Operation Catapult

One obscure part of World War Two history is what happened to French forces immediately after their defeat to the Nazis. When the French surrendered to the Nazis in the Second World War, these forces didn’t just turn in their weapons and go home, France as an entity still existed in some form and needed forces to defend her from Allied and Axis threats alike. Would French military assets be neutral or now used against the Allies? In the immediate and chaotic aftermath of French capitulation to the Germans, British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, made a decision that is still derided in France today, and resulted in the death of nearly 1,300 French sailors, attacking the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. Churchill himself would write “this was the most hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned.” This article will detail the events around this attack, and the context around the Allied decision.

With the collapse of the French in 1940, the Nazis occupied northern France but left southern France and most of the French Colonial possessions “unoccupied.” These unoccupied and colonial areas were organized under a new government known as Vichy France, named after the new capital city of Vichy, which took a collaborationist stance with the Nazis. The Nazis also sent around two million French prisoners of war (POWs) into forced labor camps throughout Nazi controlled Europe. However, not all French armed forces accepted this new government and Nazi rule; a French general, Charles de Gaulle, successfully fled to England and set up the “Free French” forces and government in exile, vying against Vichy France to be the legitimate government of France. The free French forces consisted of French African colonial forces, escaped French forces, the French foreign legion, and fragmented resistance groups.  These Free French forces would serve alongside the Allies for the duration of the war and even against Nazi allied Vichy forces. As the war waged on, and the Allies invaded places like North Africa and Italy, Vichy forces routinely joined the Allies, and the numbers of Free French forces swelled to 1.2 million by the war’s end. But our story takes place in 1940, just after the capitulation of French forces to the Nazis.

As the new armistice went into effect between Germany and France, the British government feared that the Nazis would take control of the French navy, even though the armistice directly referenced that the Germans would make no demands of the French fleet, with a similar statement in the armistice with the Italians. The British doubted that the Italians and the Germans would hold to their world and leave the French fleet neutral, and their fears (in their minds) started to be realized when the Italians requested the French to “temporarily” relocate the bulk of their fleet to North African ports, within reach of Italian forces. The British feared this move could lead to the Italians/Germans taking control of the fleet, and with a combined Italian, German, and French fleet against the lone British Royal Navy, the balance at sea would swing towards the Axis powers, leaving the British position untenable for the long term. To the British, an allied or neutral French fleet could be the difference between victory or total defeat. To counter the potential threat of a French fleet being used against them, the British devised an operation known as Operation Catapult, the main objective being the securing of French naval assets in multiple locations such as Egypt, French Algeria, and England.

However, before the British launched Operation Catapult, negations were opened with their former allies to secure a peaceful transition of French naval vessels around the world into British hands. These negotiations were not successful, so the British delivered an ultimatum to the French admiral in charge of the most powerful group targeted in Operation Catapult, Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul, at Mers-el-Kébir, in French Algeria. The British fleet to deliver this ultimatum and use force if necessary to secure the ships at Mers-el-Kébir, was known as Force H. Force H, in communications back to the British high command, indicated their wish to avoid hostilities and predicted that hostile action would alienate French forces everywhere. The Admiralty, earlier directed by Churchill, were insistent on hostilities if the French did not agree to the demands, saying “firm intention of His Majesty’s Government that if the French will not accept any of your alternatives, they are to be destroyed.” The task force arrived off the Coast of French Algeria on 3 July. Also, on 3 July, British forces boarded French ships and submarines moored in Plymouth and Portsmouth, England. There was light resistance to this surprise boarding action, resulting in the death of three British Navy personnel and one French sailor. In Alexandria, Egypt, the French navy surrendered their five ships to the British peacefully.

A British Captain who spoke French, Cedric Holland, was selected to deliver the ultimatum, while the insulted Gensoul, who resented negotiating with a junior officer to him, sent his subordinate in his stead, causing confusion on who was empowered to make a decision. The ultimatum contained 3 options for the French: 1. join the British and continue the fight against the Germans and Italians, 2. Sail to a British port and the crews will be repatriated to France and the ships returned (with compensation if damaged) at the conclusion of the war, 3. Sail to the West Indies to be demilitarized in a French port or entrusted to the United States (neutral at the time) to remain safe until the conclusion of hostilities. If these options were refused or no response received, the French were informed they would be attacked (with regret) in 6 hours. Gensoul saw no acceptable options and readied his fleet to defend themselves, stating “given the form and substance of the veritable ultimatum which has been sent to Admiral Gensoul, the French ships will defend themselves with force.”

Although there was hope that the French would change their minds or the British would back down, the six hours passed and hostilities commenced, with the HMS Hood opening fire first, followed by Force H fully engaging. After ten minutes of sustained bombardment, the French surrendered. 1 battleship was fully sunk, 2 heavily damaged, 3 destroyers damaged, and a few smaller ships damaged. In all, 1,297 French sailors lost their lives with 350 wounded, though some ships escaped to Toulon, receiving a hero’s welcome upon their arrival.

In 1942, the Germans did try to capture the French fleet, now mainly based out of Toulon, in violation of the Armistice, but the French successfully destroyed any ship of value prior to the arrival of the Germans, showing the French resolve to keep the navy out of Axis’ hands. The legacy of Operation Catapult and the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir is mixed, with historians debating that the attack, although uniting the Vichy French in opposition against Britain, was a tactical success, and others debating that its military success did not outweigh the propaganda value against Britain. Further, there is debate that with the successful scuttling of the French navy in Toulon in 1942, were the British fears unfounded and did Britain attack a former ally for no reason? We will leave that up to you to decide.

The Great London Fire of 1666

Who enjoys a good fire on a cold winter morning? Or a bonfire in a backyard on a crisp autumn evening? If that’s you, then this story is not for you. This is a tale about how a fire can get quickly out of control, engulfing a large portion of one of the most preeminent cities in Europe, and redefined how London would look and grow to the city it is today.

London in the 17th century was still very much a medieval city, and the heart of the city was contained within the old Roman boundaries of the original Londinium, known as The City (Yes, really). The City, centralized in the greater area of London, contained many of the guild halls, churches (like the massive St. Paul’s Cathedral), and financial institutions pivotal to 17th century London, just as today. The fire began in a bakery near London Bridge, around 1 in the morning on Sunday, 2nd of September. The bakery, owned by a Mr. Thomas Farynor, was located on Pudding Lane, which is an amazing location for a bakery by the way. The fire could have been started by an errant spark out of Mr. Farynor’s oven, landing on some stacked fuel nearby. We only know the location and time of the fire starting, not the exact cause. The Farynor family awoke to smoke and flames, and reacting quickly – they escaped out of their upper story window, climbing on their neighbor’s roof to safety. Unfortunately, their maid perished in the fire, being too afraid to attempt an escape, the first of a surprising low casualty rate for a fire of this size (an official death toll of only 6 with 100,000 displaced).

At this time, London had no fire fighting force, so citizens themselves were expected to fight fires with equipment stored in nearby churches. In typical fires, they did this by using fire buckets and long hooks. The hooks would be used to pull down houses in the path of the fire, with the intention of creating a fire break that slowed or prevented the spread. The high winds that night caused the fire to spread quickly and out of control. The government of London however, was not concerned at this turn of events: The Lord Mayor of London, Thomas Bludworth, upon being called to the fire, proclaimed the fire “so weak a woman could piss it out.” He failed to order the use of firebreaks and then went back to bed. The famous 17th century diarist and government official, Samuel Pepys, also awoken by the alarms, but due to the fire being hundreds of yards away, also made the decision to return to bed. Waking up later, he was informed the fire had consumed the docklands around the bakery and several hundred houses, becoming a major fire and threat to the city. The docklands and wharves around the fire’s origin were filled with combustible material and goods causing the fire to grow in intensity. Pepys then took it upon himself to set out to Whitehall Palace to warn the king, King Charles II, about the fire and advise to start firebreaks. Pepys was dispatched back to the fire, and told that soldiers were on their way to assist and to inform Lord Mayor Bludworth that he was to begin the process of pulling down houses for firebreaks. The Lord Mayor claimed he already ordered firebreaks but that no one was listening, rejected the need of soldiers, and again went back to his home. The King and his brother went out to survey the damage from a barge on the River Thames, the size of the fire caused them to immediately order troops in the area and the destruction of homes for firebreaks. But, with the fire of 1666, due an unusually dry summer and high winds, the firebreaks were ineffective. The winds caused the fire to “jump” the breaks and keep spreading west.

The citizenry did their best to curb the spread of the fire, but the sheer speed of the fire caused many to simply evacuate with whatever possessions they could save instead of joining in the firefighting efforts. Soldiers located within or dispatched to London jumped into help where they could but the fire was beyond control on the first day. Many citizens fled onto barges, boats, and floats on the River Thames or fled outside the boundaries of the greater London area to safety. On the second day, widespread looting began, with the wealthy citizens being targeted as they evacuated their possessions. Pepys famously buried a wheel of parmesan cheese in his garden to keep it safe from looting. Angry and scared at the destruction the fire was causing, the citizenry also turned to attacking anyone “foreign,” such as French and Dutch people within the area. On the night of the second day, the fire was so intense, it is reported it did not get dark after sundown, and began to spread in the opposite direction towards the Tower of London, which had a large inventory of gunpowder. Sensing the danger, soldiers used the gunpowder to blow up houses around the tower of London to create a large firebreak, and luckily for London (and future tourists), this was successful. But one of London’s most iconic landmarks, St. Paul’s Cathedral, was not so lucky. The Cathedral was consumed, with the roof collapsing and extensive damage to the remainder of the building, leaving it in ruins, along with the possessions of citizens stored there for safekeeping from the fire.

Charles II placed his brother, James, in charge of firefighting efforts. James drafted in the soldiers at his disposal, along with citizens to surround and contain the fire the best they could. Unfortunately, the fire still spread west, putting the King’s residence at Whitehall Palace under threat, forcing the royal household to start packing for evacuation. Charles II himself was seen, along with James, manning water pumps and assisting citizens where they could, which went far to increase his reputation with his people, crucially at a time of low support for the monarchy. But finally, around midnight on the 3rd day, the wind changed and eased, saving London from further destruction, allowing the firefighting efforts to contain the fire by the end of the 4th day, and extinguish it on the 5th.

In the end, Thomas Bludworth was blamed for his indecisiveness and was removed as Lord Mayor. Some historians claim he is a scapegoat for a disastrous event, because without the King’s authority, if he ordered a firebreak, he would be made personally responsible to reimburse the owners of the homes destroyed to do so, explaining his reluctance to use that tactic. In total, the fire lasted for an official 5 days, September 2nd to September 6th. The fire managed to destroy 436 acres (about 15 percent of the city) of London, 13,200 homes, 87 churches (out of 109 in the city), the guildhall of London, and 52 company halls. St. Paul’s Cathedral would be rebuilt within 50 years (completed in 1711) by the famous architect, Christopher Wren. Wren and others also designed, rebuilt, or restored many buildings that still exist within the London skyline, rebuilding 52 churches and 9,000 homes, changing the City of London from a medieval city to the modern city of stone we see today.

The Battle of Tours

In 732 CE, a battle in southern Europe, now largely forgotten outside of Europe and university courses, started a titanic shift in the power balance between Christian and Muslim forces in Europe - the Battle of Tours. In what is today France, Umayyad Muslim forces invaded Gaul (France) from Iberia (Spain) but were checked by the grandfather of the future Frankish emperor Charlemagne. This grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, probably has one of the coolest nicknames known to history, Charles “the Hammer.” Why was this battle so pivotal and what was the impact? Well read on and you’ll find out.

We are going to start this article with helping you understand who the primary figures are, first with factions, then with people. Our first faction, the Umayyads, were a large caliphate or empire and were the second caliphate created after the death of Muhammad. The Umayyad Caliphate spread from the borders of modern-day India to Spain. They had their main capital in Damascus but had regional hubs in North Africa and Spain, with their main Spanish city being modern day Cordoba. They were overthrown by the Abbasids in 750, but due to the sheer size of the Umayyad empire, they survived in part with their new capital being Cordoba, eventually becoming known to Christian sources as the Moors. The next major faction is the Franks/Gauls – a name for a collection of tribes (the name first popped up in the 3rd century CE), becoming a centralized people, that gives us the modern-day English name for France. The Franks, originally from Germania, settled in Roman Gaul during the empire. They became a powerhouse in the wake of the collapse of Roman direct rule, eventually founding both the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire. There are some minor factions at play here too, such as the Visigoths and the Aquitanians who were regional powers but were eventually swallowed by their neighbors or transformed into different entities entirely. The Visigoths were a tribe originally from Germania that were part of the wider “Goth” ethnic group that led the toppling of the Western Roman Empire, settling in regions such as France, Spain, the Balkans, and Italy. As for the Aquitanians, we aren’t sure their ethnicity (probably Frankish or Goth) but they were led by a man named Odo the Great. Odo has been speculated to be of Roman, Frankish, or Gothic origin but scholars aren’t sure exactly.

Now, on to our people, first we have Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah Al-Ghafiqi who was the leader of the Umayyad expedition into Southern France, and the governor of Cordoba. Abd Al-Rahman participated in several battles against Aquitanian forces, facing Duke Odo the Great at the 721 CE Battle of Toulouse (Umayyad defeat) and the 732 CE Battle of the River Garonne (Umayyad victory). Now, we have Charles Martel – Martel is s sobriquet for Hammer, so we are just going to call him Charles the Hammer because that is more fun. Charles the Hammer rose to lead the Franks, the foremost power in Western Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, in 714. He spent the first 15 years of his rule campaigning, consolidating his realm against rivals, and expanding Frankish territory and power. Last, we have Duke Odo of Aquitaine, whom we discussed briefly in the preceding paragraph. Odo spent the majority of his leadership of southern France facing off against Umayyad incursions from Spain but also resented Charles’ influence, attempting to assert his independence at different times.

But how did we get to where Spain became a Muslim Umayyad powerbase? Spain, after the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire, found itself primarily ruled by Visigoth immigrants from Germania. But at the start of the 8th century, the Visigoths themselves were beset by Umayyad Muslim invaders from North Africa, pushing the Christian Visigoths nearly to extinction. The Christian forces were able to survive in the very north of the Iberian Peninsula but could barely defend themselves effectively by this point, they were significantly assisted by the mountainous geography of northern Spain and were able to hold up in defensive positions to outlast the invasion. With the sequestering of the Spanish Christians, the Umayyads could bypass the Christian forces in the north, and penetrate into the Pyrenes mountains, spilling into what is now southern France. They did just that in 719, taking control of small parts of Aquitania and the town of Narbonne. Raiding parties started roving deeper in Burgundy, causing chaos amongst the Aquitanians, leading Odo to fight continuously to defend his realm. Although an early victory against the Umayyads bought Odo and his forces time, the war started to swing against them with their defeat at the Battle of Garonne.

At the following Battle of Bordeaux, Odo was soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties, forcing him to flee into the territory of Charles. Odo, desperate for assistance, turned to his rival, Charles the Hammer. This was a curious decision as Charles the Hammer raided Aquitaine, breaking a treaty with Odo, forcing Odo to have to retake the city of Bourges from the northern Franks in 731, in response to Odo asserting his independence from Charles. It has been speculated by scholars that the Umayyads severely underestimated the power of the Franks, considering them to be just another Christian tribe to be dealt with. Charles, answering the call from Odo for assistance, mobilized his forces, dispatching a contingent of his calvary to defend the town of Poitiers from Umayyad raids. The rest of his forces met the Umayyad army somewhere between Tours and Poitiers. An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 men participated in the battle, with the Umayyad forces suffering around 12,000 casualties to the Frank’s 1,000. Sources are not reliable for the exact nature of the battle, but due to what scholars know about early medieval warfare, make up of the Frankish forces, and tactics, it’s been pieced together to fill in gaps caused by the unreliable sources. The belief is that the Umayyad army found themselves broken by massed Frankish heavy infantry, coupled with a surprise calvary attack led by Odo on the Umayyad camp, attacking the camp inhabitants (non-combatants such as soldiers' wives and children, merchants, and support personnel). Abd al-Rahman was killed in the fighting, sowing further chaos. This attack on the soldier’s families combined with heavy casualties against the Frankish heavy infantry, forced an Umayyad tactical withdrawal to defend the remains of the camp, then fully retreating from the region during that night.

This victory did not end raids or incursions into Gaul, but did land a significant blow against Umayyad forces and provided a morale victory for Christian Europe. Odo was forced to swear allegiance to Charles, bringing Aquitaine temporarily under Charles’ purview. It would not be until Charles’ grandson, Charlemagne, that Muslim raids and capture of territory in Gaul would end, 60 years later, establishing northern Spain as the frontline of the Christian wars to retake Spain that would become known as the Reconquista. The legacy of the Battle of Tours is not the immediate ceasing of raids against Gaul, nor the consolidation of Frankish territory, but it is the effect it had on the mindset of Christians. Christian forces in Europe had been suffering a string of defeats for the last century against Muslim forces and the Battle of Tours marked a milestone in the Christian desire to check the advance of Islam and the recapture of lost territory.

The Zimmermann Telegram

In 1917, Europe, along with swaths of Asia and parts of Africa, were three years in to tearing themselves apart due to a confluence of technology, destruction, and outdated tactics known to us as the First World War. The Central Powers, made up of the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Bulgaria were battling the Allied Powers, made up of The French Republic, Italy, The British Empire, Japan, and The Russian Empire. Noticeably absent and “neutral” was the United States. I put neutral in quotes there because the U.S. was anything but. America shipped war material, ammunition, and other supplies to the Allies but due to a large German immigrant population and a population with an intense isolationist worldview, remained on the sidelines. This all changed in 1917, while the U.S. had run ins and near conflicts with the Central Powers due to Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare on Trans-Atlantic shipping, it was a telegram sent to the German ambassador to Mexico, by the German Secretary of State that pushed America to the Allies. The telegram, intercepted and decrypted by the British, and turned over to the Americans, coupled with German submarine sinking of American vessels, brought the United States into the conflict on the side of the Allied Powers, tipping the scales decidedly into the Allies’ favor. This article is about that telegram and how it was a major factor in the loss of the war for the Central Powers.

To understand why it took the Americans three years to enter the war, we must first understand the reasons for staying neutral. First, while most Americans had cultural sympathies or full ties to Britain, France, and the rest of the Allied Powers, the U.S. had 10% of its population who ethnically identified as German. These Americans, for obvious reasons, did not want their adopted country to declare war on the land of their birth or their ancestral home, and for the first couple years of the war, the wider population of the United States agreed. Second, the American people saw WW1 as a strictly European affair and felt that it should stay that way. They believed it was folly to involve American soldiers in a war across the ocean that did not directly affect the American sphere of influence. Lastly, the United States was profiting immensely off the war, from an industrial and agricultural standpoint. Owing to the destruction or a shift to full war production of European industrial capability, military mobilization of the European population away from their places of employment, and blockades, the demand for American goods and food soared. However, in 1915, the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania, killing 1,200 people, 128 of which were Americans, started a public opinion shift toward American intervention on the side of the Allies. For those unfamiliar, Germany pursued a policy of total war in the Atlantic Ocean, sinking both merchant and passenger vessels alike, in order to starve out the allies and curb their ability to wage war. So sharp was the outrage over the sinking of the Lusitania, that the Germans temporarily backed off their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.

In 1917, a major political event occurred, turning the war toward a Central Power victory - the Russian Communist Revolution. The revolution took the Russian Empire out of the war and turned a two-front war, into a one front conflict. This freed up large numbers of Central Power soldiers to be rerouted to the western front, causing the war to start a swing against the Allies. To maximize further on this shift, Germany resumed its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, causing more American losses, leading the United States to cut off diplomatic ties with Germany a few days after the policy resumed. Now enters our star, the Zimmermann telegram. The telegram was sent by Arthur Zimmermann, the Secretary of State/Foreign Secretary for the German Empire, to his ambassador in Mexico, essentially instructing the ambassador to propose a German-Mexican alliance, should the United States enter the war. Weirdly, Zimmermann also proposed the Japanese to be in this alliance, even though they were already on the side of the Allies, and the likelihood of them switching sides was nil. In this alliance, Germany would provide financial and material support to the Mexicans to invade the U.S. and even offered to support Mexico’s annexation of the U.S. states of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. While the telegram was sent in a coded format, it was intercepted by the British rather quickly. This is because Britain had cut Germany’s ability to send cables without a third-party allowing usage of their undersea telegraph cables, forcing Germany to rely on Sweden and the United States to transmit messages to overseas German ambassadors (like the one stationed in Mexico). The version of the message that went via the Swedes went from Stockholm to Buenos Aires over British telegraph cables, on to Mexico via the United States. Due to the usage of these British undersea cables, the plucky Brits were able to intercept it.

However, even with the message decoded quickly, the British were put in a precarious position. First, they had to convince the United States it was genuine. This on paper should be easy, but the U.S. was wary of efforts by the Brits to bring them into the war. Second and probably more important to British Secret Intelligence, it would also reveal that they had the ability to decode secret German telegraph cables. Ultimately, and after much angst, they passed it along to their American counterparts and convinced them that it was a genuine message. Understandably, the American public, holding now anti-German sentiments due to the unrestricted submarine warfare policy, and more historically, anti-Mexican sentiments, were outraged.

The United States did not take the Zimmermann threat of a Mexican-German alliance as a militarily viable threat. The U.S. was in the very final days of the Pancho Villa expedition; a military invasion of Mexico to track down Mexican revolutionary figure, Pancho Villa, after he launched a boarder raid on U.S. territory (the last U.S. invasion in a series of military actions against Mexico that showed the U.S. was far stronger militarily than their southern neighbor). Additionally, Mexico was in the midst of a civil war and the current president, Venustiano Carranza, was not in a place logistically, militarily, or politically to mount such an action, although he did ask a military commission to assess the proposal, which they found to be unwinnable.

The ultimate consequence of the Zimmermann telegram was the slow defeat of the Central Powers in the First World War, ending in November 1918, due to the U.S. declaring war and siding with the Allies, following the admission of Arthur Zimmermann to the genuine nature of the telegram. At one point, following the U.S. entry into the war, 10,000 U.S. soldiers a day were arriving in Europe. Germany and the Central Powers couldn’t counter the U.S. surge of material and manpower, allowing the new combination of the United States, the British Empire, France, and the other Allies, to press home and defeat the Central Powers by the end of 1918.

Five Gruesome Deaths in Classical and Medieval History

Have you ever wanted to know who died the worst in early recorded history, or who had a painful and slow death? Are you also a a fan of true crime podcasts or documentaries? If so, this is the article for you. This article will discuss, in Seeking History’s opinion, some of the most gruesome deaths in recorded history. But first, a note on sources: most of these figures are from ancient or early medieval history, so the primary and secondary source material should be taken with some skepticism. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, ancient or premodern sources either have a bias (all written works have a bias, but historical writing especially had a bias in most of written history), political agenda, or were written decades to centuries later, so they must be taken with skepticism and interpreted for what they are - unreliable sources. That being said, these sources can still be used to inform and educate as there is likely some truth within them, or more realistically, are the only sources we have. Now that is out of the way, on to the death and macabre!

Let us start chronology with our first brutal death: Phalaris, who according to history, and let’s be honest, was a real asshole. Phalaris was a tyrant (sort of a title in Hellenistic civilization to denote a leader) of modern-day Agrigento, Sicily, who met his end around 554 BCE. While there is not a ton of information on the man, amongst the things that Phalaris is accused of, is eating literal babies. Phalaris had ambitions to be the sole tyrant of Sicily but was overthrown by another, named Telemachus. Phalaris, while in charge, commissioned the creation of a novel execution method known as the brazen, Sicilian, or bronze bull. Essentially, it was a bull statue, made entirely of bronze but hollowed out and with a door cut in the side. A person would be placed in the bull, while a fire was lit underneath, roasting them until dead. To make the execution more entertaining, the bull was designed in a way that the screams of the victims could be heard, and made to sound, like the roars of an actual bull, while smoke exited through the bull’s nostrils. The irony of the death of Phalaris is that Telemachus executed him by putting him in his own creation to be roasted alive. Sources allege, that later in history, the bull would be used by the Romans to execute Christians.

Second, we have Manius Aquillius who died in 88 BCE. Aquillius was a Roman consul and general who ran afoul of one of Rome’s early foes, Mithridates VI of Pontus. Aquillius did this by being dispatched to Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) as an ambassador to restore a King of Bithynia to his throne after this King was expelled by Mithridates. While Aquillius was successful in restoring the Bithynia King, he screwed up by encouraging the King to then attack or raid Pontic territory. This action led to the start of the First Mithridatic War and ultimately Aquillius’ brutal death at the hands of Mithridates. Once Mithridates struck back against Bithynia and the Romans, Aquillius utilized a legion of Axillaries (local or foreign Roman soldiers, not full legionaries) to attack Pontic forces but found himself against 100,000 soldiers while he only had a maximum of 6,000. Obviously, Aquillius was defeated, and he attempted to retreat to Italy but was captured on the Greek island of Lesbos and sold or turned over to Pontus. Eventually, after a short trial and a detail of his “crimes” against Pontus, he was executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. You read that right. This method of execution would (maybe) inspire the death of Marcus Crassus forty years later, and 2,000 years later, the fictional death of one of the Targaryens in Game of Thrones. You will see this method pop up in history, usually around the deaths of extremely wealthy individuals or those who tried to purchase their way out of a situation, leading to doubt about the true nature of their deaths as it can be surmised that his method may used as a metaphor for a “comeuppance” to the greedy by the source authors.

Next on our list is Saint Lawrence, who met his gruesome end in 258 CE. Lawrence was made a deacon in the Catholic Church by Pope Sixtus II in 257 at the age of 32. Additionally, Sixtus II trust in Lawrence was so great, he put Lawrence in charge of the treasury and the material wealth that the church possessed. In 258 CE, the Emperor Valerian ordered that all clergy and associated people of the Church be rounded up and executed. Pope Sixtus II himself was captured while giving mass and summarily executed. Once the Pope was dead, the Roman authorities, demanded that St. Lawrence turn over the riches of the Church. Lawrence stated he needed three days to gather the wealth but instead, he worked quickly to distribute as much Church property and riches to the poor and disabled as he could. With the church treasure distributed, Lawrence handed himself in to the authorities. So outraged by the actions of Lawrence, the prefect in charge had a large hot grill or gridiron prepared over scorching coals. Lawrence was thrown on this grill to be executed and essentially cooking him whilst alive. The legend goes that Lawrence, after suffering greatly while being slow cooked to death, shouted “turn me over, I am cooked on this side, and eat!” In regards to attributed sayings or quotes, which always must be treated with suspicion, Seeking History really hopes this one is true, as its pretty badass.

Then, there is the death of the Roman Emperor Valerian. Valerian not only suffered a gruesome fate in the 260s CE (the actual year of his death is unknown), but he also suffered humiliation at the hands of his enemies both in life and death. We get our source of Valerian’s death from the Roman writer/historian Eutropius and from the writer, Lactantius (full disclosure, there is dispute amongst modern historians regarding the veracity of the accounts, even debate on Valerian being mistreated at all). Valerian is not a sympathetic figure, even if his death makes you feel as such. He is known for his brutal religious persecution and is responsible for the death of our previous figure, Saint Lawrence. Valerian attempted to force a military victory over the Sassanid Persian empire, a classic enemy of Rome at this time. Unfortunately for Valerian, his campaign did not go well, and he found himself captured by the Persians. There are conflicting accounts regarding what exactly happened to Valerian, so we are going to share both accounts. They do have some details in common, but the physical death of Valerian has two tales. The Emperor Shapur I of Persia, once capturing Valerian, made it his mission to humiliate and humble his Roman counterpart. According to the sources, Valerian was subject to years of captivity and humiliation, at times being used as a human footstool for the Persian Emperor to mount his horse, and living out his remaining days in a cage. Unable to endure captivity, Valerian offered to personally pay a very large ransom for his release, hoping to be cut free to his Empire. In response to his offer of ransom, Shapur I either had molten gold (we’ve heard this story before) poured down the throat of Valerian, or had Valerian flayed alive. Whatever the method of his death, and here is where it gets really interesting, his corpse or skin was stuffed with straw, dyed with vermillion, and put on display as a trophy in a Persian temple. There are claims that years later, the Persians cremated or buried the stuffed Valerian, but it is unknown exactly what happened to his remains.

Our final death is the death of King Aelle of Northumbria in 867 CE. For those unfamiliar, Northumbria was one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that made up what is now England, before the Norman conquest of 1066 CE. Famously, these Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were constantly beset by Norse (Viking) incursions, with most falling to the Northmen. Aelle is famous in history for his defeat and execution of semi-legendary figure, Ragnar Lodbrok, throwing him into a pit of snakes to be killed. This made him a target of the “sons” of Ragnar (not all likely his sons but claimed lineage to legitimatize their leadership) and their “Great Heathen Army.” Aelle’s death has two very conflicting accounts. The first is is the Anglo-Saxon account, depicting his death as heroic, dying in battle against the Sons of Ragnar and the Great Heathen Army. The second account, is the Norse account, depicting his capture by the Sons of Ragnar, and his death by the infamous torture method, known as the Blood Eagle. The Blood Eagle is, probably, our most gruesome death on the list, so if you are into that sort of thing, I am not sorry for making you wait to the very end. The Blood Eagle is a method where the victim was placed in a face down or prone position, then they are cut open from the back, their ribs cut from the spine with a sharp knife or sword, and their lungs pulled through the opening to create a pair of "wings.” All this is done slowly and usually while the victim is alive. Now, we must state that Blood Eagle may not have been real at all and was a fabrication of contemporary or later Christian writers to denote the brutality of the Northmen foe they were facing. But, if true, it has gone down in history as particularly brutal.

Siege Artillery

As long as humans have existed, we have loved to see things go boom and the bigger the boom, the happier we are. Humans love destruction, it’s part of our makeup. With the adoption of gunpowder-based weapons, that destruction amplified. Humans learned how to make bigger and bigger weapons that defied the rules of warfare and caused destruction previously unimagined. Humans have also always looked at cities or territory that someone else has and thought to themselves, “I want that.” When you have leader that loves the big boom and conquest, you get the creation of siege cannons. To satiate the thirst for death, conquest, and destruction, leaders commissioned the construction of cannons that could either destroy city walls with giant cannon balls or artillery weapons that could fire shells tens of miles to hit populated centers, satisfying that ever present need for chaos. This article will focus on notable examples of the largest siege cannons ever produced in history and their use (or lack thereof).

               The first cannon we will discuss is the earliest giant example in our little collection, the Basilic. This cannon was used by the Ottoman Turks to shell the walls of Constantinople during their conquest of the city in 1453. The walls of Constantinople were 40 feet tall and around 16 feet thick, so the Ottomans rightly thought they needed some massive cannons and guns to blow through it. The irony of this weapon is that the builder of it, Orban, was a Christian and first offered the cannon to the Byzantines, who had to pass on the offer due to the immense costs of the cannon. Basilic was made of bronze and weighed 40,000 pounds, 27 feet long, and had a cannon mouth diameter of 30 inches. It could hurl cannon balls weighing around 1,200 pounds up to a mile. Gun carriages were non-existent in this time so once the cannon was in place, it could not be moved. It sat upon a mount made of mud and wood to absorb the recoil and had to be taken apart to be loaded. The cannon took so long to load that it could only fire seven times a day, so the real work of destruction was done by the Sultan’s other guns, but the weapon caused terror amongst the defenders. By the end of the 53-day siege, the gun started to develop cracks in the bronze due to the casting technique for such a large gun being primitive (metallurgy was in it’s infancy for siege guns). These cracks eventually led to the cannon destroying itself before the end of the siege.

               Our second cannon in this list, is a bombard that could hurl stone cannon balls 2,000 feet every 2-3 minutes, the Pumhart von Steyr (PVS). The PVS was the largest wrought iron by caliber and was developed by the Austrians in the 15th century. The PVS’s ammunition of stone balls were around 31 inches or 800mm and weighed 1,500 pounds. The bombard, while the service history is limited, was used by the Habsburg Empire as a siege bombard in an era when bigger cannons were being employed on a regular basis. If you look at pictures of the bombard, it looks more like a modern mortar with a short barrel and fixed elevated firing angle.

               Let’s jump forward in time to the First World War where innovations in weaponry and artillery made killing the enemy easier than ever before. The Imperial German war machine had a particular fascination with large artillery pieces, but one stands out, Big Bertha. Now, Big Bertha was not one cannon, or even a cannon at that, technically. There were 12 Big Berthas, and they were actually howitzers. What’s the difference you might ask? Well, a howitzer has a lower firing velocity but a higher firing angle than a cannon or gun. It can also be used for direct fire on a target or indirect, such as lobbing shells higher up, similar to a mortar, to rain down on a target. The Big Berthas could fire shells weighing at over 1,700 pounds to distances of around 6 miles. These shells could be fitted with a delayed fuse (to explode later instead of on impact) and bury themselves 40 feet or 12 meters into earth and concrete for maximum destruction to fortified emplacements and targets. One Big Bertha shell obliterated an entire French fort during the early phase of war. The Big Berthas were usually utilized in pairs and crewed by 240 men due to the 47-ton weight. Unfortunately for the Big Berthas, although they found success early in the war against the French and Russians, they were unable to be effective against French forts that were made of reinforced concrete and utilized mid to late war construction.

               Our last overcompensatingly large artillery are the Schwerer Gustav and Dora guns. These twin cannons were first developed in the 1930s by the Germans to use against the French Maginot Line in the next war (that they were conveniently planning). These particular guns, Gustav and Dora, both did not survive the war and was used very sparingly by the Nazis. Gustav and Dora weighed over 1,300 pounds, could only be moved on a railway, and could fire 800mm 7-ton shells (about half the weight of a passenger train carriage) to ranges of just under 30 miles. To this day, they are both the heaviest gun and the largest caliber gun to ever be used in combat. Although the guns were developed to destroy heavily fortified French forts along the Maginot Line, the blitzkrieg through Belgium meant the guns were not able to be used for their intended purpose, instead they were used against the soviets at Sevastopol. Its shells were so heavy that they were able to destroy a munitions depot 30 meters underground. Other than the Battle of Sevastopol, they weren’t really used, as the logistics to get the gun in place took months and generally arrived too late or had to be moved to avoid capture. Before the end of the war, the Nazis destroyed both guns to prevent them falling into the hands of the dreaded Americans and Soviets.

               To wrap up this piece on comically large cannons/guns, let us part with this final thought. What type of man generally wants to make a gun that is bigger than what anyone else has? Is it the same kind of man that wants to have the loudest exhaust on his car, or the largest lift on his already too big pick up truck, or maybe it’s the loudest angriest man in the room? Do you see what I am getting at here? Of course you do.

The Social War and Its Impact

When most people think of the Roman Republic, they think of two things - a city made of white marble and a map with lots of Europe colored red to denote the boundaries. What if I told you that both of those were wrong? We will not get into the marble bit today (the city was built mostly of brick and the marble that was used probably had color painted on it) but we can talk about how Rome governed the territory it “controlled.” Rome was not ruled like a republic is ruled today with a strong centralized federal government, and an established bureaucracy to carry out vital governmental functions. Instead, it ruled its controlled territory with a distant touch (mostly) and used treaties to make sure that neighboring tribes, towns, cities, and states swore allegiance to the Republic of Rome. This article is about those tribes, towns, cities, and states in Italy that fell under the control of Rome but decided to rebel, leading to an outbreak of war. This war is known to history as the Social War (91 to 87 BCE) and despite its rather benign name, caused an existential crisis for Rome and its governing system.

My favorite history professor at my university used to use the Social War to trip up students who didn’t complete their required reading, she would ask students to answer a question on the first quiz/test around the definition of the Social War and provide multiple choice options that would be around the word “social” except for one: the true answer. If you didn’t complete your reading, you mostly thought this was a war involving Roman society, as the name suggests, but the real answer was that this was a war/uprising of Italian allies of Rome against Roman rule. You may now be wondering why it was even called the Social War. If you are, it is because of Latin, the word for an ally in Latin is socius or socii, which leads to the name Social. Now that burning question is out of the way, let's get to the intensely interesting topic of Roman governing (yes, there was some sarcasm there) and its failure. In order to understand the Social War, we have to first understand two concepts key to Roman life, citizenship, and the military. Both these topics could be articles on their own, and maybe they will be, but not today as I don’t want to you click to something else, so instead you will get a summation (that is still longer than I would like).

We are starting with Roman citizenship – the concept of Roman citizenship is both similar and different to our own. Romans did not understand nor possess the concept of universal birthright citizenship that a lot of countries today have, such as the United States of America. Instead, Romans had a multi-tier class system of citizenship with the highest tier only being acquired if your parents were both free citizens of Rome (born within Rome itself or a city granted full citizenship rights) or was earned through military service in the auxiliary. The key word to note there is “free” as Rome was a slave holding state and economy. Being a free land-owning Roman citizen was a really big deal that gave you full legal protection under Roman law. The second and third tier of citizens were known as Latini (Latin Rights) and Socii (ally/friend) respectively. There are a few more sub or lower tiers that we are not going to get into today as its pretty complicated and varies depending on what period we are discussing, but hey, if you are interested in that sort of thing, let me know and I may do an article on it. Latin Rights was a legal designation denoting a colony or city outside the traditional Roman citizenship boundary but had upgraded legal status. Latin Rights varied from city to city, but for the city’s population, while not full Roman citizens, they had legal protections and rights not granted to other cities or freedman (former slaves and their families). These sometimes included the right to vote, migrate/move around the Republic, have fully protected and equal business dealings with Roman citizens, and the right to eventually gain full Roman citizenship. Socii was a third tier roman class that denoted an individual hailing from a city or town allied to Rome but not granted Latin Rights or full Roman citizenship. This came with some legal protection under Roman law but not always coming with the perks given to Latin Rights citizens. Socii could gain higher class citizenship by serving within the ranks of the Roman military. This military service requirement would play a major factor in the Social War. Rome used citizenship and legal rights as a tool for foreign policy and subjugation, granting different tier legal rights and citizenship to conquered or allied towns/villages/cities within Italy. Rights given to an allied town could also be revoked, this would be used to punish allies that revolted or chose to side against Rome when things looked dire, such as during the Second Punic War and the invasion of Italy by Epirus/Pyrus.

Now, onto the Roman Military – during the Republic days, Rome fought a series of highly devastating conflicts that led to reforms of the military. For several centuries, Rome relied on a levying or raising part-time soldiers of land-owning citizens with allies providing their own forces to bolster Rome’s numbers. But due to wars with Carthage and Epirus causing massive casualties to Rome and her allies, the system of part-time soldiers bolstered by allies, needed to be reformed. The most famous of these reforms is known as the Marian reforms that established professional soldiery and service contracts, creating the legionary system that we all know and love. To be a legionary, you had to be a citizen but didn’t have to own land. This also created an auxiliary system of non-legionary forces, i.e., non-citizens or allies, called, you guessed it, auxiliaries. These Marian reforms were first instituted around 107 BCE (16 years before the outbreak of the Social War) but still were mixed with the old conscription system of levying. It was very uncommon during this time to volunteer for the army as life in the Roman army was tough and exhausting, but the Marian reforms changed the average Roman soldier and auxiliary from land owners who could afford to provide their own equipment and weapons to poor men with state provided equipment. The Roman Republic relied heavily on it’s allies to provide military manpower when Rome experienced a shortfall, this lead to a massive burden placed on the Socii.

So why did I just explain to you the Marian reforms and citizenship rights in the Roman Republic? Because these were the primary causes of the Social War (along with complicated land owning and usage disputed between Rome and the Socii). Come on, pay attention. Allies of Rome not granted full citizenship were still required to provide Rome soldiers (sometimes this meant large percentages within a town/village of young men) to fight wars for a Republic that didn’t allow these towns to participate in the full economic or political process. Resentment grew over time leading to a full-scale rebellion of Italian allies of Rome in 91 BCE. The exact outbreak is disputed, along with much of the reasoning for the war as contemporary sources for the conflict are lost and later sources are writing hundreds of years later, but there is evidence that due to the rapid raising of troops amongst the Socii, that some preparation prior to the outbreak of hostilities had to have occurred. Rome was caught off guard by the quick creation of armies against her and suffered early setbacks with destruction of whole Roman armies and even defections of Roman soldiers to Socii forces. The two Roman Consuls at the time were outmatched by the Socii leading to the death in battle of the Consul, Publius Lupus, and widespread panic within Rome when the battle dead returned the city. But by the end of 88 BCE, Rome was successful in dividing the northern Socii from their southern friends. These victories for Rome were brought about by the command of talented commanders and eventually very famous names within Roman history, Gaius Marius (namesake of the aforementioned Marian reforms) and Sulla (eventual dictator of Rome and enemy of Marius in a later civil war). The war ended in 87 BCE with a Roman long-term victory (there is historical argument that Rome lost in the short term or suffered a stalemate) as it appears (again sources aren’t really clear) that the rebellious Socii received full Roman citizenship or Latin Rights.

The Social War changed the Roman Republic permanently as an influx of new citizens changed the way the government functioned, the Marian reforms utilized by Rome brought about economic changes to the military make up and subsequent changes to the Commander-Soldier relationship (soldiers weren’t paid well so, war loot accounted for a large incentive by soldiers to not desert the army and generals made sure these soldiers received shares of the loot, causing soldiers to be loyal to generals, not the Roman state), and conscription of axillaries turned away from non-citizen Italic allies to foreign conquered entities. Some historians even argue that the instability caused by the Social War led to the downfall of the Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire (that’s your que to play Imperial March).

The Great Date Debate: The Fall of Rome

We all have been told that the Roman Empire fell and most of us may even remember the year of that collapse, but for those that have been out of high school or university for more than 180 days, would you be surprised if there was debate on how and why the empire fell? Well, there is a lot of discussion around that, sometimes civil, and sometimes VERY heated. Now that you know there is disagreement around the how and why, would you be shocked to know that there is even debate around the year the empire fell? If you are, you aren’t paying attention. While most think the Roman Empire to be a straight forward, historical area of study, ancient civilizations (yes that includes Rome) are constantly revealing new things that change the narrative through the wonders of archeology. The fall of Rome is a topic we may approach one day here at Seeking History, but that day is not today. We are going to limit our focus and scope to what I am now calling this topic: the Great Date Debate.

Before we get into the dates, let’s talk about why there is a debate. The main reason is that the Roman Empire split into two at one point (there were further divisions than two but we are going to focus here). During the third century CE, Rome went through a devastating series of civil wars, coups, barbarian incursions, and even partitions of the Empire. Eventually, an emperor rose to power that ended what historians call the Crisis of the Third Century. That emperor, Diocletian, upon taking the reins in 284, realized that the Empire was proving too large for one individual to rule, hence, the preceding century long crisis. Diocletian decided it would be better to split the Empire into pieces, with co-emperors ruling those pieces. He split the empire into East and West, with each piece having a senior emperor, known as an Augustus and a junior emperor known as a Caesar, creating a system known as the Tetrarchy. This system held until Diocletian retired (to farm cabbages no less) and his successors squabbled over the Empire’s ultimate control. Finally, in 395 CE, the Empire permanently split into an east/west system with equal co-emperors ruling their respective empires. While both East and West were the still nominally the same empire, they eventually became to be ruled as entirely separate entities. These entities became known to history as The Western Roman Empire (WRE) and The Eastern Roman Empire (ERE). Fun fact, the East eventually became to be known as the Byzantine Empire, even though they never called themselves that. Until the final days of the east, the people of the ERE called themselves Roman. Moving forward, I am going to refer to these two separate states as either the east/west or ERE and WRE, because it’s a lot to type the full name each time.

Ok, now that you understand the split, let’s talk about dates. There are three dates vying to be called the correct one, so we will start with the easiest, September 4, 476 CE. This date is the most commonly accepted date for the fall of the Western Empire. Prior to the fall, the western realms saw repeated incursions by barbarian tribes and a massive invasion by the Huns that caused destabilization to the Roman State. In 476, Odoacer deposed the western emperor, Romulus Augustulus. Romulus Augustulus was only around ten or eleven years old at the time of his removal and he sat on the throne of the West for just a mere eleven months. In reality, Romulus Augustulus (originally Augustus but changed to Augustulus to denote a child in Latin) was put on the throne by his father, Orestes, who ruled through his figurehead son. Orestes held a senior rank in the Roman military at the time and deposed the emperor Julius Nepos, putting Romulus on the throne. Eventually, however, there was an uprising against Romulus and thus Orestes either by the Roman military or Odoacer’s tribe/forces loyal to him, putting Odoacer in charge of their uprising. There is debate around Odoacer’s origin (some say he was from the Hunnic tribes, a German, or a member of one of the Goth tribes) but we do know that he wasn’t originally a Roman, so we will call him a "non-roman” to keep things easy. Once Odoacer succeeded in ousting Orestes and Romulus, he had Orestes executed but spared Romulus as he was just a child, opting to send him into comfortable exile. Instead of crowning himself Emperor of the West, Odoacer declared himself King of Italy and recognized the ERE emperor, Zeno, has his overlord.

The narrative above is mostly straight forward and gives an end to the Empire that is relatively easy to accept with the end of an emperor in place of a king, so then why is there a debate? Well, the main point of contention is around the legitimacy of Romulus Augustulus. Most historians consider Romulus a usurper whose father deposed the recognized emperor Julius Nepos. At this time, the ERE emperor was able to provide legitimacy to the constantly changing emperors of the WRE by politically “recognizing” the emperor. So, the logic against the 476 date follows as thus: if the “legitimate” emperor, Julius Nepos, was still out there, even if deposed by another, then politically the WRE was still in existence and thus did not fall in 476. So when did Julius Nepos’ reign as the emperor of the WRE end then? That question leads us into the next accepted date: 480 CE.

I know, you are probably asking, does four years between two dates really matter that much? In history, yes, every day matters. I mean, you wouldn’t be reading this now if it didn’t matter. So, who was Julius Nepos? Julius Nepos was a noble sent to the west by the ERE emperor to rule over Italy as Augustus and depose an emperor that the ERE didn’t recognize as legitimate. In 474, Nepos removed the usurper, and ruled for one year before being removed by the above-mentioned Orestes. Julius fled to modern day Croatia, known then as the Roman province of Dalmatia where he lived out his days in peace, eventually dying in his sleep. Just kidding, he was brutally murdered four years later (May 9, 480) by allies of the “emperor” he deposed in 474.

If Julius Nepos was the legitimate recognized emperor of the WRE when he died, then why isn’t the date of Rome’s fall accepted as 480? Well, that’s because there is also debate around his legitimacy, with an argument that when he was himself deposed, he ceased being emperor and became a “pretender” to the throne. Second, the Roman Senate, a powerless but still respected institution by this point, accepted and supported Odoacer as the rightful ruler of Italy when he overthrew Orestes and Romulus, which gave legitimacy and continuity of government to Odoacer’s claim as king. I know, this is all a little he said/she said with who is the rightful ruler and who is not but this is why there is a great date debate.

Now, for the final date in our debate, 1453 CE. If you passed math at the age of seven, you realize that is a near thousand-year jump forward in history. If you are asking yourself “but the West fell in 476 or 480, how are we are able to jump that far forward?” Then, you forgot about the Eastern Roman Empire and I am severely disappointed in you. What happened to the ERE? Over time, it tried to recapture the West with varying degrees of success but emerging powers and major world events slowly chipped away at their territory. The first major nail in the coffin for the ERE (don’t come at me with other events, I know there were proceeding factors that started the decline but they aren’t worth mentioning here) was the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade took the ERE capital of Constantinople in 1201 instead of their goal of Jerusalem and for the first time, the capital of the ERE fell. Eventually, the Latin Empire (centered with Constantinople as its capital) fell in a few decades and the ERE or Byzantine Empire took control again but never fully recovered. Finally, the Ottoman Turks rose up from the Middle East, and (skipping through generations of conflict) laid siege to Constantinople in 1453. The last emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus, famously removed his regal armor and joined the ranks defending the city as it fell on May 29, 1453, putting an end to over 1400 years of Imperial Roman history. Constatine XI’s body was never found, leading to centuries of speculation around if he died there or was able to flee the city. The accepted opinion is that he died defending the city and wasn’t recognized when the dead were collected.

So again, you may ask, why is 476 accepted as the fall of Rome if the Eastern half of the empire survived for another millennium? Well, solid question, and no, I am not being snarky for a change. As I stated earlier, if you asked a person living in the ERE if they were a Byzantine, they would have replied that they were Roman. Personally, to the author of this article, all three dates are fine while no date is perfect. But let us end with this note, what makes the 476 date nice is the irony attached. The legendary founder of Rome is Romulus and the first emperor of Rome is Augustus. It is fitting the final “accepted” emperor of the Empire combines both those names: Romulus Augustus.

The Spanish Inquisition

The Inquisition, specifically the Spanish Inquisition, is something we have heard referenced in film, short stories, and novels but what was it really? Why is the Spanish one notable? Were there other inquisitions? To answer these questions, I have to get into how the medieval Roman Catholic Church operated, but not too into it, that would require a lot of writing that I am not willing to do at this time (thank me later). For those that enjoy torture, religious zealots living up to the term zealot, and people being burned alive, then this article is for you. But you know what also is for you if you enjoy those things? Therapy.

Before we dive in, I want to highlight the use of terms here, Spain throughout most of its history was not united under what we call now Spain. It was a series of kingdoms that eventually were united under two monarchs from the two largest kingdoms, Castile and Leon in 1469 CE. However, the Iberian Peninsula was made up of kingdoms like Castille, Asturias, Leon, Aragon, Portugal, and many other smaller ones throughout its medieval history. But for the sake of simplicity, we are going to call the Christian/Catholic monarchies in this article Spanish and use Spain to identify the region and Kingdom that eventually is united and rules the entire peninsula (except for Portugal) in 1492.

Ok, let’s start with what seems to be the easiest question, but is actually pretty complex, what was an Inquisition? The answer is going to differ depending on which countries' inquisition we are discussing. There were many inquisitions: the Roman Inquisition, The Papal Inquisition, and inquisitions in what is now Spain that precede THE Spanish Inquisition, to name a few and keep the list short. There were inquisitions in almost all Western European countries during the medieval period. Broadly speaking, Inquisitions were official Roman Catholic institutions or trial like processes that were set up to uncover, destroy, and repress “heresies” that the church felt threatened their control. The inquisitions were led by Inquisitors who oversaw these efforts of suppression. The inquisitors operated with near total impunity but had to adhere to church law and doctrine. Torture in these Inquisitions was legally sanctioned by the Church through a Papal directive under Pope Innocent IV, called Ad Extirpanda, issued in 1252. The torture an accused had to endure was not (key word here) to result in permanent physical damage or death but was utilized as a tool to get suspected heretics to confess to their accused heresy, and then used against them when sentencing or punishment came. An individual was only allowed to be tortured once but inquisitors found a way around this by accusing individuals of multiple crimes and torturing them for each charge. Methods of torture throughout the Inquisition’s history consisted of the Rack, waterboarding, and putting someone on the Wheel or Pulley. If an individual did not survive the torture, they were still shamed as heretics and their bodies were hung up on display for the public. The punishments could range from whippings, having to go on a pilgrimage, to execution depending on the accusation and compliance of an individual. If an accused did not confess and name names of other heretics, they could expect torture and execution.

So, now that we have established what an inquisition is, why was there one in Spain and why is it the one that everyone remembers? The answer to the second question is simple, it was the longest lasting, and has been made famous by movies, books, and stories. Additionally, it was used as an example of Catholic cruelty and corruption during the Protestant Reformation and exaggerated into being much more widespread than it really was. But the first question is a little more complex so let’s discuss the Reconquista, or the Reconquest, that was on the mind of every Spaniard from the 8th century to the 15th century CE. In the 8th century, Spain was invaded by warriors from North Africa that eventually became to be known as the Moors. These Moors swept up the Iberian Peninsula and at one point led incursions into what is now France, only to be repulsed and establish a front line north of Barcelona. From the 8th century on, every Spanish monarch made it their goal to push Christian control of the peninsula further south in what is arguably the longest lasting Crusade. Finally, in the year 1492, forces under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella conquered the last Moorish stronghold, Grenada, and united Spain under Catholic control. I blew through about 700 years of history there and you could not even imagine the number of factions, players, and personalities involved. There are many books out there about the Reconquista as it is a titan of a historical subject, hence, I could not attempt to summarize it fully in this article.  But why is it important to our inquisition? Well, because there are two major religious factions vying for control in the peninsula for hundreds of years, areas that would fall under one or the other would be mixed in religious make up. During this period as well, Spain had a significant Jewish population to mix in with the Muslim and Catholic numbers. Throughout most of this period, these three faiths GENERALLY lived alongside one another (minus the whole war thing, pogroms/discrimination against the Jewish population, and slaughter of Muslims, Catholics, and Jewish people, every time one side seized a city/town/region) but that changed once the Catholics defeated the Moors for control. Also, in 1492, Spain expelled all of its Jewish population, they had to leave (160,000 chose to leave) or convert. Those that did convert were known as Converso and Muslims (forced to convert or leave in 1526) were known as Morisco. These converts, even though officially converted to Catholicism, were constantly under the threat of discrimination and accusations of carrying on their former faiths in secret. At the same time all this drama was going on in Spain, Western Europe saw a number of different religious movements spring into existence and were subsequently deemed heresies. Examples would be the Cathars, Hussites, and Waldensians. The Church set up inquisitions to root out these “heretics” and felt the same thing would be needed in Spain to root out false converts, followers of other “heretical” doctrines, or those who preached false miracles and events. The Spanish Inquisition as we know it, officially began in 1478 and shockingly lasted until 1834.

Due to the length of the Spanish Inquisition, it’s impossible to fully summarize it succinctly, so, I am going to break it down in a few phases. The first would be the phase that focused on the Conversos, Moriscos, and the early Inquisition. This early period saw around 2,000 people burned at the stake for just being formerly Jewish or Muslim and not confessing to carrying on their former faith in secret. Conversos were accused of outlandish things like spreading the plague, kidnapping Christian babies and boys for ritual sacrifice, and poisoning water supplies of towns (these poisonings either didn’t exist or were actually outbreaks of disease, such as cholera). During this period, medieval justice was especially cruel and consisted of public trials and spectacles involving royalty, the accused’s family, and friends. Common during these proceedings was to seize the wealth and property of those accused. Those accused of heresy or false conversion weren’t allowed to face their accusers, receive a defense, and were often accused without evidence or on false testimony.

The second phase of the Inquisition (16-17th century) focused on repressing the Protestant Reformation and prominent clergy or Catholics that didn’t fully follow the teachings of the church by the book. The inquisition worked very diligently to root out those who started to question the teachings of the Papacy and The Catholic Church, utilizing the same methods that they used to repress and essentially extinguish the Muslim and Jewish population of Spain. Prominent Catholic clergy and scholars were accused of heresy for promoting new interpretations or ideas even if they were still considered canonical.

The third and final phase of the Inquisition is the decline and fall. The Inquisition during this period (17- 19th century) was focused on keeping Spain catholic and rooting out forbidden ideas, those who read banned books, and intellectuals promoting Humanist and Enlightenment ideals. All this carried on until the invasion of Spain by Napoleon in the early 19th century, eventually being banned outright by that small statured French Emperor (the short king narrative of Napoleon is false by the way, blame the Brits for that one). After Napoleon’s defeat in 1814, it was reinstated, then finally stamped out again in 1832 as part of a deal that Spain had to sign with France to help put down a rebellion within Spain. The last person executed in Spain by the Inquisition was in 1826.

Here is a fun fact for you, the Inquisition still technically exists within the Catholic Church although it operates differently and has received a nice new name change since its final dissolution in Spain, and as of 2022, called The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or informally, The Holy Office.

The Parachute

Have you ever wondered how human beings came up with the parachute? Did it involve a few very brave but very dumb people jumping off high places holding a bedsheet trying to fly or float? Would you believe me if I told you, that yes, that’s basically it? Well, it is. But that is not the whole story, and I wouldn’t be writing about it if it was. With that being said, let’s get into the fun filled (mostly) death defying history of jumping off of high things and out of perfectly good airplanes.

Let’s start with the first documented idiot (or genius) who jumped off a high thing and lived: Abbas ibn Firnas or Armen Firman. You will notice I gave two names there (you are so smart), because those two names could be the same person OR could be two different people. Historians can’t sort that bit out but we will tell the story as if they are one person for the sake of simplicity. Around 875CE in Cordoba, Armen Firman was said to have fixed a sheet or cloak around himself supported with wooden struts and jumped from a tower. He didn’t fly as he wanted, but the sheet slowed himself down enough that the was surprisingly unhurt. We don’t have much detail more than that, but it’s the first documented example, and it’s a fun one to picture in your head and an easy start to the article.

So, let’s move to a true parachute like device. The first what you, dear readers, would call a parachute was designed and sketched in Renaissance Italy. The sketch shows a man floating from the sky with a conical shaped parachute-like device allowing him to descend. Although its just a sketch, based on the size of the parachute compared to the man, historians believe he would have gone splat. Then comes in the well-known inventor and polymath, Leonardo da Vinci, who sketched a parachute design of his own. Leo’s chute was much larger and better ratioed to the man, and has since been successfully tested in the 2000s. There is no conclusive evidence that shows Leo ever tested his parachute unfortunately. Now comes a Frenchmen named Louis-Sébastien Lenormand. Lenormand jumped off a high building in 1783 and survived to tell the tale. His parachute was a little different, basically two umbrellas put together; he even coined the word ‘parachute’ that we use today. Generally, human beings are pretty predictable, when someone does something, someone else comes along and has to do it better. Because aviation technology started to rapidly develop in the 18th century, balloons became a thing, specifically, hot air balloons that people would ride in. So, in 1797, some guy named André-Jacques Garnerin had to outdo Lenormand, and cut away his hot air balloon from the basket over Paris at 3,200 feet, surviving using a parachute to slow his descent.

So, side note, I know we have been talking about successful parachute designs or jumps, but let’s talk about one of, if not, the most famous parachute fails. In 1912, tailor Franz Reichelt leapt from the Eiffel Tower in Paris to his death while attempting to successfully test a personal parachute that could be worn as clothes. Why is this failed attempt so famous? Well, first, his last words were “See you soon.” I mean, when those are your last words while testing a parachute, people are going to use it as a punchline. Second, his attempt and subsequent death was filmed and you can still find the footage online today. It's pretty grainy and is in black in white, it was filmed in 1912, but it’s an example of immortalizing the unfortunate side of innovation on film before the internet.

Ok, now we are getting to the good stuff, let’s talk about the event that made the parachute a ubiquitous part of aviation, a little thing called the First World War. WW1 led to massive innovations in aviation technology, with planes going from flying for a mere 10 or so seconds in 1904 to bombing raids of front-line forces in multi-engine aircraft by the end of the war in 1918. When the war began in 1914, planes had little use other than as observation devices but military thinkers quickly saw the use of planes as an offensive tool. Air forces started outfitting planes with guns, bombs, cameras, and eventually, parachutes. The Central Powers, specifically the Imperial German Air Force, were quick to see the advantage of their pilots not dying unnecessarily when they could just jump out of a rapidly crashing plane instead. The Allies, though, were a bit slower to adopt. There is a historical rumor that the Allied Command were worried that if they outfitted their pilots with parachutes, they would jump out instead of fighting or flying the aircraft back, even when damaged. The reality is that the command staff didn’t understand pilot needs and were relying on an outdated view that all pilots just needed improvements to weapons and plane durability to survive.

Then comes the Second World War. WW2 saw even further innovations, no longer were flimsy biplanes the normal aircraft in sophisticated air forces (some smaller countries still fielded the biplane but they were reserved for specialty roles in most air forces). Now, these sleek mono-wing planes, flying hundreds of miles an hour, could obliterate each other with ease. Pilots had the ability to “bail out” or jump from a stricken plane and try to return to friendly lines to fight another day. Most pilots and crew of planes were outfitted with a parachute and highly encouraged to save themselves if necessary, contrasting heavily with the attitude of First World War command staff. The parachute also became an experimental form of military doctrine. All sides in the war deployed and utilized new “Paratroopers.” These airborne forces would jump out of airplanes using a parachute to land behind enemy front lines or in areas uncontested by the enemy so that they could quicky seize ground or outmaneuver a foe. There were airborne operations in all major theatres of the conflict, and countries like Greece, Tunisia, Italy, France, Holland, and Norway saw airborne soldiers dropped on their soil. WW2 created heroes out of Allied Airborne operations and Divisions like the 101st Airborne even have had an critically acclaimed series on HBO created about them 60 years after the war ended (go watch Band of Brothers, it’s pretty cool if you like that sort of thing).

After the war, the public thought parachutes were no longer reserved for idiotic (genius) people jumping off high things or out of perfectly good airplanes. They figured if the US Army could train farm boys from Nebraska to use them, then they couldn’t be that unsafe. Now, we have modern day skydiving and countless Hollywood movies showing that anyone could jump out of an plane using a parachute and (probably) live to tell the tale.