The “Action of August 9”: Spain strikes a crippling blow to the British war effort in the American War of Independence.

In 1779 Spain joined the American Revolutionary War as an ally of France in support of  the fledgling United States against Great Britain.  The emergence of France and Spain in the American war constituted an immense challenge to Britain and the powerful Royal Navy.  After Britain, France possessed the second largest navy in the world, and while comparatively smaller, the Spanish Royal Navy ranked immediately behind at 3rd. The Spanish navy had massive ships of the line and sleek frigates, but its officers, sailors and marines paled in quality to their 16th and 17th century predecessors. Nonetheless, Spain and its navy represented a serious threat to Britain’s maritime trade and supremacy, and would play an integral role in the global theater of the War of American Independence.

In the summer of 1780, the Spanish agents learned that a large British convoy would soon be leaving Portsmouth, England, for the West Indies. Preparations were made to send 37 Spanish and French warships to intercept the convoy. 63 ships left Portsmouth by late July, including five East Indiamen, massive ships that made frequent voyages to the Far East which were under the direct control of the East India Company, as well as over 50 West Indiamen, smaller ships that carried goods back and forth from the West Indies. The convoy was guarded by Captain John Moutray aboard the 74 gun HMS Ramillies accompanied by two smaller frigates.

The Spanish fleet, commanded by Admiral Luis de Cordova y Cordova, departed from Cadiz and spied the British on the evening of August 8th, 200 miles from Portugal. They used a trick to lure the British fleet right to them. During the night, lantern signals were given by the massive Santisima Trinidad, Admiral Cordova y Cordova’s flagship, which the British ships mistakenly believed to be from their own commander. The fleet turned toward the signal and, in the morning, found itself right in the middle of the Spanish fleet, which commenced a furious attack from multiple sides.

Known as the Action of August 9, the Spanish fleet captured dozens of ships, one after the other. Many of the ships suffered significant damage as a result of cannon bombardment and numerous sailors were killed. When the five East Indiamen, the Godfrey, Gatton, Mountstuart, Royal George and Hillsborough, were captured, it represented the East India Company’s largest financial loss in the company’s long history. In all, 55 ships were captured, one of the largest naval captures of all time, and of Britain’s most humiliating maritime defeats . Ultimately, only the three military escorts and five other ships managed to get away.

The loss to the British economy from the Action of August 9, 1780 was staggering. Not only were the ships and their cargo lost, but nearly 3,000 soldiers and sailors were taken captive. Tons and tons of military supplies were confiscated, including arms, artillery, ammunition and tents. The value of the lost cargo was around £1.5 million, an enormous amount of money. The financial loss to British merchants was so staggering that numerous marine insurance underwriters in Europe went bankrupt. Prices for marine insurance skyrocketed and voices in Britain against the war spoke out all the louder. Captain Moutray suffered the punishment for the loss. He received a court-martial and lost command of his ship and his commission.

All of the captured ships were put into the Spanish navy. Admiral Cordova y Cordova would go on to capture 24 more ships during the war and would fight the Royal Navy to a standstill at the Battle of Cape Spartel after it brought supplies to the besieged British possession of Gibraltar. The Admiral would be celebrated for his role in the American Revolution, though he failed to stop the British from relieving the Great Siege of Gibraltar.

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

Triangular Trade is a generic term for trade conducted between three different geographic points. The European colonial Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade running from the 16th to 19th centuries between West Africa, the Caribbean and the Atlantic coastline of the present-day United States, was the most well-known and infamous trade circuit in history. English, Dutch and French traders in North America would run rum, guns, powder and shot, tea, clothes, trinkets and other surplus goods to Portuguese and other European merchants stationed along the West African coast. Often, these materials sailed directly from Europe instead. Merchants would then trade these goods with European slavers, who in turn, traded them again for human captives supplied by local warlords or Arab slavers. Once in custody, slavers loaded the captives on to cramped quartered ships and transported them across the Atlantic Ocean. The slave ships followed a precise route, a sea-lane known as the Middle Passage. Once in the Caribbean Islands, the slavers sold the captives into bondage through auctions. They then used the money to purchase sugar, which in turn, they sold to molasses manufacturers. Consequently, the influx of slave labor to the Caribbean led to the increased production of area resources, such as sugar, vanilla, cocoa, and coffee. Merchants then transported refined products, such as molasses from sugar, goods and slaves, back to the third corner of the triangle along the North American Atlantic coast, and from there, to Europe. This repetitive cycle would provide a constant flow of coveted resources that supplied the European colonies and mother country.

While traders from nearly all the European nations participated in the Triangular Trade, those from England, the Dutch Republic, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Denmark, were the major players. Almost all Europeans and European colonists living in the Americas benefitted from triangular trade, with potential exceptions being indentured servants and criminals who found it increasingly more difficult to secure contracts and find work as the slave trade expanded. Africans endured considerable hardships particularly during the Middle Passage. Living uncomfortably in cramped quarters deep in the dark bowels of the ships while shackled and mistreated, many Africans died from disease. Those who did survive usually arrived to the Americas malnourished, weak and demoralized, forcing slavers to oil their bodies, overfed and clothed making them fit for sale just prior to the auction. In every sense of the word, an African’s Middle Passage was a horrifying and deadly experience.

Olaudah Equiano, known also as Gustavus Vassa, (1745-97), a former slave who provided several examples of the horrific conditions aboard a slave ship in Chapter two of his narrative The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah, championed the movement to end the British slave trade during the late eighteenth century. Equiano’s account is consistent with the popular, historical perspective of the harsh life aboard slave ships. He wrote about how the “whites” chained and packed together the Africans in tight quarters, the filth, mistreatment of women and children, the rampant sickness, frequent whippings and malnutrition among other conditions. He wished for death; but it never came. Thankfully, Equiano persevered and survived to tell his tale about the horrors of the slave ship for future generations. In one unique encounter, Equiano’s fear of the “whites” intensified when he wrote:

“One white man in particular I saw, when we were permitted to be ondeck, flogged so unmercifully with a large rope near the foremast that he died in consequence of it; and they tossed him over the side as they would have done a brute.”

Consequently, this experience gave Equiano a rare glimpse into the dark soul of “white” slavers that exemplified his fears of death. In 1807, Parliament passed the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, which ended the slave trade in the British Empire. The action encouraged other nations to follow suit. The United States abolished its international slave trade in the same month, with France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Spain passing their own laws within the next twenty years. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States remained the only Great Power to use African slave labor internally on a massive scale. This finally came to an end after the American Civil War (1861-65).

Sinking of the RMS Lusitania

On the afternoon of May 7, 1915, a German submarine torpedoes and sinks the British ocean liner RMS Lusitania without any advanced warning in the Celtic Sea, just off the southern coast of Ireland. Although the United States denounced the attack, the Imperial German government defended it on the basis that it had issued warnings of its intent to attack all ships, neutral or otherwise, that entered the waters surrounding the British Isles. Regardless, the attack and resulting loss of American lives infuriated the American people, prompting calls for war. President Woodrow Wilson (in office 1913-1921) stood firm and opposed the notion, reaffirming America’s neutrality, at least for the moment. 

As the Lusitania approached British coastal waters, the British admiralty warned her captain and crew to proceed with extreme caution and take preventative actions to avoid possible submarine attacks. These warnings went ignored; and at 2:12 p.m. on May 7, a torpedo hit the 32,000-ton Lusitania and exploded on its starboard side. The blast caused a chain reaction of internal explosions within the ship, which went down below the waves within 20 minutes.

Soon after, information surfaced that the Lusitania was carrying roughly 173 tons of war munitions for Great Britain, which the Germans cited as further validation for the attack. Nevertheless, to ease tensions, the German government issued an apology to the United States and, pledged to stop unrestricted submarine warfare. However, the attacks continued, including the sinking of an Italian ocean liner late in 1915 that claimed an addition 28 Americans.  Ultimately, the sinking of the RMS Lusitania helped fuel the rising anti-German sentiment in America that eventually led the United States to officially declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917. America now entered World War I on the side of the Allies, which in a short time, would change the course of the war.

Eddie Carter

General U.S. Grant, the “Man of Iron Will”

Union General Hiram Ulysses Simpson Grant (1822-85) was one of the most talented and successful generals in the American Civil War (1861-65). While neither a brilliant strategist, or savvy tactician, Grant was a consummate optimist who consistently demonstrated tremendous poise, courage, patience, and determination. Unlike most other Union generals, Grant was competent, and did not panic following defeats in battle, nor did he pause or call a general retreat. Instead, he believed in standing his ground and pressing an attack even in the midst of a defeat. Aggressive and supremely confident, Grant understood that the key to winning battles against General Robert E. Lee (1807-70) and the Confederate army lay in maximizing the Union’s numerical advantages via launching relentless offensives. Ultimately. his methodology proved successful, as Grant and the Union Army gradually wore down his opponents and forced their submission.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1843, a class that would see 16 of its 39 graduates serve as generals in both the Union and Confederate armies, Grant initially rose to prominence during the Mexican-American War (1846-48). He fought with distinction as a company lieutenant under the command of Major General Zachary Taylor in the battles of Resaca de la Palma, Chapultepec, and Molino Del Rey, and remained in the army after the war. He then served in various postings that took him to Detroit, Michigan, St. Louis, Missouri, to the Pacific northwest, San Francisco, California and on a special expedition to Panama.  During this time, Grant married, and he and his wife Julia eventually produced 4 children. Ironically, one of his groomsmen and good personal friend was none other than future Confederate General James Longstreet (1821-1904), his wife’s cousin.  In 1854, after being recently promoted to the rank of Captain, Grant resigned at the behest of his commanding officer or else face court martial for suspicions of alcoholism, albeit unsubstantiated. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Grant was working in a tannery in Galena, Illinois. Forever the soldier at heart, Grant responded to President Abraham Lincoln’s (o.1860-65) call for 75,000 volunteers. Having bid farewell to his wife Julia and 4 children, Grant first served as a successful recruiting officer before acquiring a field command as colonel of the 21st Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment. In search of quality and experienced officers the likes of which the Union desperately needed, Lincoln soon promoted Grant to Brigadier General. Hence began Grant’s meteoric rise to military stardom. After scoring victories at Forts Henry and Donelson in the Western theater in early 1862, Lincoln took notice and again promoted him to Brevet Major-General of volunteers.

In April 1862, Grant won the Battle of Shiloh, up to that point, the bloodiest engagement of the war. His national popularity then soared. Grant’s achievements and aggressive fighting style thoroughly impressed President Lincoln, as he, and other western theater commanders, which included Generals William T. Sherman (1820-91), Philip Sheridan (1831-88) and George H. Thomas (1816-70), systematically vanquished rebel opposition. In July 1863, Grant forced the surrender of Vicksburg, Mississippi, effectively dividing the Confederacy. Tired of the caution and outright mediocrity characteristic of most eastern theater generals, Lincoln sought a bold, fiery and tenacious soldier to take command. He wanted a general the quality of Lee or Jackson, and Grant, more than anyone else, closely met that criteria. So in 1864, the President awarded command of the entire Union Army to now Lieutenant- General Grant. The appointment paid immediate dividends, as the Union Army took to the offensive and remained motivated and aggressive. He scored a major victory in the Overland Campaign of 1864, a campaign of Total War that combined with General Sherman’s “March to the Sea”, broke southern morale and lay waste to the country and its infrastructure. The Union army under General Grant’s leadership would exhaustively press General Lee and the Confederate army until forcing their surrender at Appomattox Court House in April 1865.

Riding the post-war wave of popularity, the American people later elected Grant the 18th President of the United States, serving two consecutive terms of office from 1869-77. Once proclaimed to be “a man of iron will” by General John C. Fremont (1813-90), Grant succumbed to cancer and died on July 23, 1885, in Wilton, New York. He is interned at the General Grant Memorial in New York City, known as “Grant’s Tomb”, the largest mausoleum in North America. Grant’s legacy remains that of a fierce and formidable soldier and consummate politician, but he was also a devoted husband, loving father, and gentleman.

By Ed Carter

Site Admin

Sources:

History.com Staff. “Ulysses S. Grant.” History.com. 2009. Accessed May 05, 2017. http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/ulysses-s-grant.

“Ulysses S. Grant.” HistoryNet. Accessed May 05, 2017. http://www.historynet.com/ulysses-s-grant.

Ulysses S. Grant.” The White House. March 08, 2017. Accessed May 05, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/ulyssessgrant.

The Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon Bonaparte’s greatest victory

Tags

European History, Napoleon, Napoleonic Wars

The Battle of Austerlitz—also known as “The Battle of the Three Emperors,” as French emperor Napoleon I, Austrian emperor Francis I, and Russian czar Alexander I were all present—occurred early in the Napoleonic Wars during the winter of 1805. Napoleon’s Grande Armée was marching eastward from a victory over Austrian forces under the command of General Karl von Mack at Ulm, Bavaria, when they encountered a combined force of Austrian and Russian troops at Austerlitz, Moravia (now in the Czech Republic). Although heavily outnumbered, Napoleon used his great tactical skill to smash the opposition, winning a decisive victory on December 2, 1805.

When Napoleon caught up with the combined Russian and Austrian forces under the overall command of Russian general Mikhail Kutuzov in late November 1805, he decided to use the numerical inferiority of his army (the French forces in the area numbered just under 70,000 troops, while Kutuzov could field closer to 90,000) to lure the allies into a trap. He chose an area to the west of Austerlitz dominated by a plateau known as the Pratzen Heights as the field of battle. While holding back the I Corps under Marshal Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte—later known as Charles XIV John—and the III Corps under Marshal Louis Davout from the vicinity, Napoleon ordered the remainder of his forces to occupy the heights and the surrounding area. Once he was certain that the allies had taken notice of his positions, Napoleon then ordered his troops to withdraw. Just as the emperor had hoped, the allies interpreted those actions as a sign that the French considered their position untenable. With buoyed confidence, the allied leadership decided to advance against the Grande Armée (Kutuzov argued against an offensive in favor of waiting for the arrival of additional reinforcements, but Alexander was anxious for victory and overrode his authority). By the night of December 1, the bulk of the Austro-Russian Army was positioned on the heights and ready to attack.

Napoleon’s plan was to tempt the allies into concentrating their attack against his right flank, after which he would launch a focused attack against the enemy’s center on the Pratzen Heights and divide the Austro-Russian Army in two. Accordingly, he positioned his army facing the plateau to the east in such a way that his right flank was the weakest point of the line. Again falling for Napoleon’s ploy, the allies opened the battle at dawn on December 2 with an assault against the French right. The French line began to give ground almost immediately, but confusion and disorganization permeated the advancing allied columns and prevented them from taking full advantage of their initial momentum. Meanwhile, Davout—who had been given carefully timed orders to march to the battlefield—arrived with his III Corps just in time to bolster the right flank and prevent the French line from breaking.

At around 9:00 a.m., with the bulk of the allied forces engaged on his right, Napoleon ordered the attack against the enemy’s center to commence. The Russian and Austrian troops offered a determined resistance, and a fierce battle for control of the Pratzen Heights ensued. After a series of attacks and counterattacks, the French finally secured the heights by midday, effectively cutting the allied forces in two. Napoleon then ordered his forces on the heights to turn south and hit the allied troops that were engaged with Davout’s III Corps in the rear.

All hope soon evaporated for the allied forces, and they spent the remainder of the day fighting desperate rearguard actions while attempting to withdraw from the battlefield. A large portion of those allied troops that were attacked from the rear on the southern end of the battlefield were forced to retreat across a frozen pond to avoid being completely surrounded, but many of them drowned when a combination of their weight and french artillery fire caused the ice to break. By the end of the day, the Austro-Russian Army was completely driven from the field, and Napoleon had achieved what became the most decisive military victory of his career. Combined Russian and Austrian casualties numbered more than 25,000 killed, wounded, and captured, while French casualties amounted to less than half of that number.

As a result of Napoleon’s victory, the remaining Russian troops retreated to Poland, and Austria concluded peace with France via the Treaty of Pressburg. The treaty was a humiliating defeat for the Austrian Empire, which was forced to pay a huge indemnity and cede Venetia to the French. Napoleon’s decisive victory also kept Prussia, which had been considering abandoning its neutrality, from entering the war at that point. Overall, the battle—which took place exactly one year after Napoleon’s coronation as emperor of the French—fully secured the newly established First French Empire as well as Napoleon’s role as absolute ruler of France.

The Congress of Vienna: Success or Failure?

Tags

European History

The Congress of Vienna 1814-15, also known as the “Concert of Europe”, succeeded in establishing the foundation for enduring peace between nations in post-Napoleonic Europe; but failed to sufficiently address the rising sense of popular nationalism inspired by the ideals of Revolutionary France. According to Nancy Stockdale, historian Pavel Murdzhev, validates this impression by suggesting the Congress of Vienna “served as a foundation that simultaneously maintained a long-term balance of power, yet failed to recognize the burgeoning spirit of nationalism that would ultimately upset the peace of Europe.” The Congress, which convened ambassadors from every nation, city-state or principality in Europe that joined in the two and one half decades of near constant hostilities, determined to reach accords to prevent a future major continental war. However, the Congress predicated their efforts and subsequent resolutions on mid-eighteenth century political philosophy. Their measures conceived amidst denial, proved devoid of considerations for the common person, and they imprudently believed they would successfully restore the aristocratic hegemony that Napoleon and his armies fought intrepidly to destroy. Granted, the allies emerged from the struggle militarily victorious, but could not halt the democratic principles and enthusiasm spread by the French armies throughout Europe, which later provoked radical changes through civil strife. Consequently, as the Congress deliberated, the exiled Napoleon Bonaparte returned and reclaimed the throne of France to the delight of her people; and once again plunged Europe into war.

The intentions of the Vienna Congress were more comparable to the Treaty of Versailles 1919 that later ended World War I, than with prior agreements such as the Treaty of Paris 1763 or Treaty of Westphalia 1648. Whereas the latter concentrated on the assertion of imperial, dynastic or religious power and merely set the agenda for future wars, the former sought to prevent wars entirely and promised success. According to Nancy Stockdale, historian Nicole Phelps argued “The Congress of Vienna was a success, but the success was partial, uneven and certainly impermanent.” Each representative to the Congress persevered to position their nation auspiciously, although also worked bilaterally without prejudice in the pursuit of achieving the common goal of perpetual peace. In addition, European governments created an unprecedented hierarchical diplomatic system charged with the responsibility of enforcing intercontinental mandates and determining Great Power status among nations. Although obsolete and lacking substance by the outbreak of World War I, the Vienna system served as a basis for the creation of the League of Nations and United Nations in the 20th century.

Since no general European war-only smaller, regional ones erupted prior to 1914, the members of the Congress proved marginally successful in fulfilling their underlying objective of peace as supported by historians. The Congress established a traditional balance of power amongst nations to enforce peace and prevent the ascendancy any single power hopeful of asserting its dominance over Europe. The revolutionary by-product of the Napoleonic Wars was therefore a problem not taken seriously by congressional delegates and thus left unresolved. Dr. Ralph Ashby asserted, “The main failures of the Congress of Vienna were largely the fault of individual governments, who often looked at the map of Europe as though it were a chess board, occupied by playing pieces, rather than lands inhabited by real people with rising aspirations”. Indeed, conforming to the antiquated principle of suppressing individual thought in favor of reaffirming the power and prestige of the ruling classes at the expense of the common people’s blood.

References

Ashby, Ralph. “The Congress of Vienna: A Success for Some.” In World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society, para.5. ABC-CLIO, 2010-. Accessed March 24, 2011. http://worldatwar2.abc-clio.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/.

Chapman,Tim. The Congress of Vienna: origins, processes, and results . 1 ed. ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 1998.

King, David. Vienna 1814: “How the Conquerors of Napoleon Made Love, War, and Peace at the Congress of Vienna (NOOK Digital)” . 1 ed. Crown Publishing Group, 2008.

Stockdale, Nancy. “Was the Congress of Vienna a success?.” In World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society, para.2. ABC-CLIO, 2010-. Accessed March 24, 2011. http://worldatwar2.abc-clio.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/

The Puckle Gun: The marvel gun that never was.

Tags

European History, Firearms, Weapons

The Puckle Gun-unknown artist – source: Wikipedia in the public domain. Image originally taken from Recreation magazine, by George O. Shields, American Canoe Association, League of American Sportsmen, volume 4, published 1896.

 In 1718, British inventor, lawyer and author James Puckle invented the “Puckle Gun”, or “Defence Gun”, the world’s first patented multi-shot weapon. Since the weapon did not fire repetitively, it was not a “machine-gun” despite sharing similar traits and concept. A revolutionary design, the gun featured a tri-pod mounted, single-bored cannon with a multi-chambered revolving cylinder and matchlock-type firing mechanism. The operator discharged the weapon using a crank shaft similar to those used on Richard Gatling’s Model 1862 “Gatling Gun” later in the mid-nineteenth century, but only one chamber at a time. More cannon than small arm, the weapon had a 25.4 mm calibre barrel and fired an astounding 9 rounds a minute. While multi-shot guns with revolving chambers had existed since the late 16th century, none previously had the size and destructive potential as the Puckle Gun.

Far ahead of the technology of the period, the gun was somewhat unreliable, and difficult and expensive to manufacture, a poor combination that doomed its wide-scale production and use. Originally designed for use on warships as an anti-personnel weapon, the gun soon attracted the attention of the British Army, Royal Navy or private investors. However, almost immediately after the weapon’s reveal, critics pointed out numerous drawbacks. Problems included size, special transport and handling requirements and most of all, the gun’s tactical limitations. In an era when linear tactics dominated the battlefield (requiring rapid movements and turns), the Puckle Gun (albeit small to medium in size) was largely a stationary weapon much the same as field artillery. To deploy, discharge, break down, move and re-deploy the weapon required considerable time and resources ill-afforded to front line units. Loading time was manageable, but required a crew of two or three men and could re-load only one chamber at a time. However, perhaps most damaging, gunsmiths could not simply make the weapon. Its many complex and custom built components ultimately prevented mass production.

Still, despite all the criticisms, James Puckle’s Gun was an engineering marvel that dazzled onlookers when field tested in 1722 at a public exhibition in England. The gun fired off an amazing 63 rounds of ammunition, all in seven minutes time and during inclement weather. To put this into perspective, the common early 18th-century soldier in most European armies could fire two or perhaps three shots in a minute depending on weather and other conditions. Thus, with its advanced rate of fire, a single Puckle Gun could deliver the firepower of roughly 3 men in the same unit of time. The gun had the same effective range of 50-75 yards as most other standard single-shot flintlock muskets or rifles, such as the popular French Model 1718 Charleville, and a maximum range of 200 yards.

One unique feature of the Puckle Gun was that it could fire two types of ammunition: round and square shaped bullets. Firing the square bullets required changing out the rotating chamber to the square variant. The awkward shape of the square bullets would cause more pain, and do more harm to the victim than round ones. To that end, James Puckle designed these shots specifically for use against the Ottoman Turks, Christian Europe’s principal (and common) enemy, while reserving the more “merciful” round bullets for Christians.

Although John Montagu, 2nd Duke of Montagu (1690-1749) purchased several pro-type models of the gun in 1722, the British army and Royal Navy never placed a major production order. Consequently, no historical record of the Puckle Gun fired in combat exists. But what if? With a few improvements or tweaks made here and there, it is indeed possible that the Puckle Gun could have altered the course of history. Imagine the impact of these weapons dispersed throughout an entire eighteenth century army with its packed formations? At the least, it would have likely led to the development of trench warfare, massively introduced much later during the Great War (World War I). For the time being at least, armies would still rely on single shot weapons.

By: Edmund John Carter III

Article Sharing: Science in the Middle Ages, by Martyn Shuttleworth

Tags

European History, Medieval History, Science

Copied directly from the article titled Middle-Ages Science hosted at https://explorable.com/middle-ages-science

Written by: Martyn Shuttleworth on October 2, 2010

Science and Medieval Society – Charlemagne, Scholasticism and the Scientific Method

Many historians and scientists regard the Western Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire, as completely devoid of interest, a barren wilderness in the history of science. Contemptuously, they give medieval Europe the Dark Ages, and this epithet evokes pictures of filthy, illiterate peasants and rulers, with medieval society a pale, superstitious shadow of the Greek and Roman ages of reason and high philosophy.

The Dark Ages – Was Science Dead in Medieval Society?

Viking Longship Gokstadskipet, Vikingskipmuseet, Oslo (Creative Commons)

With the aid of arrogant hindsight, the modern perspective of medieval society is of a war-torn and barbaric Europe. Poverty and ignorance replaced the great engineering works and relative peace of the Pax Romanum, and the controlling, growing church stifled development.

This view is biased and prejudiced, because the term ‘Dark Ages’ is simply means that there are few written records remaining from that era, especially when compared to the meticulous record-keeping and prolific writing of the Romans. The Middle Ages have very little evidence to support the idea that there was any progress in society during the periods 500 to 1400, and modern scholars regard the Golden Age of Islam and the enlightenment of the Byzantine Empire as the true centers of knowledge.

In the years immediately after the fall of Rome, there was a period of readjustment, where medieval society was more concerned with keeping peace and empire building than nurturing centers of learning. Despite this, Charlemagne tried to establish a scholastic tradition, and the later Middle Ages saw advancements in the philosophy of science and the refinement of the scientific method. Far from being a backwards medieval society, overshadowed by Islam and Byzantium, scholasticism acted as a nucleus for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Early Medieval Society – The Dark Ages After the Collapse of Rome

The Early Medieval period, from about AD 500 to 1000, is regarded as the true Dark Ages, where medieval society slipped into barbarism and ignorance. There is some truth in this view, but even this era saw scientific and technological advances amongst the maelstrom of constant war and population shifts. This period was not a complete desert and, whilst we understand that raiding Saxons, Vikings, and other people halted progress, to a certain extent, there were still faint glimmerings that great minds were exploring the universe and trying to find answers.

Theorica Platenarum by Gerard of Cremone. (Public Domain)

In the west of the continent, where verdant Ireland meets the destructive power of the grey Atlantic, ascetic monks produced beautiful, vibrant illuminated manuscripts. In England, the Venerable Bede (672/673 – 735) meticulously recorded the Saxon Era during a time of raids from the fierce Northmen, bringing terror with their dragonboats. This English also created a fine book about using astronomical observations to calculate the start of Easter.

During this period, it is tempting to dismiss the Northmen as fierce, uncouth barbarians, forgetting that their famous longboats were marvelous feats of engineering, hundreds of years ahead of their time. The Vikings and the Saxons were capable of exquisite metalwork and metallurgy, with the fine swords and beautiful jewelry found in sites such as Sutton Hoo and Ladbyskibet showing that, even if the progress of empirical and observational science was slowed, craftsmen still pushed boundaries and tried new techniques. In this, they were undoubtedly influenced by ideas that filtered up the trade routes from Greece, Egypt, and even China and India.

The Norse sailors were master navigators and, whilst lacking compasses, could use the stars and a few instruments to navigate the trackless ocean to Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland. For those of us in Western representative republics, such as the UK, US, and Scandinavia, our political model and idea of Parliament or congress was built upon the Norse model.

Despite these advances, it is safe to say that the centuries immediately after the fall of Rome, from the 5th Century until the 9th Century, saw little progress in what we come to regard as the scientific method. Classical thought and philosophy were lost to the west and became the preserve of Islam and Byzantium, as an increasingly rural and dispossessed population began to rebuild after the collapse of Rome.

However, monastic study kept some of the scientific processes alive and, while most of their scholastic endeavors concerned the Bible, the monks of Western Europe also studied medicine, to care for the sick, and astronomy, to observe the stars and set the date for the all-important Easter. Their astronomy kept alive mathematics and geometry, although their methods were but an echo of the intricate mathematical functions of the Romans and the Greeks.

The Middle Ages – Charlemagne, Science, and Learning

Charlemagne (Public Domain)

During the 9th Century, these small embers of preserved knowledge leapt to life, as Western Europeans tried to systemize education; rulers and church leaders realized that education was the key to maintaining unity and peace. This period was known as the Carolingian Renaissance, a time when Charles the Great, often known as Charlemagne, tried to reestablish knowledge as a cornerstone of medieval society.

This ruthless emperor, often depicted as the Golden Hero of the Church, was a brutal man of war, but he was also a great believer in the power of learning. His Frankish Empire covered most of Western Europe, and he instigated a revival in art, culture, and learning, using the Catholic Church to transmit knowledge and education. He ordered the translation of many Latin texts and promoted astronomy, a field that he loved to study, despite his inability to read!

In England, a monk named Alcuin of York instigated a system of education in art and theology, and also in arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Like the Carolingians, he began promoting the establishment of schools, usually attached to monasteries or noble courts. While the Carolingian Era was a pale reflection of the Classic Age, there were attempts to promote knowledge and the process only ended because of the breakup of the Frankish Empire after the death of Charlemagne, and a renewal of the barbarian incursions.

However, all was not lost, and some centers of learning clung stubbornly to scholarly pursuits throughout the political and social upheaval, forming a nucleus around which the First European Renaissance would grow. The teaching of logic, philosophy, and theology would fuel the growth of some of the greatest Christian thinkers ever seen, as Western European medieval society moved into the High Middle Ages.

The High Middle Ages – The Rebirth of Science and Scholasticism

This era, from 1000 until 1300, saw Western Europe slowly begin to crawl out of the endless warring, as populations grew and the shared Christian identity gave some unity of purpose, from the Ireland to Italy, and from Denmark to Spain. It is tempting to think of this era as a time of prolonged war between Christian and Muslim and, in Spain and the East, constant territorial bickering and the Crusades support this view.

However, trade and the sharing of ideas were common, and merchants and mercenaries brought back ideas from Moorish Spain, the Holy Land, and Byzantium. The Muslims translated many of the Ancient Greek texts into Arabic and, in the middle of the 11th Century, scholars from all around Europe flocked to Spain to translate these books from Arabic into Latin. This provided a conduit for the knowledge of the Greeks to pass into Europe, where the schools set up by Charlemagne were now blossoming into universities. Many of these scholars, such as Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114-1187), learned Arabic so that they might complete their task.

By the 12th Century, centers of learning, known as the Studium Generale, sprang up across Western Europe, drawing scholars from far afield and mixing the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks with the new discoveries of the great Muslim philosophers and scientists. This blend of ideas formed the basis of Christian scholasticism and, whilst much of the scholastic school of thought turned towards theology, it also began to integrate scientific empiricism with religion.

This period may not have seen the great technological advances of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Persians, or Muslims, but the contribution of great thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Grosseteste, Francis Bacon, and William of Ockham to the creation of the Scientific Method cannot be underestimated.

Aquinas and Grosseteste – The Fathers of Scholasticism and the Scientific Method

Thomas Aquinas, Painting by Benozzo Gozzoli (Public Domain)

Thomas Aquinas, while more interested in using philosophy to prove the existence of God, oversaw a shift from Platonic reasoning towards Aristotelian empiricism. Robert Grosseteste, one of the major contributors to the scientific method, founded the Oxford Franciscan School and began to promote the dualistic scientific method first proposed by Aristotle.

His idea of resolution and composition involved experimentation and prediction; he firmly believed that observations should be used to propose a universal law, and this universal law should be used to predict outcomes. This was very similar to the idea of ancient astronomers, who used observations to discern trends, and used these trends to create predictive models for astronomical events.

Grosseteste was one of the first to set this out as an empirical process and his idea influenced such luminaries as Galileo, and underpinned the 17th Century Age of Enlightenment. However, his biggest influence was more immediate, reflected in the impact to the scientific method made by his pupil, Roger Bacon.

Roger Bacon – The Shining Light of Science in Medieval Society

Roger Bacon, Statue in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. (Creative Commons)

Roger Bacon is a name that belongs alongside Aristotle, Avicenna, Galileo, and Newton as one of the great minds behind the formation of the scientific method. He took the work of Grosseteste, Aristotle, and the Islamic alchemists, and used it to propose the idea of induction as the cornerstone of empiricism. He described the method of observation, prediction (hypothesis), and experimentation, also adding that results should be independently verified, documenting his results in fine detail so that others might repeat the experiment.

With a nod towards the Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Sina ands Al-Battani, any student writing an experimental paper is following the tradition laid down by Bacon. Both Bacon and Grosseteste studied optics, and Bacon devised a plan for creating a telescope, although there is no evidence to suggest that he actually built one, leaving the honor to Galileo. Bacon also petitioned the Pope to promote the teaching of natural science, a lost discipline in medieval Europe.

The Late Middle Ages – Scholasticism and the Scientific Method

Robert Grosseteste – 13th Century Image (Public Domain)

The Late Middle Ages, from 1300 until 1500, saw progress speed up, as thinkers continued the work of scholasticism, adding to the philosophy underpinning science, Late Middle Age made sophisticated observations and theories that were sadly superseded by the work of later scientists.William of Ockham, in the 14th century, proposed his idea of parsimony and the famous Ockam’s Razor, still used by scientists to find answers from amongst conflicting explanations. Jean Buridan challenged Aristotelian physics and developed the idea of impetus, a concept that predated Newtonian physics and inertia.

Thomas Bradwardine investigated physics, and his sophisticated study of kinematics and velocity predated Galileo’s work on falling objects. Oresme proposed a compelling theory about a heliocentric, rather than geocentric, universe, two centuries before Copernicus, and he proposed that light and color were related, long before Hooke.

Finally, many of the scholastic philosophers sought to remove divine intervention from the process of explaining natural phenomena, believing that scholars should look for a simpler, natural cause, rather than stating that it must be the work of divine providence.

The Black Death – The Destroyer of Medieval Society and Scholasticism

It seems strange that the advances of many of these philosophers and scholars became forgotten and underplayed in favor of the later thinkers that would drive the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. However, the first Renaissance of the Middle Ages was halted by a natural phenomenon, the Black Death, which killed over a third of Europeans, especially in the growing urban areas.

The mass disruption to medieval society caused by the plague set the progress of science and discovery back, and the knowledge would not reemerge until the Renaissance.

Was Science Important to Medieval Society?

In Western Europe, the centuries immediately after the collapse of Rome saw huge socio-economic upheaval, barbarian raids, and the return to a rural culture. However, we must be careful not to label the entire medieval period as the Dark Ages. The High and Late Middle Ages may not have rivaled the Classic Age or the later Renaissance in scope, but they saw the growth of empiricism and the scientific method.

The development of scholasticism lay in stark contrast to the Hollywood films that depict the era as filled with superstition and the dictatorial control of the church. Medieval society saw Christian philosophers make reasoned arguments, showing that there should be no conflict between the Church and scientific discovery, and many of their theories formed the nucleus of later discoveries.

The Middle Ages saw the growth of the first universities, and the development of the scientific method. It is certainly fair to say that the Rising Star of Islam and the Golden Walls of Byzantium were the true centers of learning, with scholars flocking to Moorish Spain, Byzantium, or the houses of learning in Baghdad.

This does not mean that medieval Europe was a superstitious backwater, and great minds, influenced by the Muslim philosophers and the translation of the work of the Greeks into Latin, developed their own ideas and theories, many of which underpin modern scientific techniques.The great cathedrals of the age, the formation of universities, the contribution of scholasticism to the philosophy of science and logic, showed that medieval Europe was not a poor relation of the East.

Martyn Shuttleworth (Oct 2, 2010). Middle-Ages Science. Retrieved Nov 22, 2014 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/middle-ages-science

Transcribed by: Edmund Carter III

Roots of the Great War, no one “smoking gun”

Tags

America history, European History, History

As the world congregates to remember the 100th anniversary of the start of the Great War, later known as World War I (1914-18), the root cause of that horrific war remains elusive. The causes of the Great War are complex and extensive, with no one particular reason serving as the all-inclusive culprit. The political situation in Europe in 1914 demands that one looks further back in history than the end of the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), widely accepted by historians and enthusiasts as the Great War’s “smoking gun”. Indeed, while France’s humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War gave rise to Prussia’s military hegemony over continental Europe (and birth to the German Empire), the origins of this critical event date as far back to the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, which ended the Napoleonic Wars (1805-15). The Congress of Vienna succeeded in establishing the foundation for enduring peace between nations in post-Napoleonic Europe; a general peace which lasted until the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. Granted, wars did still occur, such as the Crimean War (1852-54), the Seven Weeks War (1866) and the aforementioned Franco-Prussian War, but no continental wide struggle reminiscent of the major wars of the previous two centuries. Thus, Europe endured a long period of “peace”, the longest in its tumultuous history; however, in the 1880s important events would begin to alter the political climate and raise tensions not only in Europe, but throughout the entire world.

A convoluted system of alliances, arms races, and nationalism, and imperialism, traditional, cultural and dynastic rivalries all played a role in the outbreak of the Great War. While the apex of global power still clearly remained in Europe, non-European nations such as Japan and the United States blossomed in strength and prestige. These nations entered the arena of world politics towards the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries.

In the late 19th century, European nations developed a series of agreements and defensive alliances aimed to deter general wars. However, as mentioned above these were vague and convoluted, and created a deadly, complex web that threatened to consume Europe if not carefully managed (famously dubbed as “alliance entanglement”). The major agreements and alliances were as follows: the Treaty of London 1839, which guaranteed Belgian neutrality; the Dual Alliance (Germany and Austria) 1879, joined then by Italy in 1882 forming the Triple Alliance; Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894; the “Entente Cordiale” between France and Great Britain in 1904, and the Anglo-Russian entente in 1907 that formed the Triple Entente (Great Britain, France and Russia).

Around the world the Great Powers played a high stakes game of imperialism by preying on smaller, less fortunate nations; however, this led to intense competition. Traditional foes Great Britain and France, as they had in the previous century, dominated the colonial arena. Each of them possessed world-wide empires that generated massive wealth. Spain, in decline but not dead (for the moment) still retained sizeable imperial holdings, as did the Netherlands, Portugal, and Denmark. Newcomers Belgium and Italy carved out empires in Africa, as did the increasingly powerful and dangerous German Empire, which also acquired territory in the Far East. In Europe, the old Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire struggled to maintain relevancy and its control over culturally divided lands, as did once powerful Russia, and the “sick man” of Europe, the quasi-medieval Ottoman Empire.

From the late 1870s to 1890s the Great Powers of Europe engaged in a massive military build-up, including an intense naval arms race. In 1898, the United States, Europe’s gaudy adolescent offspring jumped on the world stage when it defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War (1898). After more than three centuries, the colonial empire of Spain-once the largest in the world-finally came to an end. The United States gained former Spanish territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, the most important being the Philippine Islands. Almost overnight the United States became a world power, but for a time preferred to remain isolated from the burgeoning maelstrom of European politics despite keeping close ties with France and Great Britain (although the naval arms race complicated relations with the latter).

In 1905, Japan, the premier Asiatic military power, inflicted a devastating defeat on the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War. For the first time in history, a Far Eastern nation had beaten a European nation in a one on one conflict. At the decisive naval battle of Tsushima, the Japanese Navy destroyed the combined Russian fleet, which exposed the rampant decay of Russian military prowess to the other Great Powers. Tensions then flared in 1912-13 when ‎Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia achieved independence after centuries of Ottoman rule. The conflict nearly brought Austria-Hungary and Russia into war and thus, activated the continental wide alliance systems; but instead, general peace prevailed, for at least another year.

On June 28, 1914, Serbian-born Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and his wife Sofia in Sarajevo. The murder immediately sent shock waves throughout Europe, and proved to be the spark that finally lit the continental aflame. Austria, holding Serbia responsible, declared war and invaded the small Balkan country. Then dreaded alliance systems then activated. France and Russia came to Serbia’s aid and Germany supported her ally Austria. Later Great Britain joined the war once Germany violated Belgium’s neutrality to invade France. Within a year nearly all of Europe, the Middle East and Africa became embroiled in war. The war even spread to the Far East to China, Japan and the South Pacific. In 1917 the United States entered the war. American leaders in the war included President Woodrow Wilson, U.S. Secretary of War Nelson Baker and General John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force. The Great War, World War I, was significant because it constituted the apex of nineteenth century industrial warfare, changed international politics forever and served to end centuries’ old rivalries and dynastic struggles.

Edmund Carter III

Fall of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire

Tags

European History

         Battle and siege of Vienna 1683

Dubbed the “Sick Man of Europe” by Russian Tsar Nicholas I in the mid-19^th century, by 1914, the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, the one-time military and commercial superpower of southeastern Europe and the Middle East, was nearing its end. The empire had already been in decline for over 300 years, beginning with its defeat at the siege of Vienna, Austria in 1683, and gaining momentum after the more recent disastrous Crimean War (1853-1856). Consequently, lost wars, a string of corrupt and ineffective sultans, economic ineptitude and military stagnation demoted the Ottoman Empire into a second-rate Eurasian power. Finally, the empire’s entry into the Great War (World War) I in 1914 on the side of the Central Powers ultimately sealed its fate.

Beginning in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire, the Ottoman Turks held sway over considerable territory in south-eastern Europe and the Middle East.  At its greatest extent in 1683, the Ottoman Empire contained 32 provinces and ruled over numerous vassal states, ranging from North Africa and South Eastern Europe, to Western Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, the Caucasus and the Horn of Africa. The empire dominated trade in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, provoking conflict with other European states, such as Spain, Venice, Genoa, and Russia. With its capital seat in the great city of Constantinople (Istanbul), the Ottoman Empire sat at the crossroads of western and eastern interaction, and produced a multicultural empire reminiscent of the old Western and Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empires.

As a Muslim power, the Turks threatened Christendom and the whole of Europe. Christian kingdoms that bordered its territory, such as Austria, Hungary, Poland and Russia fought numerous wars to keep Islam and the Turks out of mainstream Europe. While the empire’s borders increasingly melted away during the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the nation increasingly fell under the financial control of the stronger European powers (mainly Great Britain, France and Russia). In 1853, Russia went to war with the Turks over its claims to protect Orthodox Christians (and Christians in general) living in Ottoman controlled territories, such as in Balkans, Caucuses and Jerusalem. Early Russian military successes exposed the weakness of the Ottomans, greatly alarming the western European powers who feared Russian expansionism at the expense of the dying empire. Faced with annihilation, the Turks turned to the west for assistance against the Russian onslaught. The British, French and Sardinians, along with the covert help of the neutral Austrians, responded to the Turkish plea and declared war on Russia in the Crimean War.

Ultimately successful in driving off the Russians by 1856 with the help of their western allies, the war left the Ottoman Empire in financial ruin. Internal and external revolts followed over the course of the next half century. By 1914, the empire had lost nearly all its territory in Europe (save for Constantinople proper) and turned to Germany and traditional enemy Austria-Hungary for military support once again against the Russians. Allied to Russia, France and Great Britain, along with Britain’s legions of Imperial troops, attacked the Ottoman Empire. Looking to conquer and divide the dying empire once and for all, the British and French committed significant military resources and energies to accomplishing that goal. Aside from the Battle of Gallipoli in 1915, Anglo-French, Russian and British Imperial forces, with the help of Arab and other Middle Eastern revolutionaries, overwhelmed the Turks. At the end of the war in 1918, the Allies (led by Britain and France) partitioned the former lands of the empire outside of Turkey proper, which provoked the Turkish War of Independence. This led to a new round in European imperialism in the Middle East. Finally, in 1923 with the rise of the new Turkish Republic, the 600 year old Ottoman Empire came to an end.

Edmund Carter III