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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Disappearance of William Cantelo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nika Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Boston Molasses Disaster

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

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

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

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, certain political circles, 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.” The Battle of Tours has a unique place in history, while we at Seeking History believe that it was an impactful morale-raising victory to the Christian Franks, the battle’s importance is a hotly contested 21st century historical topic within the academic and scholastic world. It has also taken on an oversized political importance to certain far-right fringe groups, claiming that it was a battle that stopped Islamic incursion into Europe, which it most certainly did not. Throughout the last three to four centuries, the Battle of Tours has either been regarded as a cataclysmic battle in the wider struggle to preserve the Christian faith in Europe or was nothing more than the Franks defeating a large raiding party from Umayyad Spain. As always, the reality is more likely somewhere between these two views.

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.