timeline - issue 1

How necessary was'The war to end all wars'?

THE FIRSTWORLD WAR

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE WWI CENTENNIAL ISSUETIMELINEISSUE 1 SUMMER 2014ABINGDON SCHOOL'S HISTORY PUBLICATION

THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE

THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

ALSO FEATURING:

Timeline Magazine Issue 1 | 1

WELCOME

TIMELINEMAGAZINE

EDITORIAL head editor Adam Pearson senior editors Liam Frahm Max Finch Jake Buffery

ART & DESIGN creative/design director Asten Yeo

STAFF WRITERS William Nash John Cheung Fred Clamp-Grey Andrey Ogarev Luke Shepherd Tomas Brown Archie Williams George Dyke Mungo Graham Brett Cheung Henry Screaton Nicholas Lockett Jack Dawson Ed Jefferson William Sheffield Alasdair Czaplewski

Design by Asten YeoPrinted by Cambrian Printerswww.cambrian-printers.co.uk

A s Russia ravages Ukraine, the West withdraws from Afghanistan, and Thailand turns to a military dictatorship, this rather cliched quote remains as significant today as it did in the 18th century. Ultimately, these conflicts, and countless others, are all echoes of the past,

created by leaders and societies so fixated on the present they stumbled blindly into a destructive historical cycle. Surely then, if we are to move forward, we have to look back. Is history therefore the most important subject of all?

In this edition we focus on the First World War. As the centenary remembrance commences, the controversial topic dominates mainstream media and culture, and will no doubt continue to do so. The government has allocated £50 million for the commemoration. The BBC has commissioned 2500 hours worth of content on the war over the next four years. Michael Gove and Jeremy Pax-man neverendingly seem to find themselves in World War I-related rows. Clearly the so-called ‘Great War’ was an event of unprecedented magnitude and devastation that continues to divide opinions. Who’s fault was it? Why did the powers of Europe get involved? Did it achieve anything? We take on the latter of these questions, which is perhaps the most poignant of all, presenting both sides of the argument on whether World War I was an unnecessary war.

Far from solely concentrating on the First World in this edition, Timeline aims to provide an insight into a wide range of compelling, important and quirky historical topics. In this issue, we delve into the violence of the French Revolution, consider the legacy of the Charge of the Light Brigade, and marvel at the splendors of the Byzantine Empire. There should be something inside to fascinate everyone, even the non-historian or the most ardent scientist.

We hope you enjoy the first issue.

Welcome to Timeline: Abingdon School’s new termly history magazine.

‘Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it’ — Edmund Burke

2 | Timeline Magazine Issue 1

INTRODUCTION

CONTENTSFEATURES

Ukraine: A Repeat of the Past? 10The two-century-old roots of the modern Ukrainian Crisis

Was World War I Necessary? 4Our writers evaluate the necessity and futility of the First World War


INTRODUCTION

BRITAINThe Charge of the Light Brigade 16Was There A 'Glorious Revolution'? 18

EUROPEDebating The Terror 20

THE AMERICASTalking Ourselves Into Knots 24British Guiana 28

ASIAThe First Opium War 30

AFRICA AND MIDDLE EASTThe Eastern European Empire 34

Generation War 38Darkness at Noon 40The 63 Objects Project 42Among the Sans-Culotte 43Franz Ferdinand: A Biography 44

REGIONS


FEATUREFEATURE WORLD WAR ONE


WORLDWARONE

How necessary was the war that took millions of lives and shook the globe?

FEATURE ARTICLE


FEATURE

One of the most trodden paths of historical debate is whether or not decisions were justified - from the mandated

pasteurisation of milk to the Iraq War - but we appear to make an exception when we reflect on the First World War. We focus on the destruction that engulfed Europe between 1914 and 1918, for it is unpalatable to our empathetic modern psyches to even begin to try to justify a conflict that cost the lives of nearly twenty million people - a fact especially evident as the centenary is marked this year.

This issue with evaluating the war can seen by comparing the Somme offensive to D-Day, which were two of the most prominent offensives of the World Wars. D-Day cost a hefty twenty-thousand lives, but was a decisive invasion that allowed the Allies to defeat an immoral regime that threatened to undermine the moral foundations of the Western world. The Battle of the Somme saw over a million die, but only a military historian could attempt to convincingly argue its worth. Yet even if one attempts to remove the poppy-tinted spectacles, and view the Great War in terms of just causes and worthwhile outcomes, it is still challenging to justify. First, we must siphon off the argument that the Allies were legally mandated to intervene when Germany invaded Belgium, because they signed the Treaty of London in 1839 - the ‘scrap of paper’ (in the words of theGerman chancellor) aimed at protecting Belgian neutrality. They agreed to endeavor to respect

it, not to defend it from the likes of Germany. Regardless, many a politician then, and many historians since, argued that Germany needed to be stopped, regardless of the legal obligation.

Indeed, Germany was quite the bellicose newcomer to Europe. Formed in 1871, she clearly wanted to flex her fledgling military muscles on the international stage. The Kaiser sent a congratulatory telegram to South African President Kruger after his early success against the British in the Second Boer War, and the Kaiser evidently wanted to secure himself a ‘place in the sun’ in Africa. Furthermore, Admiral Tirpitz’s Fleet Acts, which from 1898 publicly professed an aim to rival Britain’s navy, were of particular concern to Britain, especially after the building of the Kiel Canal and Germany’s acquisition of the North Sea island of Heligoland. Meanwhile, Germany’s industry and army had been expanding rapidly, with companies such as the vast Krupps corporation able to supply the country’s military needs. War may have seemed, therefore, necessary to safeguard Britain and France’s dominance of Europe, but one must stop poring over the maps of Northern Europe and gain a sense of perspective. It was a ‘world’ war, after all. Germany was expanding quickly with undeniably aggressive aims, but even by 1914, Germany was little more than an irate tomcat, hissing violently at the great lions of France and Britain. In comparison to Britain and France, who could call upon resources and support from lands as distant as Canada and

WWI WAS UNNECESSARY

Fred Clamp-Grey argues that the 'Great War'was a catastrophic mistake

Australia, Germany lacked a credible empire. Britain’s naval supremacy was still safe, with Germany’s navy not even a third the size in 1914. The Triple Entente included the kings of the European jungle, compared to Germany’s Triple Alliance of herself, Italy and Austria-Hungary. The idea that Germany posed an existential threat to Britain and her interests is ludicrous.

That is not to say going to war was unnecessary. For the century preceding 1914, wars were common, used often

British troops reload the Vickers Machine

Gun during an assault

WORLD WAR ONE


FEATURE

just to reset the balance of power. If a European power felt the power balance needed a refresh, a quick skirmish in the Balkans or a few cavalry charges here and there normally cleared the air. The statesmen responsible for the First World War were accustomed to this strategic atmosphere, and applied the ethos to the issue of Germany’s might. Another European war was necessary, but the First World War wasn’t. It was intended to be a quick check on Germany’s power, embodied by the claim that ‘it will over by

Christmas’. Had, in July 1914, the leaders and generals of the war been shown the infamous footage of rat-ridden trenches, tanks rolling over the countless dead, or the distressing footage of shell-shocked men, unable to remember even their families, diving under hospital desks at the mention of the word ‘bomb’, shuddering uncontrollably as doctors look on in dismay and sympathy, then they would have inevitably sought not to go to war.

The war was not necessary. It was a

mistake that no one could have foreseen. Once the stalemate had set in, it had to be fought at a tragic cost. If one intends to board a ferry to France, but mistakenly boards a liner to Bermuda, there is nothing that can be done but ride it out until it docks, however unnecessary the voyage may have been. Nineteenth century mentality mistakenly met twentieth century warfare to produce a conflict horrifically distorted out of proportion to its cause. •

AN UNECESSARY WAR


FEATURE FEATURE


Russian soldiers awaiting an attack in the trenches, 1917


FEATURE

In the modern day the First World War is often heralded as the pinnacle of needless waste of human life: millions lay dead, entire empires collapsed and

Europe lay in a state of desolation and fatigue. In our current time we view this to be the result of fruitless imperialistic ambition, a lack of comprehension and utter idiocy on the parts of the generals. However, it is easy to simply view the Great War as a pointless struggle, manipulated as we are through the emotive tale of the men in the trenches, and not to view the war within the broader framework in which it took place.

Arguably it is the failure of its objective that causes such distrust for its motives. Anti-war sentiment was vastly increased by the war, and with the development of the Versailles settlement and the League of Nations, the immediate post-war aim of the international community was to create lasting peace. Nations began extensive disarmament to diminish the likelihood of igniting another global conflict. The First World War may have wrought destruction upon Europe, but it at least had created the motivation to form a lasting peace. How fruitless the war must have seemed, therefore, with the out-break of an even greater conflict a mere 20 years after the resolution of the Great War. Of course the establishment of a lasting peace was the last object in the minds of the powers as they sized up for war in 1914, and so the

failure to create peace (a fault with the international system over the 1920s and 30s, and not the conflict itself ) can hardly be considered the fault of WWI.

The real objective of WWI was to halt the advance of Germany. The lack of a figure such as Hitler, often depicted as a man of true evil that could only be defeated by means of war, has led many to view Germany as nothing more than a fellow victim of the struggle. This view, however, can be discredited, and indeed an emerging lobby of young German historians, fronted by Fritz Fischer, now paint a very different view. The Schlieffen Plan is an incriminating piece of evidence that indicates Germany’s willingness to wage war against her neighbours, even before the eventual conflict appeared likely. But this is not the only piece of evidence: the ‘blank cheque’ that Germany issued to the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand demonstrated her support for the outbreak of a European war. This cheque helped to ignite the conflict because Austria acted far more aggressively than she would have done without Germany’s backing. This all points to a militaristic power that aimed for nothing less than the utter domination of Europe. If Britain had sat by Germany would have rolled over France and Russia with relative ease and then sat menacingly over the channel. With no mainland allies, and a vastly more powerful Germany to contend

with, British defeat would have been inevitable. In that sense, the need to check Germany’s ambition to devastate the entire European continent made the First World War imperative.

Tactically, it could be argued that Britain should have learnt faster and maintained a defensive policy, rather than persisting with her failed attempts to break the stalemate. In reality, simply sitting in their trenches and allowing the Germans to come to them was not a feasible possibility for the Allies. The First World War was a total war, as much a test of industrial strength as tactical prowess. Trenches may have been a stalwart defence, but every gun, bullet, shell, uniform, medicine, and item of food had to be paid for, manufactured, and shipped to the front. The machine gun may have been a lethal defence, but it also dispensed precious and costly ammunition at an unprecedented rate. A prolonged stalemate was an economic death warrant, and so it had to be broken. Britain had to break the impasse before the European economy collapsed.

The First World War was hardly an unnecessary war, but instead one that was always to be of immense loss: the technology was new and the scale was vast. Crucially though, the cause was just. If the war had not been fought by Britain, Germany would have achieved the very ambition that a man 20 years later would try again. •

WWI WAS NECESSARY

The First World War was crucial for the survival of Europe, contends Will Nash

A NECESSARY WAR

10 | Timeline Magazine Issue 110 | Timeline Magazine Issue 1

CONTEMPORARY

The overthrow of the Ukranian government was a precursor to the Russian invasion

THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS

Timeline Magazine Issue 1 | 11Timeline Magazine Issue 1 | 11

CONTEMPORARY

T he actions of external powers, or rather inactions, have helped to escalate and fan the flames of what started as a selection of relatively isolated protests into the

bloody and warring inferno of today. Strife in Ukraine, though, is hardly a novelty. Indeed, tensions have been a constant undercurrent of the country’s existence since its very inception. Moreover, historical decisions have led to the Crimea, as well as other large areas of Ukraine, affiliating itself with Russia. Ultimately, then, the current clashes across Ukraine must be examined in the light of history.

It is undeniable that Russia sees her Crimean escapade as legitimate. Or rather, to be diplomatically correct, she believes that the diplomatic secession of the Crimea to the Russian Federation is well within the spirit and letter of international law. Of course, it would be naïve to say that Russia had no hand in the Ukrainian crisis, or the Ukraine as a whole for that matter. There is compelling evidence to suggest that Russia deployed non marked, off-books military troops and manipulated the gas and oil running into the Ukraine, not forgetting the fact that the FSB most likely poisoned politicians they didn’t particularly care for as well. Despite Russia’s rather dubious actions, they do make a compelling argument for the legitimacy of their operations. About 60% of the population of Crimea is ethnically Russian, and some Ukrainians from older generations even served

in the Red Army - whether their service was voluntary is a separate matter. Unsurprisingly, a substantial proportion of the population identifies itself with Russia. But it is too easy to get caught up in Russia’s convincing propaganda. It is essential to consider how Russia gained such a large ethnic majority in the first place. On the eve of the 20th century, in 1897, about 33% of the population of Crimea was Russian and about 12% were made up of Ukrainians. Yet 36% were Tartars, the indigenous ethnic group to the Crimean peninsula. However, the tolls of the Second World War and, far more significantly, the systematic deportation and persecution of the Tartars under Stalin and the Soviet Union vastly reduced their share of the population. So disgustingly successful was this campaign that, by 1959, officially 0% of the population of Crimea was made up of Tartars. It would seem then that the idea that Crimea belongs to Russia is not founded in historical or demographic fact.

But this is not quite true. For a long period of time Crimea was actually part of Russia, until 1954 when Khrushchev suddenly gave Ukraine the peninsula. Gossip stories surround the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine. Some say that was lost in a game of cards by a drunken Khrushchev. Alternatively, and probably more realistically, the Russian leader wished to forge closer relations with Ukraine. In this political sense, the Crimean population’s Russian sympathy is unsurprising. However the fact that Crimea was once part •

Ukraine continues to indulge our curiosity; despite democratic elections selecting Petro Poroshenko as the new President, Ukraine, at the time of writing, continues to be torn apart by conflict.

UKRAINE:A Repeat of the Past?Luke Shepherd reviews the Ukranian crisis

in the context of history

A HISTORICAL CONTEXT


CONTEMPORARY

of Russia 50 years ago certainly does not justify or legitimise its annexation. What is clear though is that the current diplomatic nightmare has rather ambiguous historical roots.

Finally, and perhaps the reason for Russia’s claim of legitimacy in the region that does not sit as comfortably with the more idealistic amongst us is the idea of spheres of influence. Russia is significantly larger than any country inside Europe. Not only is it territorially stronger, but Russia also holds the new weapons of war: gas, oil, and other raw materials. Though one might say that Europe acts as Russia’s counterpoint in the region, this is not entirely true

because not even the EU lacks the same political unity as the Kremlin. The fact that Europe is made up of 28 different states, all with slightly different agendas creating disunity and lack of collective vision, means that Europe is worth markedly less as an aggregate than the sum of its parts. Because of Russia’s size and power it has a large sphere of influence that is now not recognised by other powers. The general agreement that was reached between Russia and the West stated that the West would try not to interfere with Russia’s neighbours. However this agreement has become largely forgotten since numerous Soviet bloc states gained independence, moving

into NATO and subsequently the EU. This was one of the major motivations for Russia’s invasion in 2008 of Georgia, who sought to gain NATO membership, a military organisation that Russia perceives as a threat. If Ukraine was to move into Europe and NATO, under the leadership of an anti-Putin government, Russia fears they would prevent her from accessing the Black Sea fleet stationed in Crimea. That fear is almost identical to one about 150 years ago. The Black Sea was of vital strategic importance to Russia when she intervened in the Crimean War from 1853-1856. Regretfully, we seem to have come full circle from then, with concerning levels

“The Black Sea was of vital strategic importance to Russia when she intervened in the Crimean War from 1853-1856.”

The Siege of Sevastopol—during the Crimean War—resulted in an Allied victory over Russian forces

THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS


CONTEMPORARY

of similarity.The age of intervention is now

passed. Gone are the days when countries could be compelled out of morality to intervene and protect the persecuted. Our less than successful escapades in the Middle East have tarnished the reputation of supposedly moralistic intervention. Nowadays economic factors are paramount. A Crimean war would wipe billions of pounds off the face of assets, such as we have already seen with the crippling drop of the Russian stock market following Crimea’s occupation. Due to the almost complete interconnection of the capitalist systems throughout Britain and the rest of Western Europe the economic consequences have never been so grave, making the price of peace more important than it has ever been.

Great European powers can no longer impose their will upon the world. Breech loading rifles and battleships are not a justification for dominance on the world stage. No longer can countries simply occupy sovereign states to ensure that the government remains stable, or that they are not taken advantage of by other stronger powers; this is in no way a bad thing. In fact it is one of the great achievements of the modern era to have such a respect for our international peers regardless of their position on the world stage.

However perhaps the most important element to consider is how Russia is perceived by the rest of Europe. Foreign policy has been continually run, made and acted upon all with the presupposition that there is a perennial enemy for us to fight against. Though according to Palmerston “we have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies” – 1848. This is almost ironically hilarious because Britain at that time had more perpetual enemies than it has ever had: Russia, France, terra incognita. British foreign policy was sustained on enemies. And thanks to the rise of Germany and then subsequent world wars, as well as the not-so-Cold War, we have not been without a shortage of good enemies. The end of the Cold War posed a small dilemma. It wasn't exactly peace in our time but Russia was no longer the enemy. We have tried finding people to

Is Russia still ina Cold War mentality?

act as our enemies however, none seem to really have worked. Eventually we have landed on what must be the quintessence of waging perpetual war, or rather reasoning within it: declaring war on an ideology or terror - a philosophy that can never die, inconveniently become nice, or fail to engage with the jingoistic media. This mentality of policy-making requiring a suitably distasteful and dislikeable counterpoint, combined with our post Cold War hangover, means that there is a significant impression on Russia’s behalf of being the bad guy of Europe. Europe’s unwillingness to integrate fully with Russia and move

beyond its Cold War mentality means that Russia is being squared off as the enemy, even if it is not entirely just that they are.

That withstanding we should not sympathise with Russia’s actions in the Crimean. It is a shocking example of superpowers imposing their will on militarily inferior countries. Russia is in a Cold War mentality: if Europe and Britain and the US are suffering the hangovers of Cold War politics then Russia is still cornered. The issue of the Ukraine will remain to be a topic that occupies the news well into the future. The issue of past borders is •

The end of the Cold War posed a small dilemma. It wasn't exactly peace in our

time but Russia was no longer the enemy.

A HISTORICAL CONTEXT


CONTEMPORARY

a rather arbitrary one; Russia cannot complain because the boarders have been in position for well over 50 years. The debate over the ethnic Russian population, though compelling, is tarnished slightly by the unavoidable dent to Russia’s legitimacy of ethnic cleansing. This sets a dangerous precedent. While many of the Balkans states have ethnic Russian population well beyond 80%, Crimea has only 60% ethnic Russians however. Countries cannot simply be annexed on the premise that a large population has the same ethnicity as your country. Using that logic Ireland could annex whole boroughs of New York. Though Russia’s actions are inexcusable and should not be tolerated, one must also understand that the world of international relations is not as unambiguous as yesteryear; it would be naive to say that Russia's sphere of influence must be opposed at every step. Equally, it would be morally vacuous to say that it should merely be accepted as a fact of the world. Despite the Berlin Wall falling a quarter of a century ago, the diplomatic walls of the world continue to be just as high. •

Pro-Russian troops guard a Ukranian

infantry base in Perevalne

“Though Russia’s actions are inexcusable and should not be tolerated, one must also understand that the world of international relations is not as unambiguous as yesteryear.”

UKRAINE


CONTEMPORARYA HISTORICAL CONTEXT


BRITAIN

T he Charge of the Light Brigade has gone down in history as a military disaster, in which ‘the noble six hundred’ were almost unanimously slaughtered

in a charge on some Russian guns for no obvious purpose. It may, therefore, surprise somebody studying the events of the Charge of the Light Brigade that in fact only 110 people were killed out Tennyson’s 600. In this article, Timeline aims to show not why this tale of total annihilation at the hands of incompetent leaders is largely untrue, but why the Battle has become more symbolic of the bravery of the British army than other battles with higher casualties.

But to properly understand the legend of the Charge of the Light Brigade, we must first properly understand the events of the action itself. The Charge took place on the 25th October 1854 in the midst of the Crimean War during an unsuccessful Russian attack on the flank of the British army sieging the Russian-held port of Sebastopol. Already that day, a concerted Russian cavalry charge had been almost miraculously blocked by the audacity of the 93rd Highlanders and the Heavy Brigade. But the Russians still continued to hold part of the hill separating the North and

South Valleys known as ‘the Causeway Heights’ in addition to the their entrenched artillery position at the end of North Valley. The North Valley itself, the mile long depression between the causeway Heights and the Fedouikine Hills was void of soldiers, leaving the Russian Horse Artillery on the Causeway Heights extremely exposed, so they began to limber their guns with a view to retreating.

Lord Raglan, the commander of British Forces in the Crimea, was watching from a nearby plateau and could see this happening. He too had noticed the vulnerability of the Russian position there, and saw the Infantry division advancing with the aim of clearing the Heights of Russian troops. Raglan realised the urgency of attacking the Heights, so rather than wait for the division, he made the fateful decision to use Lord Cardigan’s Light Brigade to attack the retreating guns. Impatiently, he asked his chief of staff to write out an order, which was scribbled on a crumpled sheet of paper. It stated simply that the cavalry was ‘to advance rapidly to the front to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns’. He gave this order to a young, arrogant cavalry officer, Captain Nolan, to take to the Commander of the British

Cavalry as a whole, George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan.

Nolan took the message down a precipitous mountain path and triumphantly handed it to Lucan. From his position at the Bottom of the South Valley, Lucan could not see the Russian guns on the Causeway Heights, but could see the 50 entrenched Russian guns at the end of North Valley, a mile away. Lucan read it a few times and muttered that it seemed to be dangerous and probably useless. An exasperated Nolan, forgetting his inferiority in rank, made a vague gesture with a wide sweep of his arm which Lucan interpreted as further confirmation that North Valley was the aim. As he did this, he cried ‘there, my lord, is your enemy; there are your guns.’ Shocked by this insubordination, Lucan passively trotted off to the commander of the Light Brigade, James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan. Not though the soldier knew / Somebody had blunder’d.

On receiving the order, Cardigan saluted with his sword and said ‘Certainly sir, but allow me to point out that the Russians have a battery in the valley in our front, and batteries and riflemen on each flank’. Lucan replied ‘I know it, but Lord Raglan will have it, we have no choice but to obey’. Theirs not to reason

THE CHARGEOF

THE LIGHT BRIGADEWhy does the battle hold such a prominent position in

British memory? Archie Williams finds out.

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE


BRITAIN

why, / Theirs but to do and die.The Light Brigade slowly came to

order and fell in, with Cardigan at the head. Calmly, the trumpeter sounded the ‘walk’ and the ‘trot’. Captain Nolan, the messenger, must have realised the cataclysmic error and began to gallop forward to warn Cardigan of his mistake, when the first shell hit the advancing British, a piece of shrapnel caught Nolan in the chest. Blindly unaware, the ‘gallop’ was sounded. The charge had commenced.

The British ranks quickly thinned under artillery fire from all three sides. A horse was seen with a wound to the chest, and with each pace more of its entrails fell onto the dusty ground. A Sergeant’s head was blown clean off, but his headless body remained in the saddle for a further thirty yards.

Shatter’d and sunder’d, many of them reached the 50 guns with twenty infantry divisions immediately behind them, and managed to force the Cossack gunners back. But they could never have held the position. One officer cried ‘we have done enough for honour!’ And they turned around to exit the Valley of Death.

But the exit was blocked by a body of Russian Hussars. The desperate men charged straight at them and punched through the line. It seemed that the nightmare was over. But the Cossack gunners had quickly returned to their positions and were firing into the rear ranks of the British Cavalry.

And so, the bleeding remnants of the Light Brigade staggered up the valley, almost unanimously dismounted after their horses had been killed. The 161 wounded were left in the Valley to be picked up by the Russians, who were full of the utmost respect for the ‘noble six hundred’. For example, the Russian Commander General Lipriandi visited the hospital where the wounded lay and asked if the British high command had ‘primed [them] up with spirits to make [them] charge in such a mad way.’ To this, a British trooper is reported to have stood up and said ‘You think we were drunk? By god, I tell you that had we been we would have taken half of Russia by now.’

These were the events that killed 110 men. But still, one cannot help wondering how it is that such an apparently small

loss has gained such a prominent place in the psyche of the British people, as well as a nostalgic position in popular culture. The charge is the subject of two movies, a Flashman novel and even an Iron Maiden hit. But how?

Not to degrade the bravery of the Light Brigade, but it pales into comparative insignificance in the face of other British military disasters. For example, at Isandlwana during the Zulu War in 1879, over 1,200 were killed by a Zulu Impi. In an 1839 invasion of Afghanistan, 21,000 invaded but only one bedraggled cavalry doctor returned. A siege of Cawnpore in 1857 by Indian Mutineers left 7 survivors out of the original 600 civilians and 300 soldiers occupying the fort. And more recently, of course, the Battle of the Somme killed 623,907 Allied soldiers. Why is it that the Charge of the Light Brigade has such precedence over other British Disasters?

One of the reasons it has such a place in public memory is the fact that it was so well reported. A Times writer was present at the battle, and when news reached Britain it was accompanied, for the first time, with photographs from the front line. The public could read about the appalling carnage. Such a thing didn’t happen before, and this new window into events definitely made the public more aware of the action. But also, the Charge was described initially as total annihilation. Describing total devastation, a London journalist got it wrong. However, this was the story that the public largely believed until the true facts became known much later on. But the main reason the battle has such an influential gravitas is surely because of Lord Tennyson’s poem, entitled The Charge of Light Brigade. Published on the 9th December 1854, he had written it within hours of hearing the news. Its acknowledgement of the horror of war made it popular with troops on the front line during the winter and it was distributed among them through pamphlets. The poem was also very popular in the UK. But, it was based upon a fabrication depicting the almost total obliteration of the Light Brigade, and so this illusion is propagated further every time a student studies the poem. The myth remains. •

THE CHARGE OFTHE LIGHT BRIGADE

BY LORD ALFRED TENNYSON

Half a league, half a league,Half a league onward,All in the valley of DeathRode the six hundred."Forward, the Light Brigade!"Charge for the guns!" he said:Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"Was there a man dismay'd?Not tho' the soldier knewSomeone had blunder'd:Theirs not to make reply,Theirs not to reason why,Theirs but to do and die:Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,Cannon to left of them,Cannon in front of themVolley'd and thunder'd;Storm'd at with shot and shell,Boldly they rode and well,Into the jaws of Death,Into the mouth of HellRode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,Flash'd as they turn'd in air,Sabring the gunners there,Charging an army, whileAll the world wonder'd:Plunged in the battery-smokeRight thro' the line they broke;Cossack and RussianReel'd from the sabre strokeShatter'd and sunder'd.Then they rode back, but notNot the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,Cannon to left of them,Cannon behind themVolley'd and thunder'd;Storm'd at with shot and shell,While horse and hero fell,They that had fought so wellCame thro' the jaws of DeathBack from the mouth of Hell,All that was left of them,Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?O the wild charge they made!All the world wondered.Honour the charge they made,Honour the Light Brigade,Noble six hundred.

MYTH OR REALITY?


BRITAIN

WAS THERE A

GLORIOUSREVOLUTION?

Mungo Graham debates

THE REVOLUTION OF 1688


BRITAIN

I believe that this so called ‘revolution’ was nothing more than an act of re-placement, changing one monarch for another. The definition of a revolution is usually taken as “the overthrow or

repudiate of a system of government in favour of another”, which means that the ‘Glorious Revolution’ could not have been a revolution because it did not change the system of government; most of the aspects of Britain’s culture of the seventeenth century were not affected. The official religion, Protestantism, remained the same and the system of joint rule between the monarchy and parliament also went unchanged. In comparison with other revolutions, such as the French Revolution of the late 18th Century, there was little, if any, blood-shed, because James chose to flee rather than to fight.

Many people argue that discarding James II in favour of William of Orange and Mary amounts to a ‘Glorious Revolu-tion’ primarily because of the enormity of the event. Moreover, it was the first time Parliament had brought about a change in rule without bloodshed and civil war. The next time Parliament forced a monarch to abdicate was in the case of Edward VIII, who could not marry Wallis Simpson and remain as monarch because she had already been divorced twice.

Furthermore the ‘Glorious Revolution’ cannot be put into context because there are no proper modern-day comparisons.

However, I would argue that because the system of governance changed fairly minimally, the change in monarchy, from James II to a joint rule of William of Orange and Mary II, cannot be called a revolution, however significant or insig-nificant the event may have been. When James II made his new Catholic son, by the same name, his heir presumptive instead of his Protestant daughter, Mary II, seven Protestant nobles invited the Dutch William of Orange to invade. After he had done so James II fled, throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the River Thames, an act taken by most to mean

that he had forfeited his position. In none of these events was there a decision to change the way the country was ran. Instead Parliament continued to exist as it had previously had done: co-operating with the monarchy. This system was not to change in the years that followed either. The fact that the new King and Queen were related to their predecessor shows that there was not a revolution because having the monarch’s daughter and her husband as his replacement can hardly be considered revolutionary. The actual policies of the country were not decided by either William or Mary but Parliament. The conflict between the monarchy and Parliament, which had caused the Civil War in the 1640s and the ‘Glorious Revolution’, was settled in the latter’s favour by the Bill of Rights in 1689, which allowed free speech in par-liament, the Triennial Act of 1694, which made elections and parliament meetings a regular occurrence, and the Act of Settlement of 1701, which was an act that settled the succession of Electress Sophia of Hannover. Parliament was not affected by the ‘Glorious Revolution’, except from being allowed more freedom of speech. Therefore, despite its significance this event should not be called a revolution, though ‘glorious’ is a title befitting the importance of what happened. •

T here is an argument put forward by some historians that the act of replacing King James II with King William of Or-ange and his wife, Queen Mary I, the Protestant daughter of James, was a revolution. James Hampden is recorded as coming up with the term ‘Glorious Revolution’, a term still used by politicians in Westminster today. Clearly, the concept that a systemic overthrow took place in the 17th

century still persists. But is this notion valid?

Was the change of rule from King James II to King William of Orange an act of revolution or replacement?

"It was the first time Parliament had brought about a change in rule without bloodshed and civil war."

DEBATE


EUROPE THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Marie Antoinette's execution in 1793 during The Reign of Terror


EUROPE

T he Reign of Terror during the French Revolution has always provoked strong feelings: for the English, the word “Terror” without fail creates a barbaric image of a bloody guillotine blade, decapitating

some poor Frenchman. The French, for the most part, dislike this period of their history even more. There is no national monument to Maximilien Robespierre, the mastermind behind the Terror, and French people seem to show as much approval towards the Terror as the Germans would towards the Holocaust. It is considered to be bad taste to talk about the Terror in any manner that shows even the slightest hint of approval, and the fact that it inspired terrorism in many Marxist regimes in modern history certainly does not do it any favours.

Indeed, the Terror was a horrible chapter in human history in which some estimates have suggested as many as 200,000 were brutally killed in the name of liberty. This has led rise to the critical interpretation that the period from August 1792 to July 1794 was a time when extremist urban workers, or ‘Sans-Culottes’ as they came to be known, knocked the Revolution off course. This view is adopted by many prominent French historians, and is shared by many of the French people nowadays. The ‘Sans-Culottes’, they argue, forced the country’s leaders to adopt policies that were contrary to the Revolution’s ideals of liberty and democracy. The example of the Law of Suspects, signed in September 1793, has often been cited to illustrate this point. Under this law, anyone suspected of counter-revolutionary activity could be arrested and held without trial indefinitely. This led to an absurdly large number of arrests, amounting to approximately half a million, •

DEBATING THE

TERRORJohn Cheung discusses the Reign

of Terror in revolutionary France

THE TERROR


EUROPE

because the definition of “suspects” was so broad that people could be arrested for crimes as ridiculous as “crying during the execution of your husband”, as one woman was. Another often-quoted law is the General Maximum, also established in September 1793. The law fixed the price of bread and many essential goods and services at one-third above the prices of June 1790. This hardened social divisions between the peasants and the ‘Sans-Culottes’ since the peasants hated the fact that they sold the bread at a loss, while the ‘Sans-Culottes’ were grateful for the affordable price. Consequently, it is argued that the ‘Sans-Culottes’’ support was necessary to preserve the Revolution, but their support came at a huge cost. After the fall of Robespierre and the end of the Terror, the Revolution, these historians contend, returned to its original course of liberty and democracy.

However this argument overlooks several important facts. The Terror, contrary to popular belief, was not a period of disorder orchestrated by the ‘Sans-Culottes’. It was in fact, for the first time in history, an official government policy with the stated aim of using systematic violence to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the modern meaning of ‘terrorists’, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government. Thus, the Terror was legal, having been passed by the Convention. This begs the question – what government would choose to adopt such a loathsome policy? The answer to this is simple. Despite the undeniably horrible nature of the Terror, it was actually necessary, and in fact, crucial to the survival of the Republic, since it nullified both external and internal threats which would have almost certainly destroyed the Revolution. To appreciate this, it is important to fully understand the historical context in France during the period from August 1792 to July 1794.

From August 1792 onwards, France was constantly in a critical stage in which the Republic was seriously threatened by both internal and external threats, so in a sense France was persistently engaged in a war on two fronts. Internally, the threat of counter-revolutionaries, mainly federalists and royalists, was very real and very acute. This is evident by the

large number of serious revolts that took place in 1793, such as in the Vendee and the Federalist revolts. At their height these rebellions gained a lot of momentum from their strong bourgeois and peasant support, and posed a serious threat to the Republic.

Externally, the threat of invasions was just as grave and promised to destroy the Revolution once and for all. France was at war with various European powers such as Prussia, Austria, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic and Spain. Foreign monarchs were increasingly alarmed by the progress of the Revolution and were concerned that it would inspire similar revolutions in their own respective countries. Their shared hostility towards the Revolution united them, and by March 1793 the Hapsburg monarchy of Austria and the Kingdom of Prussia allied

to form the First Coalition. This alliance initiated a series of invasions into France by land and by sea, with Prussia and Austria attacking from the Austrian Netherlands and the Rhine. Great Britain supported revolts in provincial France and laid siege to Toulon. Thus, by September 1793, military pressures together with internal strife meant that the Republic was in serious danger of collapse.

It was precisely under these urgent circumstances that the French government introduced the Terror. The foundation of the Terror was centered on the April 1793 creation of the Committee of Public Safety (CPS) and its militant Jacobin - a political club - delegates. The National Convention believed that the Committee needed to rule with “near dictatorial’’ power, and delegated new

“The phrase ‘desperate times call for desperate measures’ describes the Terror perfectly.”

The Cult of the Supreme Being was the new state religion founded by Maximilien Robespierre

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION


EUROPE

and expansive political powers to the Committee with the hope that it would be able to provide an effective response to the threats faced by France.

The Committee certainly did not disappoint. Under the guidance of Robespierre, internal rebellions were dealt with ruthlessly, and by the end of 1793, the Federal and Vendee revolts that once threatened to tear the country apart had largely been crushed. Further potential uprisings were prevented through the ‘Political Terror’, which involved repression in the provinces. While this was not a pretty process (8,700 were executed in the ‘pacification’ of the Vendee), it was an unavoidable necessity since France’s fragile economic and political state meant that it could no longer afford to simultaneously deal with internal rebellions and wage war with foreign powers. The only way France could have dealt with the rebellions successfully was through the Terror because it was able to successfully strike fear into the hearts of the counter-revolutionaries and terrorise them into submission. Hence, the Terror’s violence

in France can be justified in the sense that it saved the Republic from tearing itself apart through insurrection.

The Committee was able to do an equally satisfactory job of neutralising the external threats to the Republic. France was losing the war of attrition against the First Coalition and desperately needed more men and equipment to avoid a full-blown invasion. To tackle this problem, the Committee introduced the decree of Levee en Masse in August 1793. The decree marked the beginning of total war and provided the army with a crucial supply of half a million conscripts, as well as ammunition and arms from state factories. The policy was remarkably successful in the short term and led to crucial victories against the Austrians and the Spanish. French military success against the

First Coalition would have been almost impossible had the French government not chosen to adopt a policy of Terror.

The phrase ‘desperate times call for desperate measures’ describes the Terror perfectly. The period of 1792-1794 was certainly a desperate time for France, which could only have been dealt with by a policy as radical as the Terror. The Terror was an unfortunate, but necessary and temporary reaction to the pressures of foreign and civil war. It was undeniably successful in neutralising foreign and internal threats. Without the Terror, all talk of revolutionary liberty and freedom would be have been irrelevant because France would have been either torn apart by civil war, or occupied by foreign forces. Ultimately, this indubitably horrible policy was necessary to save the French Republic. •

Maximilien Robespierre, a

French lawyer and politician, was the

'mastermind' behind the terror

THE TERROR


THE AMERICAS THE INCA EMPIRE

TALKING OURSELVES

Also known as 'talking knots', Quipu was used to communicate information ranging from tax records to census figures.


THE AMERICAS

INTOKNOTS

Tomas Brown explores Quipu, the Incan tech-

nique of communicating with knots.

QUIPU KNOTS


THE AMERICAS

The Inca Empire, which spanned from the thirteenth to sixteenth century, had a particular linguistic peculiarity, one that is of great concern to any who study them. The Inca had three

methods of communication: Quechua, their spoken language; Ceramics; and ‘Talking Knots’, known as Quipu. Quipu is the oddest and most interesting of the three - a non phonetic writing system. It is the only known pre-Colombian record, and may even carry information that predates the Incas themselves by three and a half thousand years. They are also potentially the most useful as they carry the censuses, legends, maps, and even tax records of South America from before the Spanish colonisation in 1572.

What exactly are these knots? A brief explanation would be that they are thin, woven ropes of Llama or Alpaca hair, aligned and coded in colour or length, and running off a central corde. The most common theory is that they denote numbers in base ten; a one knot on the leftmost stand represents one, another two, and ones in further strands represent tens, hundreds, thousands and so on. A yellow stain may

signify the wheat of a country, a blue its quantities of dye, a red its quantities of livestock. Quipucamayoc, Inca accountants, counted and arranged these chords and could supposedly even read them blind, taking expansive accounts of the empires tributes, tax, peoples, and almost every aspect of human life. Puruchuco, and other locations, can be identified as accounting hotspots; a trove of 21 Quipu being discovered there recently, some even containing the code 1 - 1 - 1, which is thought to be a form of primitive postcode or cataloging number.

It is clear that these, as one might think from looking at them, are not fly screens or exuberant necklaces as they might appear. They are a sophisticated system for tracking goods and services. The Inca, the most advanced civilisation in Southern America at the arrival of the Conquistadors in 1509, consisted of, by some estimates, up to 37 million people, stretching all over the continent. They

Left:The knots, made

from woven ropes of Llama hair, are

believed to denote numbers in base 10

developed legends, sport, trade, taxes, kings; yet they had no written language. They had no phonetic alphabets, not even embryonic text. Our primary opportunity to learn about them, therefore, is their economics. Quipu allows us to chart the trading evolution of an entire empire and possibly beyond, since the earliest discovered Quipu is 4600 years old, making it one of the oldest communicative forms ever found.

Further more, they are not useful to us only because of their economic record; they may even contain the oral history of the Inca. In 1996, the volume Historia et Rudimenta Linguae Piruanorum was discovered, hinting at a system of phonograms (sounds) and logograms (words) within the Quipu. Several accounts are provided from Spanish chroniclers of how the Inca historians would fondle the Quipus as they recited local history. The Chaski, the relay messengers of the empire, may have been

"Quipu is one of the oldest communicative forms ever found."

THE INCA EMPIRE


THE AMERICAS

Right:Machu Picchu is the best preserved Incan site, built as an estate for the emperor Pachacuti

used to transport these messages from country to country, and it is evident that the upper classes were even educated in the reading of Quipu in a Yacha - Huasi (literally a ‘House of Learning’ or university). Quipu evidently was more than a mere accountancy medium. This opens up the possibility of an expansive history of an advanced civilisation, that is tantalisingly close to us. However, we encounter two problems.

The first is that very little of the writing is legible, and it is likely that we will never understand it. It was not until even 1929 that the idea was made to relate the code to a numerical system, and not until 1996 were the knots thought to have a phonetic significance. Not even the world’s phonologists can decipher the code, and Quipu, by and large, remains the ‘Inca Mystery’ for a great majority of the population. Furthermore, the older form of the Quechuan language that the records may be

written in, and the phonetic structure of the text, is incomprehensible to us for even if we could interpret it, we would not be able understand it.

The second issue is that Quipu reside in two locations; the burnt remnants of conquistador fires, and the graves and burial places of Inca tribes. At the landing of the Spanish in 1509, Quipu were, largely, burnt to cinders. Only 200 or so remain in university collections around the world as what had once been a flourishing and expansive census and notation system was destroyed mercilessly by priests, insurgents, and the general Spanish population in an attempt to ‘civilise’ the area. They were observed as both a religious affront to Christianity, and a record of the ill deeds of the Spanish. And so they were destroyed with impunity by any coloniser who came across them, depriving us, unfortunately, of one of the most interesting sources of information we could have had about a once flourishing civilisation. •

QUIPU KNOTS


THE AMERICAS

SPOTLIGHT:BRITISH GUIANA

BRTISH GUIANA

George Dyke tells the story of the little known colony

When people think about the British Empire they think of Indian uprisings, Australian convicts and Queen Victoria.

They do not think of the small country of Guyana in South America that’s probably best known for its team in the Caribbean Premier League T20 tournament.

Discovered by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1595, Guyana first became colonised by the Dutch in the early 17th century. The land was split into 3 colonies: Essequibo, Berbice and Demerara with an overall capital of Stabroek. During the Dutch rule the British decided they wanted a part of the lucrative trade in tobacco and marijuana so launched two very unsuccessful invasions to take over the colonies.Guiana remained in Dutch hands.

However a British victory in 1781 meant that she gained control of the 3 colonies. France then decided that they too wanted a share of the pot, so signed an alliance with the Dutch, and launched a joint attack against the British. The French governed for

"Discovered by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1595, Guyana first became colonised by the Dutch in the early 17th century"


THE AMERICAS

2 years, but made a real hash of things so the Dutch took over again.

In 1796 the British sent out an expeditionary force to seize the three colonies back from the Dutch settlers and arrived at the Guianan beaches expecting to smell the blood of their enemies. Instead they took over without any struggle. 6 years later the British rule ended, in which they had done absolutely nothing, and they handed the colonies back to the Dutch in 1802 under the Treaty of Amiens. The British force withdrew back to Barbados, thinking that business in Guiana was done and dusted.

1803 is an important date in the history of the world because it marks the year in which the British and French started scrapping again. Britain were formally ceded the colonies in 1814 having defeated little Napoleon. The British made a smooth transition to rule with very few changes to the country. They kept the Dutch administration system and slowly integrated the English language

into Guiana. They also brought over tens of thousands of African slaves, destroyed the marijuana industry and replaced it with many hundreds of sugar plantations. 17 years later, in 1831, it came to the attention of the government that not a single British person could write, spell or say any place name in the colonies so they changed them all. For example, Stabroek went to Georgetown. The actual names of the three colonies were removed, and replaced with one name for all of them: British Guiana.

Despite the fact that slavery in the British Empire had been officially abolished in 1807, it continued in Guiana nevertheless. The oppressed slaves rioted, and, despite the fact that their revolts were crushed, the abolition movement remained powerful. By 1838, Guiana had achieved total emancipation. The Afro-Guianese ex-slaves left the sugar plantations, leaving a labour shortage. So the British contracted Indians and Chinese to fill the gap. Throughout

the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a native Guianese middle class emerged. They demanded greater freedom and independence, giving the British a governing headache. The Great Depression of the 1930s hurt the Guianese trade of sugar, rice and bauxite. The economy suffered with sky-high unemployment levels. Labour unrest and violent demonstrations against British rule continued. With the increased demand for bauxite in the mid-19th century, the strength of the Guianian economy picked up a bit.

Economic prosperity was not enough to ensure the continuation of British rule though. The emergence of political parties in the 1950s and 60s put the British in an unstable position. Under the force of political pressure, the British eventually buckled on the 26 May 1966, when Guiana was granted independence. The independent Guiana then celebrated by changing its name to Guyana and picked up some solid players for the Caribbean Premier League. •

SPOTLIGHT

The Napoleonic Wars gave Britain the opportunity to seize Guiana from

the French


ASIA

A lmost 175 years ago, two British gunboats opened fire on Chinese warships in seas off Canton. This seemingly small event sparked off the Opium War. Shortly afterwards, a fleet of British expeditionary forces unleashed

a wave of violence on these Far Eastern lands, killing thousands and ushering in a hundred years of diplomatic weakness and political unrest to imperial China.

The clashes were preceded by decades of mounting tension between the two countries, predominantly over conflicting viewpoints on trade. Back in the 17th century, British merchants were very fond of trading with China because luxury items, such as tea and silk, were extremely lucrative in the European market. In return, they would offer the sale of scientific instruments and woollen goods, but there was little demand for such products in the East. Since the ruling Qing Dynasty did not see the need to open up trade, commercial activities with the West were restricted, heavily levied and limited at Canton. Against this backdrop of “closed-door policy”, British interests were damaged and there was a serious trade deficit, epitomised by a serious outflow of silver which was used as payment to China.

Opium smuggling, despite being illegal, was widely introduced to China as a countermeasure to address the trade imbalance. The drug was imported from opium poppy plantations in colonial India by the British East India Company, arriving at some 30,000 chests per year on Cantonese coasts. It swiftly reversed the trade imbalance, increasing earnings for the British. Yet the social impacts of opium abuse quickly became apparent in China. Not only was her economy badly hit, but also the many peasants who, falling victim to the addictive drug, would linger around opium dens like zombies, and sell all their possessions to satisfy their hobbies. Moreover, there was also a serious drop in army morale, as the addicted soldiers were no longer capable in battle.

By March 1839, the Qing government could no longer tolerate the situation and responded with great ferocity. With the mission of eradicating the opium trade, Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu arrived in Canton and demanded that all drug traders surrender their opium stocks. He imposed a blockade on the warehouses and •

THE FIRST OPIUM WARBrett Chung presents the unforgotten trading dispute that was a precursor

to the downfall of imperial China

THE FAR EAST


ASIATHE FIRST OPIUM WAR

The Battle of Chuenpee: 1839


ASIA

cut off their supplies. Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of British Trade in China, promised his fellow merchants compensation, and so they reluctantly gave in. Over 20,000 chests, each holding 55kg of the drug, were seized in the incident and destroyed. Western merchants were required to sign a declaration promising not to bring opium ashore anymore, which carried with it the threat of the death penalty.

The news of opium seizures reached London and infuriated the authorities, who saw the loss of a significant portion of tax revenue from trade as utterly

unacceptable.Soon afterwards the hostilities

rapidly escalated when a Chinese villager was killed by a drunken British sailor in Kowloon. After the Battle of Chuenpee on 3rd November 1839, during which four Chinese warships were sunk, Lin ordered the permanent termination of Anglo-Chinese trade. Consequently the British parliament voted for military action against China, in the name of “honour” and “free trade”.

A British naval fleet carrying 4,000 men started bombarding targets along the Chinese coast in 1840. It easily overwhelmed the Qing defences, for they were outdated and no match for the advanced, highly mechanised British weapons. The British offensive took control of the Yangtze delta and occupied Shanghai.

Defeat after defeat left the Qing government with no choice but to negotiate a ceasefire. The Treaty of Nanking was signed aboard HMS Cornwallis on the 29th August 1842, which marked the end of the Opium War. Fundamentally, the Treaty forced open trade upon the Chinese market by adding four trading ports alongside Canton. It also created fixed tariffs that had to be agreed by both governmental parties. Amidst the astronomical reparations, Hong Kong island was also ceded to Queen Victoria as a crown colony for the benefit of British traders, which wouldn’t be returned until 1997. Most importantly, the illegal business of opium was resumed.

"The drug was imported from opium poppy

plantations in colonial India by the British

East India Company, arriving at some 30,000 chests

per year onCantonese coasts."

British troops in the Battle of Amoy, 1841

THE FAR EAST

KEY EVENTS OF THE OPIUM WAR

1730Britain exports an estimated 15 tonnes of opium to China

1745Cohong established as an intermediary in trade between the Qing govern-ment and foreign traders

1757Canton System established. Trade focused and controlled in Canton

1773Britain exports of opium to China increases to an estimated 75 tonnes

1817Britain begins trading in opium for Chinese tea, silk and porcelain

1839Lin Zexu appointed Special Imperial Commissioner to eradicate opium

1839Lin demands all mer-chants to sign a bond that makes opium trade liable to the death penalty

1799Qing Dynasty introduces law on opium abuse

1821Britain exports of opium to China increase fivefold to an estimated 375 tonnes

1839Charles Elliot, British Super-intendent of Trade in China, complies with the demand for opium to be surrendered


ASIA

A shocking humiliation to the Qing Empire and its people, the Opium War shattered the sovereignty of China. It exposed the military weakness of the country so that in the next one hundred years China would be subjected to diplomatic bullying. Following the war, Western powers began exploiting the Chinese market. The influx of Western interference, such as missionary

work, which was always sensitive and controversial, evoked public resentment and became an undercurrent for future conflicts. For example in 1856, war broke out again in the Far East - this time between China, Britain and France. It resulted in the raid and destruction of the Old Summer Palace. The invaders, joined by Russia, left behind a pile of shameful treaties, including the Convention of

Peking that ceded the Kowloon Peninsula to Britain.

Sorrowful but alarmed, the Chinese people were impassioned. Eventually patriotism and the desire for self-determination culminated in the Revolution of 1911, that overthrew the incompetent Qing Dynasty and established the Republic of China. •

THE FIRST OPIUM WAR

European factories in Canton

1839Battle of Kowloon: British ships engage Chinese junks First Battle of Chuenpee: Royal Navy engages Chinese junks

183920,000 crates of opium are burnt at Humen

1840Qing government asks all foreigners to halt assistance of Britain

1840Britain and the East India Company captures Chusan

1842The Unequal Treaties—and the Treaty of Nan-king—are signed.

1841Second Battle of Chuenpee: A British Expeditionary Force captures Chinese static emplacements at Bocca Tigris while British vessels engage Chinese junks

1841Battle of Canton: British forces recapture British factories in Canton area and trade resumes

1840Battle of First Bar: Royal Navy bombards Chinese batteries and British forces captures their forts

1840Battle of Woosung: Britain opens the way to Shanghai Battle of Chinkiang: Britain opens the way to Nanking

1841Four ships sail up and reconnoitre the Pearl River


AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

When considering Byzantine culture, the influence of Roman customs cannot be overstated. Byzantine

people called themselves Romans, and contrary to popular belief, they never referred to themselves as Byzantines. The primary language used in the eastern Roman provinces even before the decline of the Western Empire was Greek, it having been spoken in the region for centuries before Latin.

Religion played a key part in the Byzantine Empire. In the course of the fourth century, the Roman world became increasingly Christian. It was the decision of the Emperor Constantine to transform Christianity into a driving

force in the Roman Empire, and Constantinople became the capital of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was the first empire in the world to be founded on religious transition. However a bitter divide, or schism, in the Christian Church developed in 1054. A variety of political, theological, and cultural factors made the the Eastern-Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church draw apart. The schism changed how both Churches perceived themselves. The Western Catholic Church desired more papal authority. At first the Byzantines did not mind the Pope's claim for absolute rule over the West as long as his power remained in the West. But the Pope decided he had power over Eastern •

THE

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

During most of its existence, the Byzantine Empire was the most powerful economic, cultural and military force on the planet. Following the Roman emperor Diocletian’s decision to partition the Empire in 285 AD, the Eastern half quickly surpassed its counterpart as the dominant power in the world. The Eastern Roman Empire long outlived the Roman Empire, surviving repeated Arab and Ottoman onslaughts, before its collapse in 1453 AD at the momentous Fall of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the legacy of the Byzantine Empire lives on, especially in regards to its culture and its military.

Nicholas Lockett investigates religion, art and intellectual life in the Empire

CULTURE



AFRICA & MIDDLE EASTCULTURE AND MILITARY



Christendom as well. Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, rejected the claims put forward by the papal committee. Those from the western side of the church accused Constantinople altering the Nicene Creed (a formal creed summarising Christian beliefs) and those from the eastern side accused their counterparts of the same crime. This in turn led to the excommunication of Michael Cerularius. The Great Schism became official.

Constantinople was the largest and richest city in Europe and the Middle East (and the known world until Paris at the turn of the millennium). Having inherited the Greek and Roman love of learning, Constantinople became a cosmopolitan centre, thanks to its flourishing trade, with a thriving intellectual and commercial atmosphere. The Byzantines preserved many documents from the civilizations of their ancestors in their libraries and universities. As a consequence of its inquisitive environment, the The Empire made huge steps forward in science, for example in astronomy and in architecture, shown by the construction

of the Hagia Sophia. Medicinal technology advanced too, perhaps because of the plague in 542 which wiped out ⅖ of the Byzantine population.

Art was a prominent component of Byzantine culture. It was almost entirely religiously orientated, and artists produced mainly frescos and mosaics. Sculptures were rarer, but were usually made from ivory. All over the world, particularly in Western Europe, Byzantine art was heavily sought after. However in the fourteenth century, Byzantine artisans, abandoning the declining cultural life of Constantinople, found work in Italy. Following the Ottoman take-over in 1453, many Byzantine artists fled to the West, taking with them precious paintings and sculptures. Their work was greatly appreciated and they were considered the catalysts for the Renaissance.

Clearly Byzantine cultural life flourished in many different ways. While artistic, scientific and literary progress may have slowed with the arrival of the Ottomans, the legacy of Byzantine civilisation undoubtedly lives on to this day. •

but, unlike former senators, couldn’t stretch their command that far. Hence corruption and rebellion were less likely. This system created a ‘civilian-garrison’, where common folk were trained and equipped to defend against sudden and powerful Muslim skirmishes. The Theme system was used from the 5th century until the empire’s fall.

The most notable part of Byzantine history is that of Constantinople, modern day Istanbul. It was not only considered the cultural capital, as we have seen, of the Middle Aged world, but also the mil-itary one. The walls of the city were built in the 5th century; they were 12 feet high

The Byzantine military was argu-ably the paramount pillarstone of its Empire. The Byzantines have always been credited for their

advanced weaponry and their discipline. This alone would make both the Roman (before the split) and the Eastern em-pires nearly unmatchable until the 8th century, although some historians believe it was powerful until the empire’s fall. The early Byzantine army was similar to the late Roman army. It was reasonably large and effective at conquering terri-tories. The garrisons of their conquered areas were tiny, and the armies were generally situated at one place, outnum-

bering the enemy. This system was a huge failure, because in the 5th and 6th centuries Muslims conquered Byzantine territory from modern day Tunisia to the Middle East, virtually uncontested. These failures did not go unnoticed. The Byzantine army subsequently adopted more of a Greek style of fighting similar to that of the Spartans. Moreover a new system, the Theme System, was estab-lished, replacing the Province System, which had existed for 1500 years. It was smaller and now presided over by gover-nors instead of senators or quaestors. The governors, excluding the Emperor were the highest commanders in their Theme

Henry Screaton looks at the Greek military,and the Empire’s demise

MILITARY

The Hagia Sopha, built in 537, is one of the best surviving examples of Byzantine architecture




and had both an inner and an outer wall. These walls defended the city against overwhelming odds, such as against the Slav siege in 626 where the Byzantines were outnumbered by 8 to 1. The fortifi-cations continued to defend the city mag-nificently until its fall. Perhaps their most notable weapon used to defend Constan-tinople was Greek Fire, a substance that burned in, and in some refinements was ignited by, water, and was believed to contain resin and sulphur. The substance was mostly used as a naval weapon, but proved lethal in siege defence as it could ignite and destroy siege towers. Perhaps what made the weapon so effective was that it was only known to the Byzantines, a ‘state-secret’. Therefore none of their opponents could ever fully replicate the liquid.

At the midpoint of the 15th Cen-tury the empire was in a terrible state. Constantinople was underpopulated, the army was sparse and untrained and the new Palaiologos dynasty was faced with constant rebellion. The recently founded Ottoman Empire surrounded Constan-tinople and some territory around it in 1453. A siege of the Capital began in May that year. The empire’s forces were outnumbered by 30 to 1, but reinforce-

ments from the Republics of Venice and Genoa helped immensely with the coastal blockade and prevented starvation. Apart from their advantage in numbers, the Ottomans fielded a colossal cannon which was said to be able to break ‘the walls of Babylon’ (famously Babylon was impregnable); however it took 3 hours to reload and was hugely inaccurate. The Ottomans launched many failed assaults which resulted in heavy casualties.. They also attempted mining under the walls, but the Byzantines recruited an expert miner from Germany, who managed to find the mining tunnels, killed the miners and destroyed the rest of the tunnels by torturing some officers. The main Ottoman assault began on the 29th of May. They planned to overwhelm the Byzantines with sheer numbers. Once the walls were breached, there was no hope left. Some inhabitants remained with the Emperor Constantine XI until the end, but most broke and ran for the port. Finally, after 2206 magnificent years of existence, the empire fell. Even though the Byzantines were so fiercely outnumbered, they managed to kill 20 men for every 1. Ultimately this display of resilience until the bitter end embodies the Byzantine military. •

"The Byzantines have always

been credited for their advanced weaponry and their discipline"

The Fall of Constantinople: 1453

CULTURE AND MILITARY


REVIEW

GENERATIONWAR

Keep politics out of television,argues Ed Jefferson

Over the last 20 years, Germany has produced some of the finest war

dramas, such as the 1981 classic Das Boot, or more recently Before the Fall

and Downfall, which, for many, outstrip the works of America and the United

Kingdom. The most recent of these war dramas was the three part mini-

series Generation War that, for various reasons, has caused quite a stir outside

Germany. But why? And does any of this criticism have any foundation?

The five protagonists

TELEVISION


REVIEW

Set in 1941, Generation War follows the lives of five German youths: two brothers who are Wehrmacht

soldiers (Wilhelm and Friedhelm); a girl who wants to become “the next Marlene Dietrich” (Greta); another girl who is a nurse just behind the frontline in the East (Charlotte); and finally a Jew whose father was a tailor (Viktor). There are various love interests between the members of the group. Greta, feeling she is saving her boyfriend Viktor with a love affair with a Gestapo officer ends up on a train to Auschwitz. As for the two brothers, their war shows the story of the Eastern Front and tackles some issues about the Wehrmacht that, 20 years ago, would have caused a riot in Germany.

Polish media has argued that the the series portrays the Polish AK (or Home Army) as a group of murderous anti-Semites, and one Polish journalist went so far as to describe Generation War as a ‘falsification of history’. Of course this isn’t true for all the members of the Home Army or of the Polish resistance movement. However, it must be appreciated that there were anti-semitic groups of resistance fighters as well and in the case of Generation War the Poles were of such a group. Say what you will about this, but the fact that they were portrayed as anti-Semitic in this particular drama was a fairly major plot device in the development of one of the main characters (Viktor, a German Jew) and his story.

Though Western media did pick up on this, critics focused on how the holocaust was almost glossed over in the series. Moreover the Germans were portrayed as victims of Hitler’s attempts to realise his ambitions. They were presented as innocent bystanders, ‘duped by the Nazis’ - as the New York Times put it. Generation War, another Western paper argues, spreads the myth that the German citizens’ ‘complicity was forced, never chosen.’

It would appear then that we have reached a point in time where all war drama—especially German drama—must have an obligatory scene with a death camp just so we are aware that the holocaust actually took place and that the Germans were all horrible monsters. The problem with this, and with labelling

the show as ‘ahistorical’, is to essentially absolve all Allied nations of ‘ahistorici-ty’—to coin a word—in their war dramas. It promotes the view that all American soldiers were brave war heros who did nothing but good for the poor subjugated people of Europe, which quite forgets the fact that they executed Italian soldiers, apparently without reason, and executed SS soldiers without trial after liberating Dachau. Taken too far, this situation could destroy all artistic authenticity.

Why shouldn’t Germany be allowed to make a drama about 5 young friends caught up in the Second World War? Perhaps it is down to the misconception here in the victorious Allied nations that Germany wants to distance itself from the holocaust and is desperate to remove all war guilt. This however isn’t true; other than apologising to groups vilified and oppressed by the Nazi regime (except the homosexuals, until 2002) and paying reparations to some, the Germans do their fair share in accepting war guilt. Denazification began in Europe with the fall of the Third Reich and as a result, from a young age all Germans are taught about their country’s Nazi past and how utterly horrific their nation’s actions towards minority groups were. In a free society, and as we celebrate

not only the 70th anniversary of D-Day, but 69 years since Hitler’s death and the fall of the Third Reich, the creators of art should be able to have complete control of their work. Artists have a duty not to deceitfully distort the past, but there should be no obligation to tell the every minute historical detail of the truth, just in case someone might be offended. That’s not their job - it’s the job of historians and possibly politicians to inform society about the past. The job of a TV writer is to create entertaining television for the viewer, and as Sarah Phelps (writer of Crimson Field) pointed out: the creators of Generation War were not trying to create a complete picture of the war, only a complete picture of the lives of the characters in the series. If they had tried to give an unbiased and complete picture of the war, then there would have been nothing worth watching, and it may as well have been a documentary.

Generation War shows a change in German cinema in relation to the war and moving toward a view that many more people than just the Jewish people were the victims of Hitler and the Nazis. Hopefully it is a trend which we will see more often in future exports from the country. •

Charlotte (Miriam Stein) is a volunteer

nurse caught up in the brutality of

World War II

GENERATION WAR


CONTEMPORARY

"The cell door slammed behind Rubashov."

DARKNESS AT

NOONJack Dawson reviews Arthur Koestler’s

Soviet spine-chiller

Perhaps it is the cold opening of Arthur Koes-tler’s gripping Darkness At Noon which truly exemplifies the brutality of Stalin’s Commu-nist regime, where those who thought were

in fact the most vulnerable.Koestler writes from the perspective of Nicholas

Salmanovitch Rubashov, a fictitious member of the Communist Party, who has been imprisoned during Stalin’s purges of 1934-40 under false charges of committing ‘anti-revolutionary’ acts. Rubashov is interrogated by two opposing individuals; Ivanov and Gletkin. Ivanov is a logical thinker and an ‘Old Bolshevik’ like Rubashov. He prefers the method of allowing Rubashov the luxuries of time, writing materials and cigarettes in order to gain a confes-sion. In contrast, Gletkin is the new up-and-coming Communist recruit, a puppet of Stalin, who instead prefers means of physical and mental torture by denying Rubashov sleep and confusing him with dazzlingly bright lights. Ultimately, after Ivanov himself is liquidated, Gletkin’s methods prevail, and Rubashov confesses at a public trial. He is then sentenced to death.

On the surface it is Gletkin’s hard methods of interrogation that lead Rubashov to confess to the

crimes he did not commit. However, where Koestler truly triumphs in his novel is in his extensive evalua-tion of Communism through the mind of a Commu-nist intellectual, Rubashov. And it is here that we are informed of Rubashov’s true motives regarding his confession:

“The Party can never be mistaken. You and I can make a mistake. Not the Party.”

Uncannily, Nick Frost and Simon Pegg do not come far off the same idea sixty years later in their comedy, Hot Fuzz. Whilst Koestler does not depict a bunch of hooded figures who wield scythes and sinisterly chant “for the greater good”, the principle is nevertheless somewhat similar. Rubashov, who is devout to his Party and its ideologies, sees his sac-rifice as “for the greater good” in order to help ‘The Party’. Whilst Hot Fuzz may lack a single protagonist in the mould of Rubashov, the two works both con-vey the menacing message that “the greater good” transcends everything, including murder.

Koestler, himself a member of the German Com-munist Party and writing at the time of the infamous Moscow Show Trials, arguably based the character of Rubashov on a former Politburo and Communist party member Nikolai Bukharin. The relentless •

REVIEW BOOK


REVIEW

torturing of Rubashov and his ultimate fate is some-what parallel to that of the falsely accused Bukharin who too was an “Old Bolshevik” seen, by Stalin, as a threat to his authority. Therefore, Bukharin’s perspective on ‘The Party’ is reflected in Rubash-ov’s ideologies and thus Bukharin’s final statement before he was executed in 1938 exemplifies the point Koestler was trying to make:

“The monstrousness of my crimes is immeasur-able especially in the new stage of the struggle of the U.S.S.R. May this trial be the last severe lesson, and may the great might of the U.S.S.R. become clear to all. Let it be clear to all that the counter-revolution-ary thesis of the national limitedness of the U.S.S.R. has remained suspended in the air like a wretched rag. Everybody perceives the wise leadership of the country that is ensured by Stalin.

It is in the consciousness of this that I await the verdict. What matters is not the personal feelings of a repentant enemy, but the flourishing progress of the U.S.S.R. and its international importance.”

Even in his last words Bukharin supports Stalin.

Clearly he firmly believed that ‘The Party’ and Communism were more important than his own life. Bukharin is willing during a public trial to, like Rubashov, proclaim the greatness of Stalin’s Com-munist Russia. As Rubashov points out:

“The branch which broke from the tree must wither...”

Rubashov recognises his new position in the ‘The Party’. He must assume the role of the wrongly accused “broken branch” and accept his fate for the benefit of ‘The Party’s (the “tree’s”) future.

Undoubtedly one of the most powerful pieces in this novel is said by Rubashov to Ivanov, the kinder interrogator, which, from the mind of a leading fig-ure in ‘The Party’, seems to strip down Communism to its true roots:

“We have built up the most gigantic police apparatus, with informers made a national institu-tion, and with the most refined scientific system of physical and mental torture. We whip the groaning mass of the country towards a theoretical future happiness, which only we can see. For the energies of this generation are exhausted; they were spent in the Revolution; for this generation is bled white and there is nothing left of it but a moaning, apathetic lump of sacrificial flesh...”

Only Stalin and his inner circle are able to envision this “theoretical happiness”, whereas the rest of the country is led blindly as Stalin pulls the strings. Rubashov and Ivanov are those who helped found Stalin’s Communist Russia and their role, in Stalin’s eyes, has been fulfilled. They have become an obsolete breed of individuals gradually usurped by the new “neanderthal”, (as Rubashov refers to him) Gletkins.

Koestler’s vague analogy to Stalin in his novel is made even more powerful by denying the reader an explicit reference. Instead, Stalin remains unnamed and only referred to as “No. 1”, a seemingly untouch-able figure who is mostly depicted as a picture in Rubashov’s interrogation room, behind Gletkin’s bright light. Whilst Gletkin assumes the role of the torturer we are reminded of the true villain lurking in the backdrop.

Koestler’s novel is rich in symbolism and metaphors. It was very much in the language of its time and although a fictional novel, it carried and arguably still continues to carry, some very serious morals. Koestler wasn’t just writing a work of fiction. He was trying to make a political statement in a decade where world politics were polarised. •Rubashov is

arguably based on the Communist Nikolai Bukharin

DARKNESS AT NOON


SCHOOL

Last year saw a major project about the School’s history created by the archivist Mrs Wearne and a few enthusiastic pupils - ”A History of

Abingdon School in 63 Objects”.Inspired by Neil Macgregor’s radio

series, ”A History of the World in 100 Objects”, it was reduced to 63 because of the School’s relationship with that num-ber. John Roysse became a benefactor on the 31st January 1563, his 63rd birth-day, and intended the old school room to measure 15 by 63 feet. Mrs Wearne felt that an online project would be better than a book, as then she could use more resources, such as being able to zoom in on the objects, whilst also including film and sound clips.

The objects were selected so that

each one not only said something about the school’s history, but also had an interesting story of its own. They were chosen to have a roughly equal spread over the 450 years, with each object being uploaded in chronological order from the earliest to the most recent. Mrs Wearne thought that the regular uploading of objects every Tuesday and Thursday was “essential for the ‘rhythm’ of the project”, and it also gave ade-quate time for people to read about the objects. At the same time the project was contained within a year.

However, the feedback received was overwhelmingly positive. Lots of people wrote saying they had really enjoyed the project, and everyone concerned certainly enjoyed organising it. •

THE63 OBJECTSPROJECT

The Objects Project

includes...John Viney’s Medals:

Six medals which together tell the story of both OA John Viney’s flying career, and some of the operations launched by the RAF, in the Second World War. Described by William Grundy, the then Headmaster, as the “naughtiest boy he’d ever taught”, Viney ended the War as a Wing Commander aged only 24 and having flown 49 operations, the details of which are fascinating.

The Lucknow Brick:A brick (surprisingly!) taken from the room in the Residency (where the resident British General lived) in Lucknow in India, in which Sir Henry Lawrence was ‘mortally wounded’ on the second day of the siege of Lucknow. (2nd July 1857). This occurred in the Indian Rebellion (or First War of Independence). No-one quite knows how this apparently unique souvenir came to be in the Archives, but it may have had something to do with John Mayo, an OA, who took part in the relief of Lucknow later that year.

Thomas Woods’ Clock:An ‘Act of Parliament’ style clock given to the school in 1743 during a refurbishment of the old school room by the Revd. Woods, the then Headmaster. It has an unsure history, as photographs and prints show it in many different coats of paint, and no-one knows who made it or what it looked like originally. The amazing thing though about the clock is though it has undergone some very crude repairs, it is not boxed away in the Archives, but still works and strikes hourly and keeps (relatively) good time in the Upper Library, where it still serves its purpose.

The Debating Society’s Logbook 1904 - 1959:

This book records all the Motions debated by the Society during these years. However, what makes this special is that it gives us a wonderful insight into life at the time, and the issues that were at the forefront of people’s minds. For example in 1904 it was concluded that “ The Ambition of the Ger-man Emperor is not a menace to the peace of Europe”, and in 1933 that “... Hitler is not a menace to Europe”!

William Sheffield recounts the Objects Project

THE 63 OBJECTS PROJECT


FICTION

On the 9th of August 1792, I was woken up by the carriage driver to an image of a delightful waking city in the horizon. It looked as peaceful as a baby Jesus in the hands of Virgin Mary, sur-rounded by colourful poppy fields and painted

in the golden rays of the rising sun. It looked as if all these stories we heard back in London about the Storming of the Bastille by the raging mob, the food revolts against the King Louis XVI and the mass murders were merely a bad dream from which the city of Paris was just waking up.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t long before Paris has shown me its true face. It was a thin angular face with a deep red scar across the eye of a young tired revolutionary guard at the end of his shift, on the border of the city. He was wearing long white trousers with red and blue stripes on them and a blue army jacket. He carried a musket under his arm

in a way which made me wonder if a person who gave that child a weapon had actually taught him how to use it. When he approached the carriage he looked at me with an emotionless expression on his face and asked me where

I was going. I told him I was a journalist visiting Paris to write a story about the Revolution and that I would be delighted if he would let me through. As I was telling his that, I couldn’t help myself but notice his face gradually change from an emotionless uninterested expression to a slight worry to a deep fear and finally to an absolute panic as he was pointing his musket at me and shouting for his colleagues. The next thirty seconds were living hell for me as I was dragged out of my carriage onto the ground by two well-built bearded guards who, after kicking me in my dia-phragm a few times, faced me with a dilemma of whether I wanted to be shot in my head of stabbed in my heart. I was pretty sure that I was going to die that morning, but all I could think of was my new jacket, which was now ruined by these two gorillas as they threw me onto a pile of horse manure (at least I hope it was horse manure). In the midst of gasping for air and failed attempts to beg for mercy, I saw a young girl with loose dark hair, who was wearing a dress of the same colour as the trousers as my new friends, running towards me like a wild gazelle and screaming at the guards to stop beating me. To my surprise and relief they have obeyed her and now stood quietly in one line as the girl slapped the tallest guard across his chest after her failed attempt to reach his face.

As I found out later at the inn, where she invited me for a glass of cold beer as an apology for her subordinates’ hospitality, her name was Oriel and she was a leader of the group of Sans-Culottes of the Tuileries section of Paris. “When I first saw you, I knew straight away that you were from England. Only Englishmen can wear that”, she said chuckling and pointing to what was left of my jacket. We talked for a while, and I found out that she was a daughter of a tailor. I also found out that she was in the neighbour-hood collecting signatures for the petition against the King’s veto of the creation of the 20,000-strong National Guard outside of Paris to protect the city and its citizens from the rising danger of the advancing Austrian army, when she stumbled onto our little celebration of my arrival to Paris. “Don’t ever again use Monsieur if you want to stay alive in this city”, she noted, revealing the reason for my beating. When she was leaving the inn, where I have decided to stay for the time of my investigation, she took out a folded piece of brown paper and handed it to me. “If you want to find out more about us, come to the Tuileries Palace tomorrow morning”, she replied to my earlier question, smiling like a child with a naughty secret. After she had left, I went up to my room, lay on my bed and tried to make sense of who that girl was and what was going to happen next. What struck me most about that blue-eyed, red-cheeked, smiling, lively and rather innocent-looking girl was her eager patriotic passion for the Revolution and her extremely deep hatred of any form of inequality: “As Voltaire said, all people are born equal. Therefore, we should all live equally, sharing everything we have with each other. This is the only way, and I am sick of the merde-talking, idiotic, selfish King with his putain wife, who only thinks about himself, ignoring the needs of the people, hoping to be rescued by his Austrian friends! Well, he can be sure we will not let that happen!” I looked at the brown pamphlet Oriel gave me. In the small printed writing it said “10th of August. Tuileries Palace. We will get our freedom!” Below, in big red letters it stated: “Vive la Revolution! Vive la France!” I knew that the King stayed in the Tuileries Palace after being brought from Versailles by an angry mob of working-class women, and after his failed attempt to es-cape to Austria through Varennes. Were the Sans- Culottes planning a revolt against the King? Or were they planning a murder? With that question in my mind I went to sleep. •

AMONG THE SANS-CULOTTES

Andrey Ogarev puts you into the heart of the Terror

AMONG THE SANS-CULOTTES

PART 1:THE ARRIVAL


BIOGRAPHY

Born in Graz in Austria in 1863, he became the wealth-iest man in Austria at just 11 years of age. Named as heir to his cousin Duke Francis V of the Este family, he inherited a vast amount of money and land. His father,

Archduke Karl Ludwig, was another high ranking Austro- Hun-garian who, after the suicide of Crown Prince Rudolf in 1889, be-came the first in line to the throne. However, he soon renounced his claim to the throne, making Franz heir. His father died of typhoid in 1896. Franz entered the Austro-Hungarian army at a very young; he became a lieutenant at 14, a captain at 22, and a colonel at just 27. By the time he became a major general at 31, he had been given authority by the Emperor to make inquiries into the military services, raising his profile yet further.

Franz Ferdinand was perhaps a slightly heartless character, quick to anger, whose political views made him popular within the Empire. He was also very mistrustful of Hungary, believing the people to be rabble, and took steps to limit their military power. But, and perhaps most importantly, his hard-line views on Serbia made him a target for the nationalists. Despite this, he campaigned for greater autonomy within the empire, and was a competent and popular leader.

In July 1900, he married Countess Sophie Chotek, a woman of lesser rank. Under traditional rules they were not permitted to marry as Franz was of the House of Habsburg and Sophie did not meet the criteria required to marry him. But after appeals

from the German Emperor, The Russian Tsar and the Pope, Emperor Franz Joseph was forced to allow them a morganatic marriage. However, Sophie and her children were not allowed to take Franz’s titles, and had no rights of succession. She also lacked most of the privileges given to royals, and was not al-lowed to appear beside him on state occasions.

By now, Franz was Archduke of Austria-Este, and Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia. He was a prominent military figure as well as a political one. But on Sunday the 28th of June, 1914, his political importance would increase yet again - this time, with his death. During his visit to Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, several attempts had been made on his life. A bomb had narrowly missed him, hitting the car behind. Later, at 10:45, while his convoy was reversing on the way to visit the victims, a Serbian Yugoslav nationalist, the 19 year old Gavrilo Princip, a member of both the Black Hand and Young Bosnia radical groups, shot the couple. They died shortly afterwards. This bru-tal assassination provided a pretext for the invasion of Serbia by Austria- Hungary, ultimately starting WWI. In the following month, Austria would invade Serbia in retaliation, drawing Serbia’s allies, such as Russia, into the conflict. Germany would back its ally Austria-Hungary. The death of one man would spiral out of control, as countries all over Europe seized the opportunity to gain land, or other strategic advantages, in the name of defending their allies. •

The figure of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is shrouded in mystery. Although he was one of the key figures of the early 20th century, whose death was arguably the spark that ignited WW1, we seem to have forgotten the part he had to play.

FRANZFERDINANDA BIOGRAPHYby Alasdair Czaplewski

FRANZ FERDINAND

TIMELINEISSUE

No. 1

timeline - issue 1

Documents