Dodge vehicles to engage enemy forces.

Villa’s reputation as a national leader and his ability to influence Mexico politics never recovered in the post expedition world, even after thwarting an American military. Instead he was relegated to a regional power player with minimal influence even on Chihuahua. He evaded Carranza and his forces for a further 3 years, still engaging in guerilla actions against the government but sued for peace after Carranza’s assassination in 1920. Villa declared his support for the new president, Adolfo de la Huerta, and received amnesty for his past rebellion, retiring to a 25,000-acre hacienda in Chihuahua. Villa was ambushed and killed by the forces of yet another president, Alvaro Obregon, in 1923 at the age of 45. Black Jack Pershing would go on to be supreme commander of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during the First World War and is considered – even today – to be the second highest ranking American military officer in the nation’s history, second only to George Washington.

Elphinstone’s Retreat

In 1839, Britain did what any self-respecting empire does - invade Afghanistan. This invasion was part of what is euphemistically called “The Great Game” between the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Great Game was the world’s first (modern) Cold War, and had all the hallmarks of the later 20th century version including copious amounts of spies, proxy wars, diplomatic threats, and using unaligned countries as their playground. One of these unaligned countries, Afghanistan, lay between the Russian Empire and British India, so in order to shore up their defense of India, the British invaded Afghanistan due to the belief that at any moment the Russians would pour across the border and use Afghanistan as an invasion route to India. The British goal was to secure a friendly and cooperative state in neighboring Afghanistan as to create a buffer state between the two feuding empires.

During what is now known as the First Anglo-Afghan War (the first in a trilogy of wars), the British East India Company (EIC) invaded Afghanistan from India with around 20,000 soldiers. These 20,000 were a mix of British soldiers and Indian Sepoys, or Indians in service of the EIC. The EIC is different than a modern company, as it was essentially state controlled, directly governed large land holdings in Southeast Asia, and had its own armed forces (at times actually larger than the British Army). Initially in 1839, the British were somewhat welcomed into Kabul, by the leader of the city, Dost Mohammed. but the British began to distrust him and suspected he was playing both sides. As a result of this distrust, the British used their army to oust Dost Mohammed and replaced him with more friendly, yet ineffective, Shah Shuja, and mostly withdrew from the area, believing their mission accomplished. However, they did leave behind two brigades and two political aids to guide the Shah, Sir William Macnaghten and Sir Alexander Burns. In 1841, with tensions flamed by the Shah’s rule and the British occupation, a full rebellion in Kabul erupted with Macnaghten and Burns being murdered by the local populace. The two British brigades were still intact in a fortified camp outside the main city but were completely surrounded. By December of ’41, the British were able to negotiate a safe retreat from Kabul for their surrounded forces and their families (not just wives but children as well) as well as any camp followers and personnel. This negotiated agreement meant that the British had to leave behind the sick and wounded, all their gunpowder reserves, their newest muskets, and most of their artillery, but would have an Afghan escort provided by the leader of the uprising against the Shah, Akbar Khan. Additionally, the Afghans would provide fuel and food to the British to aid in the cross of the snowy Hindu Kush mountains. In total, around 16,000 people were being evacuated in a retreat lead by General William Elphinstone, departing on the 6th of January, 1842, for the British garrison in Jalalabad, around 90 miles away.

The retreat encountered hostility almost immediately, despite the agreement of safe evacuation, with the rearguard encountering hostile fire after leaving the fortified camp. Once the Afghans hostile to the British entered the fortified camp, they massacred everyone left behind and set fire to the structures. The promised escort by Akbar Khan’s forces never arrived nor did the aid they promised. Elphinstone resisted calls from his subordinate officers to turn back and take control of the fortress in Kabul but Elphinstone refused and the march to Jalalabad continued. On the second day of the march, the long column of soldiers and civilians began encountering sniper fire from the hillsides, with the British soldiers being ineffective in returning fire as they were hindered by the slow movement of the column and the chaos of the civilians trying to seek shelter from the snipers. To further complicate matters, the British engaged in several skirmishes with the Afghans resulting in the capture or destruction of most of the remaining British artillery, leaving the British with just three artillery pieces.

Akbar Khan met with Elphinstone on the afternoon of the second day to say that the British were at fault for his escort failing to appear as they left too soon and that the British should wait while he negotiates their safe passage through the pass out of Kabul. By this point, the column had only traveled 6 miles. Despite evidence of Khan’s treachery, Elphinstone agreed to wait and move slowly. On the third day, it became obvious, even to Elphinstone that Akbar Khan betrayed the British and stalled to allow the Afghans time to set up more effective ambushes along the passes. Progress was slow despite being constantly under musket fire and by the end of 9th of January (the fourth day) and only 40 miles, 3,000 people had been killed. Most of these were killed by sniper fire, skirmishes, frozen to death, or committed suicide, but some were massacred by the Afghans after they fell wounded and unable to continue. Frostbite set in for the survivors and the freezing conditions rendered most military equipment unusable. British cohesion fell apart and desertions began to occur, with some few hundred Indian troops attempting to return to Kabul but they too were massacred and the survivors enslaved. A large group of the soldier’s wives and families were captured and promised protection by Abkar Khan, but instead the wives of the Indian Sepoys were all murdered along with any Indian servants captured, leaving only white prisoners alive. Elphinstone’s psyche collapsed and he stopped giving orders, he just kept silently moving forward atop his horse.  

By the end of the 11th of January (the sixth day), it is estimated that only around 200 soldiers remained and a fierce rearguard action began under the command of Brigadier General John Shelton at the village of Jagadalak. The resistance was so fierce that the Afghans requested Elphinstone and John Shelton to begin negotiations with Akbar Khan. Elphinstone and Shelton dined with Khan but quickly realized they had actually been captured, with the Afghans refusing them the ability to return to their men. On the 12th of January (the seventh day), the column moved forward despite losing Shelton and Elphinstone and suffering 12,000 casualties, in the dead of night to limit their exposure to sniper fire. However, the remains of the column found themselves blocked in a by a barrier erected at the narrow pass, with most people being shot as they scaled the barrier. Small groups survived crossing the barrier but most were either cut down shortly after or killed as they attempted to escape, with very few of these small groups being able to make it. Scattered and isolated, these surviving groups attempted to reach Jalalabad by any means. The largest of these groups made a heroic last stand at the village of Gandamak, despite being either exhausted or wounded and lacking proper ammunition and working equipment to make a survivable defense. Refusing offers to surrender, this group of 20 officers and 45 men, were mostly all killed after an intense series of attacks and waves of men rushing their position. Of the 65 men, only 1 officer, 1 sergeant, and 7 privates were captured.

On the 13th of January (the final and eighth day), a lone officer rode into Jalalabad. This lone survivor, Assistant Surgeon William Brydon described his ordeal to reach Jalalabad, having survived multiple ambushes that wounded himself and his horse. When asked what happened to the army, Brydon famously replied with “I am the army.” Over the coming weeks, Brydon would be the only European officer to arrive from the column although a number of Sepoys arrived after surviving by hiding themselves in the mountains.

Britain was absolutely humiliated and shocked by the loss of Elphinstone’s column, with immediate calls for revenge and retribution against Akbar Khan and Kabul. The news was so shocking to the EIC that the man in charge of it, Lord Auckland, suffered a stroke. A punitive expedition marched into Kabul later in 1842, leveling the Grand Bazaar and any large building in Kabul, rescuing or securing hostages (including the European soldier’s wives), and attacked the forces of Akbar Khan where they were able. In all, only over 2,000 people from the column would be rescued from captivity, escaped, or were released. Elphinstone himself died a captive of Akbar Khan in April of 1842 and his leadership during the evacuation has been thoroughly panned in the 182 years since. Akbar Khan took control of Afghanistan until being ousted by Dost Mohmmed in 1843, and died of cholera in 1847.

The Expedition of the Thousand

The island of Sicily has been conquered, captured, occupied, or subjugated by almost every single power in recorded history. The Ancient Greek colonists, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Normans, the Spanish, The French, the British, the French again, the Spanish also again, and finally their fellow Italians, all have occupied or used Sicily’s strategic location in the Mediterranean to their advantage. The Sicilian people as a result have a unique Italic language and culture compared to mainland Italy. Their language (although mistakenly considered a dialect but still similar) is distinct from Italian as it is an amalgamation of different languages from the people who conquered and occupied them. In only very recent history (1860) has Sicily joined the Italian mainland as a unified state, the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Italian expedition to unite Sicily with Italy is a fascinating and dramatic tale of revolution and local uprising being used by a greater power. This article will detail the uniting of Sicily with the boot peninsula and the factors that led to its success.

In the 1850s-1860s, the Italian peninsula was in the throes of a revolution against greater European powers after centuries of oppression and control. The House of Savoy, a royal house originally hailing from Sardinia, started to spread its control from the north of Italy, pushing a message of a united Italy being the only way to prevent meddling European powers from engaging in Italian misadventure. This unification process became known as the Risorgimento, or Italian for resurgence. At the same time, the Sicilians were under the control a despised regime situated in Naples. This kingdom, known as the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, was a Spanish-Bourbon monarchy that acted with impunity in Sicily, causing widespread resentment from the population. In 1848, while the rest of Europe engaged in widespread revolution against monarchy and centuries old powers, Sicily attempted to do the same against the regime in Naples, only to be met with brutal repression and a violent put down of the Sicilian independence movement. This was not forgotten by the people in 1860, when Italy started to be united under the House of Savoy in the north of the peninsula. Guiseppe Garibaldi, a charismatic leading figure in the Risorgimento movement of Italy, set his eyes on the Kingdom of Two Sicilies once most of the north was united. Sicily and the south of the peninsula, while wanting to be rid of the dynasty in Naples, were less interested in the anti-clerical pro-industrial message being pushed by the House of Savoy and instead launched an internal struggle separate from the movement in the north.

Garibaldi was a young upstart that attached himself to the Savoy early on and helped lead the struggle against the Austrians in the north. Once the Austrians were defeated, Garibaldi, more nationalistic than most of his allies, wanted to keep pushing south until Italy was fully united under the Savoy banner. Garibaldi decided to launch an audacious expedition to conquer Sicily, raising a small force of around 1,000 men. These 1,000 volunteers (the Mille) consisted of soldiers, young nationalists, workers, and opportunists, extremely loyal to Garibaldi himself. Garibaldi had his work cut out of him, while the Sicilians chaffed under the yoke of the Bourbon Neapolitans, they were a different people than the northern Italians. Mostly agrarian and uninterested in industrialization, they were also deeply religious and loyal to the catholic church. The House of Savoy was used to uniting people under a pro-industrialization message and a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church and its clerics. This message had to be modified if Garibaldi was going to succeed. Garibaldi would especially drop the message of anti-church and employed priests (some of whom even fought) in his columns of men to put an image of church support of his cause. In advance of the expedition, representatives and agents were sent to Sicily to stoke the population’s support and an uprising broke out in Palermo on 4 April 1860, which was violently and brutally suppressed by the Neapolitan Bourbon forces there.

Garibaldi set sail from Genoa on 5 May, 1860 with his around one thousand volunteers and landed at Marsala in Western Sicily on 11 May. His landing was aided by good timing as the Bourbon navy, trying to stop Garibaldi before his landing, were afraid to engage Garibaldi’s ships at Marsala due to the coincidental presence of two British Royal Navy vessels. Fearful of sparking a wider war, they let Garibaldi land unopposed, although the British remained neutral in the expedition, denying aid and supplies to both sides. Initially, Garibaldi’s prospects didn’t look great, most of his men were untrained and ill-equipped for the task at hand, but planned on tapping into the Sicilian people’s resentment to bolster their forces. This surging of his manpower with Sicilian volunteers however didn’t appear right away. The Thousand, with their flashy red shirts and grey trousers, were not taken seriously at their landing.

Garibaldi found little interest from the Sicilians to support his cause, as they were hesitant to support his tiny force against 20,000 Neapolitan forces loyal to King Francis II. Garibaldi declared his intention to liberate the island from Naples, while also declaring himself dictator of the island in the name of King Victor Emmanual II of Savoy and began his march towards Palermo. He was met by a force of Neapolitans twice his size at the three-hour long Battle of Calatafimi, resulting in a mostly inconclusive engagement. However, the battle was a massive moral blow to the Neapolitans as they retreated upon running out of ammunition, leaving Garibaldi’s thousand to press towards Palermo. Only at this point did the Sicilian people and partisans see that Garibaldi may have a chance, but he had a large obstacle to overcome, the Sicilian capital city, Palermo. Palermo had around 18,000 forces loyal to King Francis II but were led by an incompetent 75-year-old commander. Once Garibaldi laid siege to the city on 27 May, the population of Palermo (around 180,000) rose up and aided the Thousand, allowing Garibaldi to enter the city and capture portions on the first day. The Bourbons retreated and shelled the lost sections of the city, killing hundreds of civilians in the process that further stoked resistance by the population. By May 28, the Bourbon troops found themselves cornered and began to fight back against the resisting population but they were unable to gain momentum against the Thousand and the popular uprising. Two battalions of well-trained Bavarian mercenaries employed by the Bourbons arrived and began to push back the Mille. Although Garibaldi began to lose ground and men, the Bourbons started facing uprisings in Catania and other parts of Sicily, and quickly realized that with the population uniting against them and the morale of their men beginning to collapse, they would have to surrender the city and retreat eastwards back to the mainland. On 30 May, they surrendered Palermo and retreated fully on 6 June 1860.

While Garibaldi’s Thousand is the most well-known expedition, he did not conquer the island alone. In all, around 20,000 volunteers began to arrive from other parts of Italy to aid the Mille and land around various areas of Sicily. It was these new arrivals that ultimately convinced King Francis II’s forces to abandon the island and return to defend their holdings in mainland Italy, allowing Garibaldi and the Savoy forces to march east, fighting retreating Bourbon forces and gaining more troops from Sicilian partisans in the process. Finally on 1 August, the Bourbons surrendered the whole of the Island after losing engagements in Messina and Syracuse, allowing Garibaldi to establish a dictatorial government under the authority of King Victor Emmanual II and uniting Sicily to Savoy Italy.

The Crabb Affair: The Missing Frogman

In 1956, the Cold War was in its first phase - the USSR had successfully tested a series of nuclear weapons, the berlin blockade of 1948-49 sowed distrust and hostility on both sides, and the death of Stalin only three earlier had caused confusion and chaos in diplomatic relations between the West and the USSR. In this atmosphere, a World War 2 Royal Navy veteran and professional scuba diver employed by MI6, Lionel Crabb, disappeared off the coast of England, leaving behind more questions than answers and a riveting cold war mystery to this day.

Lionel “Buster” Crabb, born in 1909 London, started serving at sea at a young age, holding several positions with the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy Reserve in the years prior to World War 2. With the outbreak of war, he transitioned to active duty in the Royal Navy, originally disarming Axis mines removed by British divers, or “frogmen.” After some time in this role, he learned to dive and joined a team of underwater mine clearers in Gibraltar. These divers were focused on counteracting mines, manned torpedoes, and diver attacks by the Italians. In 1942, two Italian frogmen were killed by the British and their Italian made equipment was taken and then used by Crabb (this will feature later). Later in the war, he served in Italy where he worked to remove mines in various Italian ports, and investigated the mysterious death of a Polish general whose aircraft crashed into the water. In the years following the war, he served in Palestine where he removed mines from several harbors, eventually leaving the navy in 1947, becoming a civilian wreck diver. In his capacity as a wreck diver, he dove on various sites including a Spanish galleon from the famous 1588 Armada before returning to the Navy to dive on Royal Navy submarine wrecks to search for any signs of life, finding none in both cases and in 1955 was retired from the navy due to his age and health. Crabb had been a lifelong smoker and heavy drinker and by this time, both habits began to affect his health. He was recruited by MI6 to conduct secret dives focusing on examining and investigating Soviet ships after his retirement.

In 1956, the Soviet cruiser Ordzhonikidze arrived in Britain carrying Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. This ship intrigued the British who wanted to know more about the design and capabilities of the Soviet Navy’s vessels. MI6 deployed Crabb on 19 April to dive in Portsmouth Harbour and investigate the propeller of Ordzhonikidze, and this is the last anyone ever saw of Lionel Crabb. The British immediately covered up the vanishing of Crabb, releasing a statement that Crabb had gone missing and presumed dead after testing some new diving equipment. The Soviets cried foul, stating that their sailors reported seeing a diver by the cruiser on 19 April. The British sent a message to the Soviets elaborating that his testing of this equipment in Portsmouth Harbour was unauthorized, sticking to their public story. This cover up and scandal became known as the “Crabb Affair.” Prime Minister Anthony Eden was outraged at MI6, as he never authorized the mission on British domestic soil, which is usually reserved for MI5.

A body missing its head and hands, was recovered in June 1957. The body has never been positively identified as its decomposition (along with missing hands and head) due to the amount of time spent in the water, makes it difficult to ID even for those close to Crabb. The corpse, reported to be the same height as Crabb, and supposedly wearing an Italian Pirelli diving suit along with Royal Navy fins, was examined by Crabb’s wartime friend and later diving partner, along with his ex-wife, and girlfriend. All three failed to positively identify the corpse as Crabb. There are numerous theories we will explore on what happened to Crabb using declassified materials and statements from various Soviet sources.

The first theory is that Crabb’s smoking and drinking habits made him unfit for the mission and he died from either health issues exacerbated by the diving, or that he had catastrophic equipment failure, resulting in death by oxygen starvation or carbon dioxide poisoning. It is reported that Crabb died on his second dive near the ship, as he had to surface from his first dive due to equipment problems, lending some credence to this theory. This view is held by several diving experts and Crabb’s MI6 handler, Nicholas Elliot (side note: Elliot is famously tied to Kim Philby of the Cambridge Five).

The next explanation for Crabb’s disappearance we will explore is a combination of multiple theories involving the Soviets. There are various explanations given by former Soviet personnel that attempt to explain the vanishing of Crabb, the first of which states that he died under interrogation after capture. According to a former British double agent that spied for the Soviets, Crabb was captured by underwater sentries stationed to prevent the British from getting close to the cruiser, knocking Crabb unconscious after an underwater physical altercation. He was dragged onboard to receive medical treatment where he passed out again, eventually recovering enough to be interrogated. During this interrogation, he passed out a third time and died. The Soviets feared the diplomatic repercussions so they released his body in the water in way that it would be loose once the Soviet cruiser began to leave the harbour but it became tangled underwater, preventing its recovery until the next year. A former Soviet diver put forward another theory in 2007, stating that Crabb had been intercepted underwater by him and his oxygen line was cut in an altercation, leading to his death. A third Soviet theory put forward in the 90’s by a former Naval Intelligence Officer, states that Crabb was seen from the cruiser and shot by Soviet snipers.

Our last theory (and most far-fetched) is that Crabb survived his mission and either defected to the Soviets or was captured and “brainwashed.” This theory has several aspects to it, such as Crabb living under an assumed Russian name to train the Soviet’s frogmen, that he was held as a prisoner for years in a Soviet gulag before being brainwashed to train divers, or that he defected voluntarily and lived out his days in Russia.

Here at Seeking History, we believe that the most likely scenarios explaining Crabb’s vanishing is equipment or health failure during the dive. The former Soviets have a history of making claims regarding Cold War actions that don’t always line up with the historical evidence. While Lionel Crabb’s unfortunate disappearance in the early years of the Cold War is still a mystery and little closure to this case can be found, it’s a fascinating tale of Cold War espionage nonetheless. Documents related to the Crabb Affair will not released by the UK until 2056.

The Roman Question

When you think of Italy, you of course think of Rome. Rome, known as the “Eternal City,” was not the eternal capital of Italy, however. For 1,394 years, Italy was a divided peninsula with various city states and petty kingdoms populating the peninsula. Greater European powers also fought over and captured whole swaths of the “boot” more times than we can breakdown in this article. It was not until the 1870 unification of Italy that Rome became the capital of the peninsula again for the first time since 476 CE. In this article we will outline the capture of Rome from the Papal States in 1870 and its effect on the Italian peninsula.

By the Western Roman Empire’s fragmentation in 476, Rome had already ceased to be what it once was and was a depopulated remnant. At its height, the city boasted a population of between 1-2 million people but was reduced to a mere 30,000 after the Imperial collapse. Rome would eventually recover due to the presence of the Catholic Church and the Popes calling it their home (for most of the Papal office’s history), with the city becoming the capital of the Papal States in 756 CE. The Papal States would continue to expand, grabbing territory in the modern Italian regions of Lazio, Marche, Umbria, and Emilia-Romagna. However, by the start of the 17th century, the Papal states started to erode with various European powers seizing chunks in their bid to dominate Italy. This eventually culminated in the dissolution of the Papal States in all but name by 1859, with only Rome and some surrounding territory remaining under temporal control of the Pope.

The new Kingdom of Italy, under the Sardinian house of Savoy and King Victor Emmanuel II, wished to crown its achievement of uniting the peninsula for the first time since the Roman Empire by making Rome their capital, but in their way was Pope Pius IX, who considered Rome his sovereign right and territory. The debate over Rome’s ownership became to be known as the Roman Question. This resulted in a standstill between the two factions as Italy did not want to storm Rome and oust the Pope, fearing a sharp religious backlash from its staunchly catholic population and an international public relations disaster. Additionally, a French garrison defended the city, preventing Italy from seizing it however this did not prevent the Kingdom from declaring in 1861 that Rome was its capital.

In 1870 the Franco-Prussian War erupted forcing Napoleon III to remove his troops from Rome, leaving an opportunity for Italy to seize the city. Fearing the backlash mentioned earlier of violently taking Rome from the Pope, King Victor Emmanuel II offered to “protect” the Pope in place of its previous French garrison, with the true aim of peacefully taking the city once Italian troops arrived. The Pope saw through this ruse and declined the offer of protection, causing Italy to formally declare war in September of 1870, besieging the city later that month. Although Pius IX knew that his greatly outnumbered could not successfully defend the city, he ordered his forces to put up some resistance to emphasize to the world that the Pope was not giving up Rome willingly. Pius IX did instruct his forces in their resistance however to not push back too hard in order to limit bloodshed on both sides, resulting in 12 dead amongst his men and 32 amongst the Italian forces. The city fell to Italian forces on September 20th, 1870, and the Pope entered a phase referred to as the “Prisoner in Rome.”

While a “prisoner” in Rome, the Pope confined himself to Vatican hill and the Apostolic Palace, still conducting diplomacy as if he was a sovereign. He further rejected any deal with the Italians to become an Italian subject or to negotiate any church holdings within the city away. This status existed until 1929, with the Pope refusing to leave Rome until then. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 ended this self-imposed house arrest, establishing Vatican hill as Vatican City, a wholly separate 17 sq mile nation from Italy and providing financial restitution to the Church for the seized territory of the Papal States, officially ending the “Roman Question.”

Today, Vatican City is the smallest nation on earth and is the smallest by population, with only around 750 residents. The Pope remains head of state of Vatican City and an easy peace/relationship has been maintained by Italy and Vatican City ever since, with the Pope giving up sovereign claim of Rome outside his territory.

Boudicca’s Revolt

The island of Britain was a consistent sore spot for the Roman Empire, causing problems in one way or another throughout its occupation. The Romans, realizing they could never conquer or occupy Britain as a whole, decided to wall off the northern side with two large walls that spanned the width of the island in the north. However, this didn’t mean that south of the walls was pacified and Romanized in its entirety, with the occupied portions experiencing revolts, tribal incursions, invasions, and civil war. One of these revolts, the Boudicca Revolt, has gone down in history and is vividly remembered along with its eponymous leader.

The most historically accepted cause of the revolt is that in 60-61 CE, a chieftain named Prasutagus of the tribe Iceni died, leaving his tribe’s holdings to his two daughters and the Roman Emperor Nero. The Iceni were a friendly tribe to the Romans and were one of the six tribes that welcomed Julius Caesar on his expedition to Britain in the 50s BCE, so leaving part of his holdings to Nero was not a radical gesture. However, the Romans chose to ignore this will and seize all the holdings of the Iceni instead, stripping the Iceni of their status as allies and declared them subjugated instead. To add more insult and injury to the Romans flogged the wife of Prasutagus, Boudicca, and raped her two daughters, causing her to of course seek revenge against the Romans.

Boudicca rallied her tribe, using the behavior of the romans to also rally her neighbors, the Trinovantes, and smaller tribes around them. Her message of rebellion spread from the Trinovantes to other tribes, both allies and enemies of Rome. By the time Boudicca was ready to begin her rebellion, she had amassed a reported 100,000 native Britons under her command. Boudicca’s first move was to attack the former capital of the Trinovantes, modern day Colchester – then known as Camulodunum. The city was populated by Roman legionary veterans, who further angered the locals by building a massive temple to the late Roman emperor Claudius (paid for by the native Britons). Boudicca marched on Colchester whilst a reliving Roman legion, the famed Legio IX Hispania, marched to intercept her army. The Romans were soundly defeated, with massive losses to the legion. Reportedly, every infantry soldier was killed or captured, with only the legions commander and a small number of calvary escaping. The inhabitants of Colchester appealed to the Romans for further assistance but only 200 auxiliary forces arrived, essentially dooming the city to Boudicca, and were massacred, with the last forces holing up the temple of Claudius for two days before they were killed. Next, Boudicca marched on London, then known as Londinium. London was not the capital of Roman Britan but was a town centered around trade and travel, making it important. Roman general Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, who had been campaigning in the north of the province, had received word of Boudicca’s movement and began marching his forces south, quickly arriving in the city ahead of Boudicca’s forces. However, after assessing the situation and determining he would be defeated if he fought the rebels at London, he opted instead to withdraw and leave the city to Boudicca’s vengeance. Although Paulinus opted to not defend London, he did take as refugees those citizens who opted to flee. Those who did not flee were killed and massacred by Boudicca’s force and the city burned. Lastly, Boudicca and her army marched to Verulamium (modern St. Albans) and repeated what they had done in Colchester and London. It is estimated that between the three cities and the legion, 70,000-80,000 Romans and Roman-allied Britons were killed in the revolt.

Paulinus began to prepare to fight Boudicca and her forces on his own terms, although exactly where the battle took place is unknown. Paulinus had around 10,000 men under his command, consisting of Legio XIV Gemina and detachments from Legio XX Valeria Victrix. Legio II Augusta was also requested to join but their commander disobeyed orders and did not march to join Paulinus’ forces. Boudicca had an estimated 200,000 but as with all ancient military numbers, this should be taken with extreme skepticism, however it is thought her forces were lightly equipped due to previous disarming of the native Britons in the preceding years. Boudicca was confident in her success and allowed the families to pool their baggage wagons to the edge of the battlefield and watch her impending victory, but this proved to be a disastrous decision. The Roman historian Tacitus describes the battle like this:

“At first, the legionaries stood motionless, keeping to the defile as a natural protection: then, when the closer advance of the enemy had enabled them to exhaust their missiles with certitude of aim, they dashed forward in a wedge-like formation. The auxiliaries charged in the same style; and the cavalry, with lances extended, broke a way through any parties of resolute men whom they encountered. The remainder took to flight, although escape was difficult, as the cordon of wagons had blocked the outlets. The troops gave no quarter even to the women: the baggage animals themselves had been speared and added to the pile of bodies. The glory won in the course of the day was remarkable, and equal to that of our older victories: for, by some accounts, little less than eighty thousand Britons fell, at a cost of some four hundred Romans killed and a not much greater number of wounded.”

 The rebellion suffered a total defeat and was not able to continue its rampage although Boudicca’s fate after is unknown with sources saying she either committed suicide by poison or she fell ill and died after. The rebellion almost caused the Romans to recommend to Emperor Nero that Britain should be abandoned. Her burial site is also unknown and today is hunted for by archeologists. However, the legacy of Boudicca is still felt today, with a statue of her in Westminster, London (across from Westminster Palace at the entrance to the tube station) and her rebellion is taught to all students in Britain as they go through their schooling. Further, she is celebrated as one of Britain’s first national heroes and her rebellion is written and discussed positively.

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 in this war and previous Cuban uprisings (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 perceived 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. War was declared on Spain by the United States two months later, with the rallying cry of “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain” entering the American lexicon, joining “Remember the Alamo” as one of the most memorable phrases in US 19th century history, being taught in American textbooks to this day. The press and those with economic interests in Cuba got exactly what they desired, forcing a confrontation for their own interests by utilizing bias and misinformation. 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 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 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.